§ Lords amendment: No. 97, in page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this amendment we may discuss Lords amendments nos. 135, 165, 168, 216 and 231.
§ Mr. Millan
All of these amendments deal with the devolution of forestry. The key amendment is Lords amendment no. 135. It would have the effect of reserving forestry to this House.
The Government's proposal to devolve forestry matters was debated at some length in Committee in this House on an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) which was defeated. A subsequent amendment in the other place, however, was carried by one vote. I recommend that the House should reverse that decision and put forestry as a devolved subject in the hands of the Scottish Assembly.
I agree, of course, that this is not a completely simple matter, given the arrangements for the State-owned forests under the Forestry Commission. We are dealing both with the State-owned forests and private forestry interests. There are certain arrangements for private forestry involving various forms of Government assistance. This is not a simple matter in terms of devolution to the Assembly but we considered the matter with great care before deciding that forestry was a suitable subject—I regard it as particularly suitable—for devolution.
We looked at the scope for devolution in the analogous subjects of planning, land use and the countryside, which are devolved subjects, recreation, rural development and tourism. We also had regard to the links with agriculture, but there were special reasons for taking agriculture as a reserved matter. In that context the question of our relationship with the Community, which does not apply to the same degree in forestry, has been taken into account.
208 Forestry is a matter of great importance to the rural areas of Scotland, and if one disregarded all the various complications one's natural instinct would be to say that forestry was the kind of subject which intrinsically ought to be devolved. Forestry is proportionately a good deal more important in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. It excites a certain amount of interest, and even controversy in Scotland. It is a matter which, without the complications, one would expect to fall naturally within the powers of the Scottish Assembly.
§ Mrs. Winifred Ewing
Does the Secretary of State agree that the position between Scotland and England in forestry is fundamentally important on many grounds? There are three main grounds on which I must ask the Minister whether he agrees with me. The first is future acreage for the forestry State ownership, because in England I understand there is very little to be done. Second—
Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We are working under a guillotine. The hon. Lady must make her intervention brief.
§ Mrs. Ewing
There are three situations in which things are very different. Future acreage is one. The second is that in England timber is not really a crop, whereas in Scotland it is. The third is land acquisition, where there is great scope in Scotland, but which is almost at an end in England.
§ Mr. Millan
I would not necessarily agree with the hon. Lady on the holdings points. I am agreeing with her to the extent—I thought that I had already made this clear—that forestry is considerably more important proportionately in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Millan
I think that it is saying a great deal. I should have thought that anyone knowing something of Forestry Commission matters in Scotland would believe that this is the kind of subject which is very suitable for devolution. However, we must also take account of the fact that we have built up through the Forestry Commission a particular kind of State enterprise which encompasses the whole of the United Kingdom and which 209 is responsible at the minute not to one Minister but to three—the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and the Minister of Agriculture.
It is important that we maintain the integrity of the Forestry Commission, but the Bill does that by providing in Schedule 10 that the Assembly will not be able to abolish the Commission as the instrument of forestry policies in Scotland or transfer any of its main activities to a new body. Therefore, the integrity of the Commission is preserved and it will serve as a common source of expert advice on forestry matters to the Government, to the Scottish administration and to the Welsh Assembly. There are other reservations in the Bill which are important when considering the whole problem of forestry.
First, there is no devolution relating to the fiscal treatment of forestry, which is of considerable importance to woodland owners and on which the Government have made certain concessions in recent Budgets. There is a strong case for maintaining the integrity of United Kingdom provision there. Second, there is no devolution in relation to plant health—that is analogous to a number of other things that we have done—which is important to the whole United Kingdom. Third, the Commission's research facilities, which are part of its central capability, will be maintained in a unified form.
Within those reservations, there is considerable scope for the Assembly to take policy decisions, particularly as to the scope of planting, the amount of money to be invested in planting and the acreage to be planted and the rest in relation to Scotland which are perfectly suitable for devolution and where there is no particular reason that the Scottish Executive should take the same view as the Government in Westminster.
That means that the Commission could adopt different priorities in Scotland, where it would be subject to the direction of the Minister, whereas in England it would be subject to the direction of the Minister of Agriculture. But that is not much different from the present regime, because the Commission already operates under the regime of tripartite responsibility I have described. As a matter of actual practical experience, a larger and 210 larger share of the Commission's planting activity has been taking place in Scotland in recent years.
