HC Deb 15 February 1978 vol 944 cc511-28

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 8, line 10, at end insert: 'provided that, other than is enacted in Clause 19 hereof, an Act of the Assembly shall be deemed to be intra vires'.

Mr. Speaker

With this amendment we may take Amendment No. 119, in page 71, line 21, leave out Schedule 12.

Mr. Wilson

The object of the amendment is to secure a review of the intention of the Bill to enable an examination of the vires of Assembly legislation after Royal Assent has been given to the legislation.

We have an interesting situation in the Bill as it stands. As a result of the Government's desire to create a subordinate Assembly in Scotland, that Assembly's powers are hedged about by a number of clauses that seek to prevent the Assembly from exceeding the powers given to it. It is interesting that, in the Government of Ireland Act, there were no such provisions for pre- or post-legislative review. A number of provisions in this Bill fence in the powers to be given to the Assembly.

If I were in a provocative mood, I could suggest that the intention of those provisions is to neuter the Assembly and prevent it doing the things that this House does not wish it to do. However, I do not want to get involved in that argument.

There are plenty of legislative safeguards—some would say too many—built into the Bill. Clause 17 and 18 and Schedule 2 set out areas in which the legislative competence of the Assembly is restricted. These are strictly drawn and there is little latitude for the Assembly to escape, even if it wished to do so. There is also the provision that the Bill will devolve specific powers to the Assembly. It does not propose that any form of sovereignty of power should be available to the Assembly. Sovereignty is reserved to Westminster. In Schedule 10 and Clauses 59 and 60, we have proposals that there should be a grouping of the powers available to the Assembly and that it should not be permitted to go outside the powers provided by the Bill.

Under pressure of all sorts, and probably true to their own inclinations, the Government have trimmed the Assembly to a specific range of powers and fenced it in by providing that where there is doubt about the competence or vires of legislation enacted by the Assembly, the Secretary of State may, before Royal Assent, rule that the measure is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly and ask the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for a decision on that matter. There is an exception, but that gives Ministers much stronger powers in relation to Community or international obligations of the United Kingdom.

The Judicial Committee will sit as a court to scrutinise Bills and decide whether they are within the vires of the Assembly. If they are not, they will be struck out. One might say that this is a concrete provision under which the House retains substantial powers, through the Secretary of State and judicial processes, over the actions of the Assembly. One could argue whether this is a good or a bad provision, but the House has approved the principle. We have had a debate on whether the judicial scrutiny should be extended to EEC or international obligations.

We now face the problem of what will happen after assent has been given to an Assembly Act, and here we enter a realm where there are differences of view among legal authorities in Scotland. The Law Society took the view, in its memorandum prepared for the ill-fated Scotland and Wales Bill—and that view still holds good—that Royal Assent would not protect an Act of the Scottish Assembly from challenge in the courts after it had reached the statute book. The Law Society said that this was the effect of the clause providing that an Act shall be law only if, or to the extent that, it is within the legislative competence of the Assembly. It accepts that Assembly Acts will be open to challenge as they will be subordinate legislation.

