VOTING OF SCOTTISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

HC Deb 17 July 1978 vol 954 cc155-206

Lords amendment: No. 86, in page 30, line 8, at end insert new Clause F:

("F.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, if, following the first meeting of the Scottish Assembly, a Bill to which this section applies has been passed by the House of Commons but there would not have been a majority in support of the Bill if there had been excluded from the members who voted in the division of that House on the question that the Bill be read the Third time all those representing parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, that Bill shall be deemed not to have been read the Third time unless after the next fourteen days on which that House has sat after the division took place that House confirms its decision that the Bill be read the Third time.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not come into operation unless it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(3) This section applies to any Bill which does not relate to or concern Scotland or any part of Scotland.")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Pym

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment in subsection (1) to leave out the first "Third" and to insert "Second".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may also discuss the following amendments to the Lords amendment:

Leave out subsection (2).

In subsection (3) at end add, but would, if it had related to or concerned Scotland, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly". We may also discuss Lords amendment no. 239.

Mr. Pym

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In tabling my amendment to Lords amendment no. 86 I should have made sure that the same amendment applied to the remainder of subsection (1) of this new clause where the word "Third" appears. May I therefore, ask you—in the event of my amendment being successful—to consider manuscript amendments to remove the other two references to the word "Third" and substitute the word "Second"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Speaker has authorised me to say that in principle he is willing to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. I should, however, point out that if the Question on the right hon. Member's first amendment is still being discussed when the guillotine falls at 11 o'clock, as soon as it has been decided the Chair will be obliged by the terms of the order which the House made on 4th July to proceed at once to the motion to agree or disagree with the Lords amendment itself, without putting any other intervening Question.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Pym

Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot help but feel that in the circumstances I described —that is, against the possibility that that amendment might conceivably be won—the Minister of State might consider using his powers to move the manuscript amendments that I have suggested. I believe that would be the only way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister does not have the power. The only way to overcome that difficulty would be to finish the discussion on the first amendment before 11 o'clock.

Mr. Pym

This Lords amendment is about the role of Members of this House, It strikes me as a strange procedural anomaly of Parliament that any amendment in the sense of this Lords amendment that might have been tabled either in Committee or on Report would have been ruled out of order as being outwith the terms of the Long Title of the Bill. Therefore, the result of the Lords putting in this amendment about the role of Members means that this is the first definitive amendment on the role of Members of Parliament that we have debated.

The amendment seeks to deal to a very limited extent with what seems to most of us to be the worst structural feature of the Bill—the fact that, as now drafted, Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies can vote on those matters for England that neither English nor Scots Members of Parliament can vote on for Scotland. That central flaw in the whole Bill has been referred to more frequently perhaps than the weaknesses of taxation powers to which we have just been addressing ourselves.

The Government have no answer to that central flaw. They have refused not only to face up to it but even to acknowledge it. They try to pretend that the problem does not exist. Yet, in fact, this flaw in the Bill will be the cause of its failure in practice if ever it comes into operation.

One of the greatest tragedies of all, lifting our eyes above the details of the Bill, is that it appears all too clear that the people of Scotland are not aware of this defect. It seems that the Government, in their enthusiasm for the Bill, have swept this basic conundrum under the carpet. They have tried to put it out of sight. In the sense in which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) used the phrase in the last debate, I believe that in this respect, too, a false prospectus is being put before the people of Scotland if the Bill becomes an Act. The truth is that there is no answer to this central flaw.

In the context of an Executive and a legislative Assembly for one of the partners of the United Kingdom only, there is no answer to this difficulty. As long ago as December 1976, on the Scotland and Wales Bill, the Prime Minister said that it was wrong to contemplate and unacceptable that we should embark upon a course that was federal for one part of the United Kingdom and unitary for the rest. But that is precisely where we are at the moment.

I have predicted before, and I repeat tonight, that the day on which the votes of Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies decide a matter for England only—a matter with which English Members of Parliament do not agree—will be the day that this scheme breaks down with all the consequent disappointment and even frustration. Of course, it will be followed by an amendment to the Bill with all the agonising that will bring with it. It happened with Ireland, and we are making the same mistake today.

Hon. Members may wax as eloquent as they like about the benefits that they think that devolution in principle will bring, but a particular system of devolution as structurally unsound as the Bill can lead only to disharmony and trouble in the end.