It might be possible to argue that in terms of the harvesting and marketing of timber, there is a good deal to be said for a unified policy in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. I find these arguments less than persuasive. Again, they are very much related to the management of the forestry estate in Scotland, and I see no reason why they should not be devolved as well. Nor do I believe that the arguments about the reservation of most of agricultural activity and policy point in the same direction for forestry. There are very different considerations involved, not the last of which are our relationships within the Community.
§ Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Forestry Commission is in favour of these devolution proposals?
§ Mr. Millan
I do not think that I can do that. The Forestry Commission is an agency of the Government. But it is well known that there are people within the forestry industry in the United Kingdom, both in the State-owned section of the industry and in the private industry, who are not in favour of the devolution of forestry. The Forestry Commission is an agent of the Government. I do not believe that we ought to look upon the commission, on a matter of this nature, as being the determining factor in what this House does or what the Government do. It is a factor.
§ Mr. Millan
No. I have little time left to me. I imagine that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will want to say a few words before we come to a decision on this matter, and I am sure that his hon. Friends do not want to encourage me to speak until midnight.
These matters of policy in relation to devolution are matters for this House and for the Government. They are not matters where we take the view of the Forestry Commission. Certainly they are not matters where we take the view of the private sector of forestry as determining our attitude.
211 I do not believe that the links between forestry and agriculture in administrative terms are such that it is necessary for both subjects in policy terms to be dealt with by the same administration. Of course, there will still have to be very close co-operation between those involved in the two activities of forestry and agriculture, but where the two activities impinge on one another most seriously is in relation to land use, and of course land use is a devolved responsibility of the Scottish Assembly and is not a reserved matter. Nor do I believe that some of the other arguments about the Assembly being urban-dominated and the rest are matters that should be taken into account.
When we last debated this subject, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) said that he was in favour of it going to the Assembly because he did not believe that the Assembly could make a worse job of it than the House of Commons had made in past years or that the Assembly would take less interest in it than the House of Commons had done. With great respect to the House, there is a certain validity in that argument.
I certainly believe that those who wish to see the development of a thriving forestry industry in Scotland, and I would count myself among them, would take the view that this House and successive Governments have necessarily contributed towards that aim. I would certainly take the view that the Assembly, with responsibility for forestry, has the opportunity, if it wishes to further the active development of forestry, of increasing the importance of forestry to the Scottish economy. My personal view is that I hope that the Assembly will do that, because I believe that forestry has great potential importance to the Scottish economy.
As I say, if it were not for these various administrative complications to which a number of hon. Members have drawn attention in our previous debates, this would be the kind of subject which would strike one immediately as being peculiarly suited for devolution to the Assembly. That is the view that the Government have taken. It is for that reason that we are recommending that this House should disagree with their Lordships' amendment on forestry.
§ Mr. George Younger (Ayr)
We are very grateful to the Secretary of State for his explanation, but I must point out that his idea of a fair debate on a subject as important as this, ever under a guillotine, is biased and one-sided. To take over 20 minutes and to leave nine minutes for everyone else in the House to make a point on this subject makes a travesty of the idea of having a debate at all. I hope that the Secretary of State will take it that we think that the time that he took was grossly excessive in these circumstances.
I would urge the House to agree with the Lords in this amendment because I think that, even with the Secretary of State's explanation, it became clearer and clearer that the Government's arrangements for dealing with forestry after devolution are a dog's breakfast. As the Secretary of State described it, it was made perfectly clear that there are to be so many different eggs to make up this pudding that I very much doubt whether the forestry industry as a whole will be able to make good sense of it and to expand, as the Secretary of State said he wished it to do.
This is one industry. It is a big industry. It is an important industry. It is an industry which could have a big role to play in import saving if it is allowed a decent future with a proper basis on which to work.
Yet the Government, as part of the devolution policy, bring in a system, as the Secretary of State has described, whereby the tax policy for the industry, which is vital to the whole private sector, is determined by central Government, by this House and the Treasury, whereby the land use policy is to be decided by the Assembly in Scotland, whereby the policy on grants to growers of trees is to be decided by the Assembly, and whereby plant health considerations are to be decided by this House and the United Kingdom Government. Those dealings, such as they are, for the future, which will undoubtedly be more and more with the EEC, will be a matter for this House to consider.