If the House accepts post-Assent review as necessary, many practical difficulties could be caused. It is interesting that these difficulties are pointed out by the Council of the Law Society. It is worth quoting the memorandum, which says: The Council in its original and in its Supplementary Memorandum drew attention to the problems that would arise if legislation of the Scottish Assembly were open to challenge in the Courts after reaching the Statute Book. The occasion, or the opportunity for the challenge might not occur until years after the legislation was enacted. In the meantime a series of convictions, or agreements, or arrangements might have proceeded on the basis that the legislation was valid. Quite intractable problems could arise if the legislation were then declared invalid as to whether the convictions were to be pardoned, fines repaid, agreements reduced, arrangements dissolved. Amending legislation would be required, with retrospective effect. In the meantime the community would have to accept a situation of uncertainty as to whether the law was enforceable or not, a situation that would be particularly disturbing if it were quickly realised that an Act were of doubtful validity, but no occasion arose to challenge it. The Council therefore remains of the view that post-assent review should be excluded, and that the Bill should be amended to declare that an Act of the Scottish Assembly shall, on receiving the Royal Assent, have all the force and finality of Parliamentary legislation, and not be open to challenge. We know that parliamentary legislation can be open to challenge, in certain respects, by the courts. I am not seeking to disguise that fact, but when such legislation is looked at by the courts, it is not its fundamental essence which is attacked in relation to its vires because Parliament, with sovereignty behind it, does not have that problem. A challenge may arise because the drafting of the Act causes doubt or wrongful interpretation. That is when the courts can elaborate their views in relation to the Act. They cannot challenge the Act in relation to its own authority. In that respect, the Act cannot be attacked.

It could be argued that if there had been no judicial screening of Assembly legislation before assent, there would be a case for citizens having the right to attack the vires of the Act in the courts after the event, but it is for the Government, with all the advice of their legal experts, to seek to refer any Act of the Assembly to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The onus is on the Government to decide. With the wealth of experience and skill they have at their disposal, they can decide whether there is any doubt in relation to a Bill and, if there is, they can refer it to the Judicial Committee. Having done that, it would be the decision of the Privy Council to which weight would have to be given at the end of the day. The matter would be settled one way or another.

In fact, Parliament and the Government went out of their way to provide for this judicial scrutiny because they did not wish conflict to arise between the Scottish Assembly and Westminster. So it is in the Bill at present. But we have the peculiar situation in which the Government have in the Scotland Bill deliberately opened up the possibility of post-Assent review. I use the word "deliberately" because in the original Scotland and Wales Bill the procedures by which the Scottish Assembly legislation could be attacked were not enunciated. There may well have been room for an amendment in the Bill to provide that a Scottish Assembly Act of Parliament would have its own validity, but in the present Bill the Government have, I think, in relation to Schedule 12, set out a very complicated mechanism whereby the judicial systems of the three judicial areas of the United Kingdom—Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland—would have the opportunity to give weight, under certain conditions, to an attack on the Act of Parliament itself.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of any express provision in the Scotland and Wales Bill carried the implication that post-Assent judicial review would be open to the citizen?

Mr. Wilson

Yes, I accept what the Lord Advocate says, because I made that point myself. I indicated that although the Scotland and Wales Bill was silent, there was, in my view, room for an amendment to put the matter beyond doubt. But in any case, in that Bill the Privy Council was not invested with the authority that it is now given. We have a very complicated arrangement, drawn up to provide for litigants to take matters to their respective courts, right up to the House of Lords, if necessary.

The question that I wish to ask—I do not make the point any length because it is almost a matter of judgment and is not a party political point or an anti-devolution or pro-devolution point—is whether the proposal for post-Assent review should be upheld and whether an amendment akin to my own should not be accepted in order to remove the doubt and uncertainty which the Law Society of Scotland says could occur if post-Assent review were maintained.

At this point I should put on record that the Faculty of Advocates takes an entirely different stance. In a letter from the Dean of Faculty addressed to the Lord President on 10th January, the Faculty of Advocates says that it unreservedly welcomes this change. As has been pointed out in previous comments, the right to challenge an action of a subordinate authority which exceeds its legal power is a fundamental one. It does not see any undue difficulty in advising clients or arranging legal affairs. We have a peculiar situation in which the two foremost legal bodies in Scotland in the judiciary take a different stance.

It may be that they look at it from different viewpoints. Solicitors—I was one before being elected to the House—are men of business as well as men of law. In other words, they handle a lot of practical business and come into contact with the general public in advisory work much more frequently than does an advocate. They resort to the advice of counsel on matters of exceptional complexity but do not necessarily make their livelihoods out of litigation. The Faculty of Advocates, on the other hand, is there to provide advice on matters of exceptional complexity and it is pre-eminent in the realm of litigation. Therefore, it may well be that the Faculty of Advocates does not see any difficulty. In fact, it may add to the work available to the faculty.