I noticed that the Minister of State, in reply to the last debate, referred to the difficulties that were caused by particular suggestions for taxation powers. It is all very well to talk about it in general; it is when we come to the particular that it is difficult. I think that is exactly what the Government have done in the Bill, and they have not answered the question that it has raised.

The amendment bears modestly on the structural unsoundness of the Bill. Indeed, the amendment is limited in scope. By no means is it an answer to the conundrum. There is no complete answer The amendment, however, provides a partial answer in the form of a political constraint. It gives the House the chance for second thoughts by means of a second vote not less than a fortnight later. The circumstances envisaged are that the Third Reading of a Bill not affecting Scotland has been passed by the House when it would not have been passed if the votes of the Scottish Members of Parliament had been excluded. In other words, that is precisely the circumstance of a breakdown of this whole scheme as I have described.

In order to seek to alleviate this unacceptable position the Lords propose to put into the Bill the requirement for a second vote after a fortnight. There is no suggestion in the amendment of any Members of Parliament not voting. There is no suggestion of the "in-and-out" proposal which I am sure the House would certainly reject. The Lords are proposing a pause for second thoughts and then another vote upon the same question. All Members of Parliament would vote on both occasions. If after that interval the result was the same, that decision would be final.

This, of course, is an innovation in our procedure, but I do not think that it can be elevated into a great constitutional principle. The Government were proposing a second vote on the same question in this House in the circumstances covered by clause 72. That clause has now been dropped. As I understand it the Government will accept the Lords amendments to change the position by which certain decisions by the Lords could be overruled by a second vote in this House. However, the Government cannot be against the second vote in principle because they proposed one.

The minimum interval of 14 days will provide a period for reflection and second thoughts upon the consequences and implications of forcing on to England, Wales or Northern Ireland something which each of those countries did not want and which was not proposed to be forced upon Scotland. The Government of the day would have to face up to the consequences of trying to overrule the votes of Members of Parliament representing non-Scottish seats by a vote of this House in precisely the same way as they would have to face up to the consequences of overruling the Scottish Assembly by a vote of the United Kingdom Members, which is provided for in the Bill.

The Lords amendment, insisting on a cooling off period before final decision, has much good sense in it. I have certain detailed criticisms of the amendment which are the cause of my amendments. The first of those amendments relates to whether this procedure should occur on Second Reading or Third Reading. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I think it would be better if the process occurred on Second Reading before all the work had been done on the Bill. It could be reasonably argued that after the House had spent weeks or months on a Bill, to arrive at Third Reading and, by the process I have described, put pressure on hon. Members to have second thoughts and perhaps to reject the Bill would be asking a great deal. It seems reasonable to ask the House to have second thoughts, in the particular and unusual circumstances covered by the amendment, on Second Reading, so that the issue is decided before we embark on all the detailed debate on the Bill.

All my amendments are grouped together, so I should like to go on to the third which is designed to limit the scope of the Bill. As Lords amendment no. 86 stands, it applies to all Bills which could be described as nonScottish—that is to say those which cover issues which are devolved to Scotland and those areas which are not. It would be better if that procedure were confined to those matters which in Scotland are to be devolved.

I can explain the point best by an example. It would not be right to use this procedure of requiring a second vote to deal with a Bill concerned with the police in England, because the police is not a devolved matter. Any Scottish Bill dealing with police in Scotland would be voted upon by all United Kingdom Members in this House, as it would for England.

Because the same applies to an English police Bill, it seems reasonable that the narrowing of the Lords amendment should be constructed as my amendment proposes. In other words, it would be an absolutely fair basis. Any matter not devolved in Scotland would not be covered by this proposal, which would apply only to those areas which are devolved. Thus, the narrowing of the Lords' amendment is desirable and meets one possible criticism of the amendment as it stands.

The second of the three amendments proposes to remove subsection (2) of new clause F. That procedure does not seem necessary. We can take a decision tonight whether to introduce this procedure. It is not of crucial importance, but the subsection seems unnecessary. I have in mind the thought that when this matter was debated in another place they were very conscious of not wanting to tell us how to run our business. They thought that a subsection of this kind would be wise.