Then we have the truly Gilbertian situation of the Forestry Commission itself, which is to be a single entity charged with carrying on its business as 213 one Government organ, yet it is to have three different masters, one in England, one in Scotland and one in Wales. They will not even be three parallel bodies. Each one of those bodies has a completely different nature and completely different circumstances in which it works. One is the Government here and the House of Commons, one is the Scottish Assembly, and the other is the Welsh Assembly, which is quite different from the Scottish Assembly.
I cannot think of a better recipe for putting any industry into a complete muddle. Yet the industry must work in one market. It is selling its products in one market, in one economy, under one general taxation system.
People in the industry are competing, in many cases on a day-to-day basis, with competitors in other parts of the country, who may well be growing their trees and operating their business on a completely different basis from that of any particular producer.
Then we have the strange contradiction of the Government's arguments when we look at their arguments for not treating agriculture in the same way. The Secretary of State has brushed aside the fact that forestry and agriculture have very close connections with each other as not being quite as important as many of us think. Yet many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been preaching for years that greater integration between forestry and agriculture is very important for both of these great industries. The crazy point is that when the Government themselves argue that agriculture should not be treated in this way, what do they say? They say that it is very difficult to make different arrangements for financing support systems in agriculture in different parts of the United Kingdom. Why is it so very difficult for the Government to do this in agriculture but very much to be advised, very sensible and very easy when it comes to dealing with forestry? I do not think that it makes any sense.
Then there is the question of what the industry itself thinks about it. The Secretary of State was not able to deny, and nor can I, that the Forestry Commission is thought to be very much against this proposal. I am not privy to the inner counsels of the Commission but I am for- 214 tunate, as are other hon. Members, in having received the views of an extremely distinguished person, who is not only the ex-chairman of the Forestry Commission but a loyal supporter of the Labour Party, and has been for many years. Lord Taylor of Gryfe has written to Lord Dulverton making his views very clear. He says in the letter, which he has asked to be made public:During my period of office as Chairman of the Forestry Commission I had the Headquarters removed to Edinburgh and it would now be a piece of nonsense to devolve forestry. It would add to the bureaucracy and it would make it increasingly difficult for the industry to deal with so many government bodies if the Assemblies of Wales and Scotland were added.I shall be pleased if you will make this view known to as many MPs as possible in the hope that the reasonable Amendment which you moved and which stood in my name"—in the House of Lords—will be accepted by the Commons.
§ Mr. Dalyell
Not only Lord Taylor of Gryfe but the general secretary of SOGAT, the trade union most involved, has written to us all, as have the paper and board employers.
§ Mr. Younger
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We can add to the list the Forestry Committee of Great Britain, which deals with the interests of the industry as a whole, and the Home-grown Timber Advisory Committee. They have all made their views clear. So in doing what they propose, the Government are not only making an arrangement which any unbiased observer sees at a glance to be a piece of nonsense, but they are doing it in the teeth of all the advice they have received from the industry, producers, customers and Forestry Commission members alike.
The Government are being extremely ill advised, and I urge the House on this occasion, if on not many others, to agree that the only sensible thing to do is to recognise that the forestry industry is one with great potential which operates in one market and that it ought to operate under one system of support. What is the point of having three different sources of support for it—an Assembly in Scotland, an Assembly in Wales and the Government here—unless they are to have different policies? The right hon. Gentleman was open about that. Yet if all three are 215 to have continually diverging policies, how on earth are they to compete in the same market? The Government's method of dealing with the situation is a load of nonsense, and the Government would be well advised on this occasion to listen to the Lords. I urge the House to support the Lords amendment.
§ Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)
On this occasion I support the Lords amendment. It is a nonsense to try to separate agriculture from forestry. The two have been trying to unite and to plan together for years. If there were a case for devolving forestry, agriculture would be devolved as well. But there is not a case for devolving forestry and there is not a case for devolving agriculture. If we are to integrate them, we must keep them together.