However, the people who are in direct contact with business interests or, indeed with people, namely the solicitors—members of the Law Society—say that they think that there will be difficulties. I suggest that the amendments which have been proposed ought to be accepted. It may be that the Lord Advocate will say that the terms of the amendment do not fit the Bill. I hope that his answer will not be couched in those terms. We had an argument on whether a comma was in the right place in the preceding amendment. The Lord Advocate is quite capable, as we all know—or the Government, through the Lord President—of framing the appropriate amendment and making sure that it is placed in the Bill at the House of Lords proceedings.

I should like to hear from the Government and other Members of Parliament whether they agree or disagree with the principle that has been enunciated. In particular, I hope that if they agree with what the Law Society of Scotland has said—they are experienced people dealing with ordinary affairs concerning individuals and companies—they will agree with the proposition and vote for the amendment tonight if the Lord Advocate cannot give an assurance today.

7.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate

I intervene briefly at this point as this is bound to be a short debate. I say firstly to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I think that he inadvertently suggested that the Government of Ireland Act did not provide for judicial review of the kind that is in the present Bill. I think that that is wrong. Section 51 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 says the following—and I read short: If it appears to the Lord Lieutenant or a Secretary of State expedient that steps be taken for the speedy determination of the question whether any Act … or any Bill introduced … is beyond the power of such Parliament … the Lord Lieutenant … may represent the same to His Majesty in Council, and thereupon, if His Majesty so directs, the said question shall be forthwith referred to and heard and determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In addition to that, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East will be aware, being a practising solicitor, there was judicial review post Assent in the courts in Northern Ireland. Nobody has seriously suggested that either of those provisions presented any serious problems for the legal administration of Northern Ireland.

As the hon. Gentleman has clearly stated, the two amendments that he has put forward to strike out the machinery provisions for post-Assent judicial review would provide that the Scottish Assembly Bills should, if they receive the Royal Assent, not be able to be challenged in court. In other words, they should be regarded as intra vires, except as otherwise provided in the clause on which he hangs the amendments—namely, Clause 18. In those amendments the Scottish National Party is not challenging the concept, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, of pre-Assent scrutiny by the Judicial Committee. He hangs his argument on the fact that this is provided for in this Bill in contrast with the earlier Scotland and Wales Bill.

It appears, therefore, that the SNP does not agree with the Government—this is an important point of principle—that the ordinary citizen in Scotland who is prejudiced by abuse of power by the Assembly or its Executive should have recourse to the Scottish courts for a remedy.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

Does not the Lord Advocate accept that what we are attempting to do is to place an ordinary citizen in the same position in relation to the Scottish Assembly as he is in at present in relation to Westminster and the vires within which Westminster works?

The Lord Advocate

I do, but I will come to that point later. I have to say that the amendment proposed to Clause 18, as worded, is unsatisfactory but the intention is clear. The amendments as a whole are defective in that no provision is made for Clause 61. The hon. Gentleman will see the point if he looks at Clause 61.

Before turning to the main thrust of the argument that the hon. Gentleman put, may I say that there was a full discussion—unfortunately the hon. Gentleman did not attend it—of the machinery provisions in Schedule 12 which touched upon this whole issue during the Committee stage. It will be found in Hansard for 18th January 1978 at column 578. At that stage, no voice was raised against the principle of post-Assent judicial review. The official Opposition made it clear that they supported the principle, as did the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was very strong and vehement about that. At the end of the debate, with complete honour, the amendment was withdrawn.

However, it is right to say that many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has touched upon could have been dealt with in that debate. At least some of them were touched upon.