It may be asked how one is to determine whether a Bill relates to or concerns Scotland, but I cannot think that that is a serious difficulty for the House, since we already have a system to enable Mr. Speaker to certify that a Bill relates exclusively to Scotland. As the Scotland Bill stands, every Bill dealing with a devolved matter will have to carry a statement that its provisions do not extend to Scotland, or it will be assumed that it does so extend, notwithstanding the Scotland Bill, and this Parliament will be assumed to be legislating for the whole United Kingdom.

Mr. John Smith

Perhaps this is the best point to ask an important question about the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the Lords amendment. He said that there is no great difficulty deciding whether a Bill falls into the category to be caught by the amendment because we already certify Bills which go to the Scottish Grand Committee. But is it not true that that is a much simpler matter to decide than to ask, presumably, Mr. Speaker to decide whether a matter is or is not within the legislative competence of the Assembly, as the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the Lords amendment implies? Is it not a difficult task to give Mr. Speaker, a Committee, or the House itself to have to try to forecast whether a provision in the Bill would have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly had it been applied to Scotland?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Pym

To the extent that that could be said to be true—and it is represented to be the case by the Minister of State—it demonstrates one of the arguments which we have been putting forward all along, which is that the division of powers does not have that degree of crystal clarity which the Minister tries to pretend so often that it has. If the division of powers is as clear as the Minister likes to make out, there should not be any difficulty. I agree that it is not quite as simple as what happens now. But what is suggested here and what is required here is not of itself so novel a procedure or so different a procedure from that which already takes place. If it is likely to be as difficult as the Minis- ter now protests, he has some thinking to do about his answers to previous debates about the wonderfully clear way in which the powers are divided.

The Opposition have been saying all along that the powers are not clearly divided. Every time that we have put that to the test, we have been defeated. However, I make the point because it seems relevant to the amendment that we are considering.

I recognise that the amendment proposed here is an innovation of procedure. But I do not find it extraordinary constitutionally because it does not suggest that any Members of Parliament should not vote at all times on all matters. It provides the constraint of second thoughts, very much along the lines that the Government themselves proposed in relation to their original clause in the Bill requiring this House in certain circumstances to vote to overrule the Lords. I think that it is very wise that we should come this far, which is only a very modest step, towards meeting the basic defect in the Bill about the different roles that Members of Parliament will have.

Mr. Dalyell

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pym

I am just about to bring my remarks to a conclusion. Many hon. Members wish to speak about this amendment which is the very first substantive amendment about the West Lothian question that this House has been allowed to debate.

No one believes that this amendment answers the contradiction in the Bill, which is the fatal flaw in its structure—the fact that we are trying to legislate for federalism in one part of the United Kingdom and for a unitary system in the remainder. It does not do that. However, in certain circumstances it causes all hon. Members to have second thoughts about the wisdom of imposing upon one part of the United Kingdom by means of the votes of the whole of this House a decision that that part of the United Kingdom is not prepared to accept—in other words, over-ruling the verdict of the Members of Parliament representing that part of the United Kingdom. This amendment takes a very small step in that direction.

It may be argued that in almost all circumstances—perhaps in every circumstance—the second vote would be the same as the first. I doubt that very much. I know that the Minister of State does not agree with me, but I do not see why all Members of this House representing all parts of the United Kingdom should not express their opinions about an issue affecting only England and then find that, whereas the House had decided to take a certain decision on policy for England which the Members of Parliament representing only England did not want, everyone had second thoughts. Do we wish to insist upon that? I do not find that very objectionable. In my view, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable approach to the problem. I regard it as a modest alleviation of this structural flaw in the Bill. It is an amelioration of perhaps the most formidable difficulty of the whole Bill—the difficulty that in the opinion of the Opposition is bound inevitably to lead to the ultimate failure of the Bill, with all the subsequent frustration and bitterness that will result.

On that basis, I urge the House to accept my amendments. I hope that in the reasonableness which in some respects the Government are showing, they may yet feel able to accept them and in this way alleviate one of the most formidable problems arising out of these proposals.

Mr. John Smith

It would be appropriate if I put the Government's view at this stage, especially as we are dealing with an amendment to a Lords amendment.

Frankly, I was extremely surprised that the Official Opposition should seem to be taking the line advocated by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). This was not one of the propositions that came from the official Opposition during our previous discussions. Despite the difficulties of the guillotine, which might have caused some difficulties for the Opposition, I do not think that any such proposition ever appeared in any form on the Order Paper.