They must be kept under the United Kingdom Parliament because the United Kingdom Parliament must finally decide how big the forestry industry must be. At present, apart from food, timber is one of our biggest imports. We need to increase the acreage under timber in the years to come, and that can be done in a really constructive way only by the
|Division No. 277]||AYES||[12.00 m.|
|Allaun, Frank||Clemitson, Ivor||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)|
|Archer, Peter||Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||English, Michael|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Cohen, Stanley||Evans, John (Newton)|
|Ashley, Jack||Coleman, Donald||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)|
|Ashton, Joe||Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Conlan, Bernard||Faulds, Andrew|
|Atkinson, David (Bournemouth E)||Corbett, Robin||Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.|
|Atkinson, Norman||Cowans, Harry||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Flannery, Martin|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Bates, Alf||Crawford, Douglas||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bean, R. E.||Crawshaw, Richard||Ford, Ben|
|Beith, A. J.||Cronin, John||Forrester, John|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Crowther, J. S.||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Cryer, Bob||Fraser, John (Lambeth, (N'w'd)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Bishop, E. S.||Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)||Freud. Clement|
|Benkinsop, Arthur||Davidson, Arthur||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Boardman, H.||Dairies, Bryan (Enfield N)||George, Bruce|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Boothroyd, Miss Batty||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Ginsburg, David|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Golding, John|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Deakins, Eric||Gould, Bryan|
|Bradley, Tom||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Graham, Ted|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Dempsey, James||Grant, John (Islington C)|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Dewar, Donald||Grimond, Rt Hon J.|
|Buchan, Norman||Doig, Peter||Grocott, Bruce|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Dormand, J. D.||Hardy, Peter|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter (Wakefield)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Duffy, A. E. P.||Hart, Rt Hon Judith|
|Campbell, Ian||Dunn, James A.||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Canavan, Dennis||Dunnett, Jack||Hayman, Mrs Helene|
|Cant, R. B.||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Carmichael, Neil||Eadie, Alex||Henderson, Douglas|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Edge, Geoff||Hooley, Frank|
|Cartwright, John||Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Horam, John|
§ United Kingdom Parliament and Government. I hope that on this occasion the House will support the Lords amendment.
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Edinburgh, West)
I beg to follow the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), because he was responsible to a large extent for sending the Forestry Commission headquarters to my constituency. I say to the hon. Member and to all other hon. Members that it is only fair that they should know that many of those who work in the Forestry Commission headquarters are deeply unhappy at the prospect of being devolved. There is at present one accounting system, and they say that there will be an English accounting system, a Scottish accounting system and a Welsh accounting system—
§ It being midnight, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.
§ Question put:—That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes217
|Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Spearing, Nigel|
|Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Hoyie, Doug (Nelson)||Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Huckfield, Les||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Stewart, Rt Hon Donald|
|Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Hughes. Roy (Newport)||Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.||Stoddart, David|
|Hunter, Adam||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Stott, Roger|
|Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Morton, George||Strang, Gavin|
|Irving. Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Swain, Thomas|
|Janner, Greville||Newens, Stanley||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Noble, Mike||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Jeger, Mrs Lena||Oakes, Gordon||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Ogden, Eric||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|John, Brynmor||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Ovenden, John||Thompson, George|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Palmer, Arthur||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Pardoe, John||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Park, George||Tierney, Sydney|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Parry, Robert||Tilley, John|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Pavitt, Laurie||Tinn, James|
|Judd, Frank||Pendry, Tom||Tomlinson, John|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Penhaligon, David||Tornney, Frank|
|Kelley, Richard||Perry, Ernest||Torney, Tom|
|Killedder, James||Price, C. (Lewisham W)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Price, William (Rugby)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Kinnock, Neil||Radice, Giles||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Lambie, David||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Lamborn, Harry||Reid, George||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Lamond, James||Richardson, Miss Jo||Ward, Michael|
|Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Watkins, David|
|Lee, John||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Watkinson, John|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Robertson, George (Hamilton)||Watt, Hamish|
|Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Weetch, Ken|
|Loyden, Eddie||Robinson, Geoffrey||Weitzman, David|
|Luard, Evan||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Lyon, Alexander (York)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson||Rooker, J. W.||White, James (Pollok)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Roper, John||Whitehead, Phillip|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Rose, Paul B.||Whitlock, William|
|McElhone, Frank||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|MacFarquhar, Roderick||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Rowlands, Ted||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|McKay, Allen (Penistons)||Ryman, John||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|MacKenzie, Gregor||Sedgemore, Brian||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Sever, John||Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|McNarrvara, Kevin||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Madden, Max||Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Magee, Bryan||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)||Woodall, Alec|