The hon. Gentleman founded his argument strongly on the representations made by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland. I simply point out that there are two views on this matter. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was very fair in saying that there is a difference of view between the two Scottish legal bodies.

It is easy to exaggerate the difficulties which can arise from post-Assent review. In a situation where there is a balance of convenience and expediency, those considerations being evenly balanced between each side, I think it far better at the end of the day to proceed on principle rather than on such a matter of balance, and I shall present the argument on principle.

Mr. Dalyell

The question of rectifying damage has been raised. I quote from a letter from the Law Society of Scotland of 8th February, signed by Kenneth Pritchard and written in the knowledge that both the President and Dr. Macmillan had presented a memorandum concerning problems which could arise in rectifying any damage that has been done as a result of any legislation of the Assembly which has been reviewed in the courts. Mr. Pritchard writes: Are there to be procedures in the event of some additional condition being imposed to have the endorsement or whatever taken off a driver's licence? That is a practical problem. Is there to be some form of compensation if a driver has in fact, as a result of some procedure, been disqualified when he ought not to have been? Is there to be some form of compensation in respect of legislation affecting some aspect of commercial transactions if such legislation proves to be ultra vires and as a result businesses have suffered loss? That is the kind of practical problem which we face.

The Lord Advocate

My hon. Friend is exactly repeating a point which was raised in the earlier debate. As this must be a short debate, I simply refer him to what was said then. I shall now return to the point which I was making in response to the case presented by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.

The arguments on both sides of this question were fully set out in the White Paper of November 1975, paragraphs 62 to 65. The whole object there was to get a response, and there was a response. The Government took account of that response, and as a result the Bill is before the House in its present form.

It seems to me that the crucial point—this is the point of principle to which I referred—is that the Scottish Assembly will be a subordinate legislature to which has been devolved power to make laws in certain prescribed areas, but not sovereignty. During some of the debates in the House, there have been hints that sovereignty is in some way being divided by the Bill. That is not so. In law, sovereignty is not being divided. Sovereignty remains exclusively with Parliament, based firmly on the Union of 1707. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East knows, there are some judicial dicta in Scotland to the effect that even this House may not be sovereign enough to disturb the Union of 1707.

It is considered by the Government to be a sound principle that, where there is a subordinate legislature, the citizen who can show title and interest to sue should have the right to challenge on vires grounds any excess or abuse of power by the Scottish Assembly or by its Executive for some injustice which may result to him.

That is the point of principle on which the Government stand. I regard it as a correct principle. The hon. Gentleman has fairly put the argument on the other side, but I hope that the House will support the Government in this matter.

Incidentally, where there is some sharing of legislative authority within a State, the general rule—indeed, I suspect perhaps the universal rule—is that the legislative authority conferred is limited and there is provision for recourse to the courts—the domestic courts of the country concerned—where there is dispute about whether those limits have been overstepped.

For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

The Lord Advocate has given an authoritative answer, as he always does on these questions, since he knows far more about them than the average Member does, but I think that we should look at the matter in slightly different terms. In our earlier debate there was a temptation to talk in legal terms without proper thought for some of the practical consequences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made clear on the earlier occasion that we accept the principle of a subordinate legislature and we accept that in these circumstances the citizen should have the right to challenge the law. I affirm that again, but, in fairness to those who have written to us—the Law Society of Scotland and individual lawyers—we are entitled to consider the practical consequences of adopting this relatively new course.

I shall put an example to the Lord Advocate and ask him to explain how matters would work. According to Clause 18 as drafted, we get our guidance on vires from Schedule 2, and, presumably, as regards scrutiny of a Bill under Clause 19, we again get our guidance from Schedule 2. I turn then to paragraph 4 of that schedule, which sets out the legislative competence of the Assembly. For example, it does not have the right to tax. However, in sub-paragraph (2) it is provided that the Assembly may make certain changes in local taxation. For example, it could alter a rate levied without substantially changing its character. I come now to a specific example. At present, industry in Scotland is derated by 50 per cent., whereas normal rates apply to everyone else. It is possible that a Scottish Assembly could take the view, as time went on—we have today seen in the papers great complaint that revaluation has meant that industry is carrying a higher burden and domestic ratepayers rather less—that industrial derating should be abolished or, probably more likely, that, instead of 50 per cent., industrial derating should be 55 per cent., 45 per cent. or 60 per cent. In other words, that would be a minor change in a local tax.