Mr. Pym

Does not the Minister of State realise that any amendment about the role of Members of Parliament was out of order? There was no possible way of our discussing it. That is a rather bad start as a response to my speech.

Mr. Smith

It is not intended to be a response. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a very full response to what, with great respect to him, was a very bad argument.

Surely if there were merit in this proposition—I make no more of it than this—it would have been mentioned at some stage during the many discussions that we have had about this matter. Indeed, we discussed this matter almost endlessly in Committee.

But this proposition has come from another place. Those hon. Members who have read the debate in another place will have found that most of the noble Lords who spoke there said that they did not think that this particular amendment would work but they thought that there should be something in the Bill about it and that it should be brought before the Commons for consideration again. But it had very few friends as a practical piece of work, causing there to be a 14-day delay between the two Third Readings, as it was in the case of the Lords amendment.

I accept that the right hon. Member has probably improved matters a little from the point of view of his argument by moving the delay to the Second Reading stage from the Third Reading stage. To the extent that thinking is still developing on these matters, it is interesting that that difference of view emerged between the noble Lords in another place who talked on this matter—most of them Conservatives, but not exclusively Conservatives—and the official Opposition here. It is, perhaps, indicating that we should allow considerably more time for further reflection, because I genuinely do not think that as a practical proposition there is very much merit in this suggestion.

The Government are totally opposed to the proposal on the grounds of both principle and practice. We doubt very much whether the other place seriously wanted this amendment to be written into the Bill.

When we asked, constantly, in another place about the practicality of it, because noble Lords frequently said "What is achieved if the same vote occurs after the fortnight's delay?", the response was usually "But we had better put something in the Bill, or make the Commons think again about it." The whole tenor of the debate was "Have another debate about it", rather than a matter of people seriously advocating this as a practical proposition.

It is very important for us to remember in all the debates on this subject that Parliament will remain sovereign, able to legislate on anything for the United Kingdom as a whole, or for any part of it, irrespective of the devolution of certain powers to a subordinate Assembly. We have had this argument before, but I believe it to be crucial in the discussion of the whole philosophy of devolution.

Devolution involves the conferring of powers, the devolution of powers. It does not devolve sovereignty. Indeed, the Stormont Parliament was a classic example of that. It was abolished by this House, and that was a demonstration that sovereignty had not been devolved; only powers had been devolved.

Even in the devolved fields in which powers are given to the Scottish Assembly, in addition to the inherent power to legislate, which does not depart from this Parliament, Parliament will directly control the use of the Government's reserve powers, that being subject to approval by Parliament. Even in matters not formally or directly touching Scotland, legislation for England and Wales—nearly 90 per cent. of the population—is bound to have some repercussions for the remaining 10 per cent. in a way that does not apply to anything like the same degree in the reverse direction. That is just a fact of life in the relationship between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

Where I take serious issue with the right hon. Gentleman is in trying to draw a parallel with the Commons power to over-rule the Lords on resolutions on which the Government have agreed to accept an amendment. I remind the House of the situation. The Government originally proposed that if a resolution was passed through the House of Commons but the Lords disagreed with it, it would be open to the Commons to over-rule the Lords in that disagreement and thereby make sure that the Commons decision carried at the end of the day.

As a result of the consideration in the Lords and the vote that took place, and having listened further to the arguments, the Government are not pursuing that matter. The idea originated in the famous Parliament (No. 2) Bill. It was one of the proposals to change the relationship between the two Houses in dealing with resolutions. One of the factors that we have taken into account is that the Lords have very seldom exercised their right to disagree with a resolution. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that the last occasion was one of the Rhodesian sanctions orders.

It was in the light of all these considerations that we decided not to pursue that proposal. But that seems to be entirely different from this proposal, which looks at the role of certain Members of Parliament—Scottish Members in this House—and prescribes a rule whereby, if their influence has created a majority on Second Reading, there should be another method of dealing with the relationship between Commons and Lords. These are not propositions of anything like the same character. and therefore I do not think it proper for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have moved in principle along this road of having a second vote. We have done nothing of the kind. We have abandoned a proposal on resolutions whereby the Lords would not have been able to frustrate the decision of the Commons. That is quite a different matter. But, perhaps even more than in the theory of the matter, we are opposed to this proposal because we believe it to be totally impracticable.