|Mahon, Simon||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)||Woof, Robert|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Marks, Kenneth||Sillars, James||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Silverman, Julius|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Skinner, Dennis||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Meacher, Michael||Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Snape, Peter||Mr. A. W. Stallard|
|Adley, Robert||Brittan, Leon||Cope, John|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Cormack, Patrick|
|Alison, Michael||Brooke, Peter||Costain, A. P.|
|Arnold, Tom||Brotherton, Michael||Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Crouch, David|
|Awdry, Daniel||Bryan, Sir Paul||Crowder, F. P.|
|Baker, Kenneth||Buchanan, Richard||Dalyell, Tam|
|Banks, Robert||Buck, Antony||Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)|
|Bell, Ronald||Budgen, Nick||Dean, Paul (N Somerset)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Bulmer, Esmond||Dodsworth, Geoffrey|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Burden, F. A.||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Drayson, Bumaby|
|Benyon, W.||Carlisle, Mark||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Biffen, John||Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Durant, Tony|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Channon, Paul||Dykes, Hugh|
|Blaker, Peter||Churchill, W. S.||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Body, Richard||Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Clark, William (Croydon S)||Elliott, Sir William|
|Bottomley, Peter||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)||Emery, Peter|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Clegg, Waiter||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Cockroft, John||Eyre, Reginald|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Farr, John||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)|
|Fell, Anthony||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Rhodes James, R.|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Lawrence, Ivan||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Lawson, Nigel||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Le Marchant, Spencer||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Forman, Nigel||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Lloyd, Ian||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Fox, Marcus||Loveridge, John||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Luce, Richard||Ross, William (Londonderry)|
|Fry, Peter||McCrindle, Robert||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.||Macfarlane, Neil||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||MacGregor, John||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||MacKay, Andrew (Stechtord)||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Famham)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Madel, David||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Marten, Neil||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Goodhew, Victor||Mates, Michael||Shepherd, Colin|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Mather, Carol||Shersby, Michael|
|Gorst, John||Maude, Angus||Silvester, Fred|
|Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Sims, Roger|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Mawby, Ray||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Grieve, Percy||Mayhew, Patrick||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)|
|Griffiths, Eldon||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)|
|Grist, Ian||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Speed, Keith|
|Grylls, Michael||Mills, Peter||Spence, John|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Miscampbell, Norman||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Hamilton, Archibald (Eps'm & Ewell)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Moate, Roger||Stainton, Keith|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Molloy, William||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Hannam, John||Molyneaux, James||Stanley, John|
|Harrison Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Monro, Hector||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Montgomery, Fergus||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Moore, John (Croydon C)||Stokes, John|
|Hastings, Stephen||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Havers, Sir Michael||Morgan, Geraint||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hawkins, Paul||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Heath, Rt Hon Edward||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Hicks, Robert||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Hodgson, Robin||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Holland, Philip||Mudd, David||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Hordern, Peter||Neave, Airey||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Nelson, Anthony||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Neubert, Michael||Trotter, Neville|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Newton, Tony||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Normanton, Tom||Vaughan, Or Gerard|
|Hunt, John (Bromley)||Nott, John||Viggers, Peter|
|Hurd, Douglas||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Osborn, John||Wakeham, John|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Page, John (Harrow West)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|James, David||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)||Page, Richard (Workington)||Wall, Patrick|
|Jessel, Toby||Parker, John||Walters, Dennis|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Parkinson, Cecil||Warren, Kenneith|
|Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Pattie, Geoffrey||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Jopling, Michael||Percival, Ian||Wells, John|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Peyton, Rt Hon John||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Pink, R. Bonner||Whitney, Raymond|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Kimball, Marcus||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Prior, Rt Hon James||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Younger, Hon George|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Raison, Timothy|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Rathbone, Tim||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Knox, David||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Sir George Young and|
|Lamont, Norman||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)||Mr. Anthony Berry|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at midnight.
§ Lords amendments nos. 98 to 100 agreed to.220
§ Lords amendment no.101 disagreed to.
§ Lords amendments nos. 102 to 108 agreed to.
§ Lords amendments to be further considered this day.—[Mr. Millan.]