However, such minor changes may have devastating cash consequences for some industrial firms. Let us assume that such a measure was passed by the Assembly. It was considered by the Secretary of State that it was within the Assembly's competence under Schedule 2, but at a later stage the courts take the view that, despite the Secretary of State's opinion that it was all right, in fact that measure chanced the character of a rate or local tax.

There may be some point at which such a marginal question would arise. Let us assume that an aggrieved employer—for example, Lewis in Argyll Street, the Chrysler Corporation or the British Steel Corporation, although they are in a rather different category—took the view that that action of the Scottish Assembly was ultra vires. If the aggrieved person or company goes to court and wins the point, what is the consequence for local authorities? Presumably they will have to repay substantial sums, and domestic ratepayers would somehow have to pick up the tab.

Under the system of post-Assent review, there could well be a situation which created serious cash consequences, so we are not just talking about someone disqualified from driving or the like. It could be an extremely serious matter. Where there are substantial cash consequences of that kind, what happens? Who pays? Who is responsible?

I have referred to local authorities, but the same could apply to a private individual or a firm. Although the Opposition fully support the principle in this matter outlined by the Government, the House should realise that we are entering a new ball game, and until we see what the courts will determine we do not know the consequences.

I think that it would reassure the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and others—admittedly, there are conflicting views within the legal profession—if we knew that the Government had given some thought to the implications of what could be a serious state of affairs.

I hope that the example which I have put to the Lord Advocate is a good one. I ask him to give some indication of what he sees as the consequences, although I say again that on the principle of the matter we are agreed.

Mr. Dalyell

What is a non-lawyer to do in these circumstances? Here is the most authoritative legal body in Scotland saying on 8th February: The problems unfortunately seem to us to be endless and there does not seem to be any form of solution proposed. That letter is signed by Kenneth Pritchard, not only in his own behalf but on behalf of Dr. Macmillan and Mr. Hamilton.

I think it extraordinary that at this stage we should have such doubt on everyday matters of compensation. I gave the example of the driver and his licence, but there are many others. The Law Society of Scotland says: they are most concerned with post-Assent review and they have expressed themselves in terms of great concern"— and have asked for an opportunity to meet Ministers— to explain precisely why we believe that post-Assent review is wrong. I shall sit down with this question. Has that meeting taken place, and what is to be done about it?

The Lord Advocate

Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I say a word? There is very little time, and perhaps an intervention at this point would help. I take his point and the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). In my view, it is impossible in the time available to do justice to those two points. Accordingly, what I propose to do is to write to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Gentleman giving them the reply which I cannot give tonight.

Perhaps I should say to the hon. Member for Cathcart that I can give him a partial reassurance. At least, I hope that it is some reassurance. In fact, much the same problem—

Mr. Gordon Wilson

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that I must interrupt to move "That the Question be now put" before the guillotine comes down.

Mr. Speaker

I shall be putting the Question in any case in a moment or two.

The Lord Advocate

I can tell the hon. Member for Cathcart that much the same problem as he put to me could already arise because actions of local authorities involving vast amounts of

public expenditure can at present be found to be ultra vires by the courts.

As a consequence of this provision of the Bill, there is an element of novelty here, but the novelty is not quite as great as the hon. Member for Cathcart thinks. The question is not an easy—

It being half-past Seven o'clock. Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 462.