As far as I understand it, no one in the Lords agreed that there should be an in-and-out system of voting. That matter was considered by the Royal Commission and I understood that the Conservatives had always been clear about their opposition to in-and-out voting. Indeed, on one occasion when the matter was discussed on this Bill there was virtually universal agreement in the House that one could not distinguish easily between different categories of Members, with some Members serving as, in effect, second-class Members voting on one matter but not on another. A certain proposal was put forward by the Scottish National Party, but I think it arose from the fact that the SNP does not give tuppence for what happens at Westminster and it had nothing to do with reasoning. But everyone else in the House was against it. Although some of the logic behind the right hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to point in that direction, I do not think that he would go as far as that.

The proposal before the House attempts to circumvent the difficulties inherent in the concept of in-and-out voting, not by preventing the Scottish Members from voting on certain issues, but, where the Scottish votes have been significant in the English analogue of devolved matters, by making all Members of the House, including Scottish Members, vote twice to confirm, presumably, that they had not inadvertently strayed into the wrong Lobby on the first occasion, or to create a situation in which pressure was put on the Scottish Members to see whether they should reconsider their decision.

It is almost as if there were to be a "sin bin"—another phrase that one could use instead of "cooling-off period"—into which the Scottish Members would be herded for 14 days in which they had to reflect whether they should vote the same way when the Second Reading, as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, came up again.

Is not that the basis of an in-and-out system of voting but without practical effect? What happens if Scottish Members decide that they are not changing their minds, if they decide, after careful consideration, that they were right the first time, and that they should adhere to their original decision? Will that situation help us very much if there is some sensitivity in the relationship between English and Scottish Members? Or will it hinder? I should have thought that it would cause far more problems than it could ever conceivably solve.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Pym

With regard to the Minister's interpretation of the debate in another place, we must bear in mind that a great deal of the hesitancy in the Lords was due to their Lordships' very right, proper and natural reluctance to suggest a particular procedure for this House. There were, of course, Lords of the Minister's party who were in support of the amendment.

I do not accept the Minister's argument about the effect of a second vote and the possibility that some Members representing Scottish constituencies might inadvertently have gone into the wrong Lobby. They may very well have voted as they wanted to vote on the first occasion, but since the result of the total vote, in the circumstances that we are considering, is that upon another part of the United Kingdom there is to be imposed, apparently, something with which the people themselves do not agree, is that not a reasonable basis on which to ask everybody to have second thoughts? If the second vote confirms the original view, so be it, but at least it is reasonable, I suggest, to say that the effect of doing it a second time is to avoid imposing upon England, Wales or Northern Ireland something which the people do not want. What is so wrong, what is so reprehensible, about asking for those second thoughts? Is not that a reasonable proposition to put to every Member of this House?

Mr. Smith

Several questions arise from the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. He referred initially to the debate in another place, and said, quite correctly, that there was a certain hesitancy in their Lordships recommending a procedure to the House of Commons. But their Lordships were pursued in argument, particularly by the Government spokesmen, as to what would be the practical difference. Most of the advocates of this type of proposition more or less conceded, in their responses, that there would not be much practical difference, but they argued that it was time the House of Commons had another look at this.

Perhaps it is, and we are having another look at it, but the House has to decide whether this has very much behind it in the form of practical merit. It seems to me to have the sort of logic of inand-out voting but to stop short of having any effect whatsoever, because it is not preventing the Scottish Members from voting on those matters in a Bill which concern England.

We are all agreed on that, but the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to let the logic of it take him to that conclusion. He stops there and asks for a demonstration of some kind, and dresses it up as a so-called cooling period. Let him put something into the Bill which indicates that the problem is being tackled in a particular way. But the question is whether this is a sensible way of tackling it. I am afraid that, if we accepted this proposal, one of the results would be a situation in which it would be pointed up that the Scottish Members were the people who created the majority in a particular Division. The whole purpose is to point that up and then to say that there is a period during which presumably they ought to reconsider their decision. If they do not change their mind and adhere to the original decision, it makes no difference whatsoever, and no practical result of any sort has been achieved. I think it would be unfortunate for the House to consider having different categories of Members in voting on any legislation.