Division No.113] AYES [7.30 p.m.
Crawford, Douglas Stewart, Rt Hon Donald Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Watt, Hamish TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Welsh, Andrew Miss Margaret Bain and
Henderson, Douglas Wigley, Dafydd Mr. George Thompson.
MacCormick, Iain
Abse, Leo Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Alison, Michael Bryan, Sir paul Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Allaun, Frank Buchan, Norman Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Anderson, Donald Buchanan, Richard Deakins, Eric
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Buchanan-Smith, Alick Dean, Josesph (Leeds West)
Armstrong, Ernest Buck, Antony Dempsey, James
Arnold, Tom Budgen, Nick Dodswoth Geoffrey
Ashley, Jack Bulmer, Esmond Doig, Peter
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Dormand, J. D.
Atkinson, Norman Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Awdry, Daniel Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Baker, Kenneth Campbell, Ian Drayson, Burnaby
Banks, Robert Canavan, Dennis du Cann, Rt. Hon Edward
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Cant, R. B. Dunn, James A.
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Carlisle, Mark Dunnett, Jack
Bates, Alf Carmichael, Neil Durant, Tony
Bean, R. E. Carter-Jones, Lewis Dykes, Hugh
Beith, A. J. Cartwright, John Eadie, Alex
Bell, Ronald Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Chalker, Mrs Lynda Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Channon, paul Emery, Peter
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) English, Michael
Benyon, W. Clark, William (Croydon S) Ennals, Rt Hon David
Berry, Hon Anthony Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Biffen, John Clegg, Walter Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Biggs-Davison, John Clemitson, lvor Eyre, Reginald
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward Cockroft, John Fairbarin, Nicholas
Blaker, Peter Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Fairgrieve, Russell
Blenkinsop, Arthur Cohen, Stanley Farr, John
Boardman, H. Coleman, Donald Faulds, Andrew
Body, Richard Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Finsberg, Geoffrey
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Fisher, Sir Nigel
Boscawen, Hon Robert Cope, John Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Costain, A. P. Flannery, Martin
Bottomley, Peter Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Crawshaw, Richard Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Critchley, Julian Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Crowder F. P. Forman, Nigel
Bradley, Tom Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Forrester, John
Braine, Sir Bernard Cryer, Bob Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Fox, Marcus
Brittan, Leon Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Brooke, Peter Dalyell, Tam Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Brotherton, Michael Davidson, Arthur Freud, Clement
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Fry, Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Davies, Denzil (Lianelli) Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Kimball, Marcus Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Neave, Airey
Garrett, John (Norwich S) King, Tom (Bridgwater) Nelson, Anthony
George, Bruce Kitson, Sir Timothy Neubert, Michael
Gilbert, Dr John Knight, Mrs Jill Newton, Tony
Ginsburg, David Lambie, David Noble, Mike
Glyn, Dr Alan Lamborn, Harry Nott, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Lamond, James Oakes, Gordon
Golding, John Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Ogden, Eric
Goodhart, Philip Latham, Michael (Melton) O'Halloran, Michael
Goodhew, Victor Lawrence, Ivan Onslow, Cranley
Goodlad, Alastair Lawson, Nigel Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Gould, Bryan Lee, John Orbach, Maurice
Gourlay, Harry Le Marchant, Spencer Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Lester, Jim (Beeston) Ovenden, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Graham, Ted Lever, Rt Hon Harold Padley, Walter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Page, Rt Hon H. Graham (Crosby)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Page, Richard (Workington)
Grant, John (Islington C) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Paisley, Rev Ian
Gray, Hamish Lipton, Marcus Palmer, Arthur
Grieve, Percy Litterick, Tom Park, George
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Lloyd, Ian Parker, John
Grist, Ian Loveridge, John Parkinson, Cecil
Grocott, Bruce Luce, Richard Parry, Robert
Grylls, Michael Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Pendry, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Pennaligon, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) McAdden, Sir Stephen Percival, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) McCartney, Hugh Peyton, Rt Hon John
Hannam, John McCrindle, Robert Phipps, Dr Colin
Hardy, Peter McCusker, H. Pink, R. Bonner
Harper, Joseph McDonald, Dr Oonagh Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter McElhone, Frank Price, David (Eastleigh)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith MacFarquhar, Roderick Price, William (Rugby)
Haselhurst, Alan MacGregor, John Prior, Rt Hon James
Hastings, Stephen Mackay, Andrew (Stechford) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Radice, Giles
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Mackintosh, John P. Rathbone, Tim
Hayhoe, Barney Maclennan, Robert Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Hayman, Mrs Helene Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Hicks, Robert McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Rhodes James, R.
Hodgson, Robin McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Richardson, Miss Jo
Hooley, Frank McNamara, Kevin Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Hooson, Emlyn Madden, Max Rifkind, Malcolm
Horam, John Magee, Bryan Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Hordern, Peter Mallalieu, J. P. W. Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Marks, Kenneth Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Robinson, Geoffrey
Roderick, Caerwyn
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Marten, Neil Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Huckfield, Les Mason, Rt Hon Roy Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Mates, Michael Rooker, J. W.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Mather, Carol Roper, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Maude, Angus Rose, Paul B.
Hunt, David (Wirral) Mawby, Ray Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kllmarnock)
Hunter, Adam Mayhew, Patrick Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Hurd, Douglas Maynard, Miss Joan Rost, peter (SE Derbyshire)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Meacher, Michael Rowlands, Ted
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Sainsbury, Tim
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Mendelson, John St. John-Stevas, Norman
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Meyer, Sir Anthony Sandelson, Neville
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Sedgemore, Brian
Janner, Greville Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Sever, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Jeger, Mrs Lena Mills, Peter Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd) Miscampbell, Norman Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Mitchell, Austin Shepherd, Colin
Jessel, Toby Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Shersby, Michael
John, Brynmor Moate, Roger Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West) Monro, Hector Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Moonman, Eric Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Moore, John (Croydon C) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Silverster, Fred
Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Morgan, Geraint Sims, Roger
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Sinclair, Sir George
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Morris, Charles R. (Opernshaw) Skeet, T. H. H.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Morris, Rt Hon. J. (Aberavon) Skinner, Dennis
Judd, Frank Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Kaberry, Sir Donald Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Kaufman, Gerald Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Snape, Peter
Kelley, Richard Moyle, Roland Spearing, Nigel
Kerr, Russell Mudd, David Speed, Keith
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Spence, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) Tinn, James White, James (Pollok)
Spriggs, Leslie Tomlinson, John Whitehead, Phillip
Sproat, Iain Townsend, Cyril D. Whitlock, William
Stallard, A. W. Tuck, Raphael Wiggin, Jerry
Stanbrook, Ivor Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Stanley, John Viggers, Peter Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Steel, Rt Hon David Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) Wakeham, John Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Stoddart, David Waider, David (Clitheroe) Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Stott, Roger Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Winterton, Nicholas
Strang, Gavin Walker, Terry (Kingswood) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. Walters, Dennis Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley Ward, Michael Woodall, Alec
Tapsell, Peter Warren, Kenneth Woof, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) Watkins, David Wrigglesworth, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter Watkinson, John Young, David (Bolton E)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret Weatherill, Bernard Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Weetch, Ken Younger, Hon George
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) Weitzman, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South) Wellbeloved, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) Welts, John Mr. Tim Marshall and
Tierney, Sydney White, Frank R. (Bury) Mr. Thomas Cox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker

I am now required by the terms of the allocation of time order to put the question on any amendment moved by a member of the Government to that part of the Bill which is to be disposed of at this hour.

The Government amendments standing on the Amendment Paper to which this applies are Nos. 23, 55, 56 and 62 to 66.

I understand that a Division is wanted on Amendment No. 23.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the

disposal of the Business to be concluded at half-past Seven o'clock.

Forward to