I come to another central point of difficulty, which I touched on in a question which I asked the right hon. Gentleman. I did not pursue the matter because I knew that I should have the opportunity to speak very soon afterwards. It is the question of deciding, in terms of his amendment, which Bills would be caught by it. It is quite true that we claim that the Scotland Bill is well drafted in the sense that we have defined, as well as can be done, what is devolved and what is not devolved. Indeed, a great deal of the complication arises from this very necessity for precision. But we have never claimed that for all conceivable circumstances, looking to the future, it will always be crystal clear.

The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that precisely because of that we have created the role for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

If there would never be any doubt, what would be the point of creating the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to take that sort of decision? We accepted an argument, put forward at least partly by the Opposition, that it would be a good idea if these matters were decided by a legal body, that the powers of the Assembly should be decided by a judicial body rather than by the Secretary of State subject to the veto of Parliament.

But, as I understood the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, it is suggested that we put the responsibility upon Mr. Speaker to decide what indirectly—or, indeed, very directly—is or is not within the competence of the Scottish As- sembly. In my view, it would be most unfortunate to drag Mr. Speaker into what might then be a source of disagreement between the House of Commons and a Scottish Assembly.

I say frankly that that part of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition has not been developed. There are a number of possibilities. I suppose that there might be a Committee of the House or there might be a Committee of both Houses. It might be Mr. Speaker himself. One can think of all these things. But I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has thought much about that, and there certainly are grave difficulties in giving to Mr. Speaker what amounts to a decision upon vires.

This is a quite different matter from the certification of Scottish Bills to go to the Scottish Grand Committee. First, that is only on the question whether they go to the Scottish Grand Committee. It is a procedure which very much depends upon the assent of the Opposition. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, the Opposition may quite easily block Bills from going to the Scottish Grand Committee by standing in their places, as they sometimes do, if they disagree. That is quite different from what is proposed in the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the Lords amendment.

I make that not as a criticism of the Lords amendment, because the Lords did not go into that territory, no doubt quite deliberately, but the right hon. Gentleman has imported the concept into his amendment, and I say that it is a very dangerous course for the House of Commons to consider or to require its Speaker to fulfil.

Mr. Brittan

Is not the Minister of State exaggerating somewhat in this respect? He talks about adjudication as to vires for all the world as though the decision of Mr. Speaker determined whether the Scottish Assembly could or could not do something, and he refers to conflict between the Scottish Assembly and this House. Surely none of that is apposite because, at worst, what happens is that there is another vote, and if Mr. Speaker has ruled in a certain direction and there is another vote, it is still up to the House to decide how to determine the issue.

Therefore, is not the right hon. Gentleman ignoring that there is a basic similarity between the procedure as proposed and the procedure operating at the moment, since the right hon. Gentleman has conceded that it does not very much matter at present how Mr. Speaker adjudicates because it is still up to the House of Commons to decide at the end of the day whether it wishes the procedure for Scottish Bills to be followed. By the same token, Mr. Speaker is not adjudicating on a legal matter in a final sense but is making merely a procedural ruling the effect of which the House may negate, if it wishes, by its second vote.

Mr. Smith

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is coming perilously close now to suggesting that this proposal does not amount to very much anyway. I am afraid that it does almost go as far as that. I invite him to look again at the terms of the amendment, because the proposal is to apply to any Bill which does not relate to or concern Scotland or any part of Scotland but would, if it had related to or concerned Scotland, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly. So that question arises very directly. It is the very question which, presumably, Mr. Speaker would have to answer, and, if I may say so, in the absence of argument from both sides such as the Judicial Committee would have in deciding what was or was not within the competence. Mr. Speaker does not technically have to decide whether a matter is within the competence of the Assembly, but it amounts to the same thing, because he may well have complaints from Scottish Members that he has made the wrong ruling or is about to make the wrong ruling and that it is something which would not be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, so that prohibition would not then apply.

It is not good enough to say that I am exaggerating. There is a genuine difficulty here, and it is one which the House of Commons must think about very carefully before making any changes in its procedure, which is what this amounts to. It would affect many Bills over many years. We must think far more carefully about it before passing this proposal or approving the Lords amendment now.

Mr. Galbraith

Surely the last thing that Scottish Members of Parliament will do is object. They will be voting on something in which their own constituents are not in the least interested.

Mr. Smith

It is impossible to predict what would be the attitude of Members to Bills. But there could well be an occasion when they felt that they would be strongly marked out in a certain way. That is what the amendment would do. It would mark them out as in a sense different in that their votes have to be taken twice, as it were, before they have full effect in certain circumstances. They might well feel that it was important that it was used only in those circumstances where it could be absolutely clearly demonstrated that the criteria were fulfilled. We know that there might be certain circumstances in which it was not clear. I ask the House to consider carefully whether it would he wise to rush into this and to put this responsibility, without having considered it carefully and at length, upon Mr. Speaker.

Quite frankly, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire probably added his amendment to the Lords amendment at a time when he had to think rather quickly about it. I do not blame him for that, because this matter was discussed at a fairly late stage in the proceedings in the House of Lords. The great difficulty about doing this is that such amendments may be ill considered. It must be remembered that this is a matter of considerable importance to the House of Commons as an institution.

We quite legitimately fight each other about some other parts of the Bill, because there is a difference of political philosophy and outlook. That is entirely proper and it is what should happen in Parliament. However, this amendment goes a little wider and affects the practice of Parliament and the House of Commons on a wide range of issues. Philosophically, I fear that the amendment is unsoundly based. Even more than that, I feel that it is thoroughly impractical and I hope that the House will not agree to it.

Mr. Pym

The Minister of State has been very reasonable and has waxed eloquent about some of the difficulties which might exist if this procedure were adopted. However, I do not honestly think that it can be said to be impractical, because all that is required is a second vote. In his criticism of the amendment, and in the difficulties which he foresees in deciding whether Bills do or do not apply, ought he not also to consider the very serious consequence of the votes of this House imposing upon any one part of the United Kingdom a decision which the representatives of that part do not agree with? Is not that a far greater difficulty, on an altogether different scale, than any which he has raised in objection to this modest amendment, which merely suggests that people should think about the consequences of this House imposing upon one part of the United Kingdom something which it does not agree with.

I do not think that the Minister of State has addressed himself to the consequences of that difficulty. It is all very well to say that this is difficult. But the basic problem which inspired this amendment is infinitely more serious than any problem which the amendment itself creates.

Mr. Smith

Without being disrepectful, I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman would rather debate the general principle of the consequences of devolution, and voting as between Scottish and English Members, than to defend this particular proposal. But the fact it that it is this particular proposal which we are discussing and upon which we shall be voting. Therefore, we must be very careful that we get it right, if change we wish to make.

We can argue about the general proposition. I have made my views quite clear. We must decide whether this amendment should be incorporated in the Bill. In his intervention the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire came close to admitting that there were serious difficulties about the amendment. From his own experience of the House of Commons, which goes back over a very long time, he must appreciate the great difficulty which the amendment would cause Mr. Speaker and others. I think that this would be a thoroughly bad step and I therefore hope that the House will not accept the amendment.

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)

The Minister of State is very good at attacking the minor details and criticising the faults, but he has persistently refused to face up to the great structural weakness in the Bill, and he has given another example of that tonight. Throughout what the Government have done, it is clear that they have refused to recognise that there is this flaw. Admittedly, the Kilbrandon Report did not say all that much about it, but it at least devoted a couple of pages to the problem.

It is an astonishing fact that in the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy" there was no reference at all to the West Lothian problem. Again, in the supplementary White Paper produced by the Government a few months later, there was also no reference to the West Lothian problem. That seems to be an amazing piece of mis-government on the part of the Minister of State and his colleagues. After all, time and time again this has turned out to be the fundamental weakness in the whole of this scheme.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was absolutely right when he said that the Government were trying to sweep this problem under the carpet. As I have said, the Minister of State is quite fluent at producing criticisms of this, that and the other, but he will not come up with a defence of what he knows to be an appalling flaw in the scheme.

10.0 p.m.

There is no need for me at this stage to state the unlimited scope for friction that this proposal offers. As we are treading an unknown path, it is possible that we shall see surprising results. One possibility put forward by my noble Friend Lord Duncan-Sandys in the other place was that the House of Lords will take the view that, as the Commons was prepared to legislate on the basis of an artificial majority—a majority of Scots Members when talking about English matters—it might well be justified in rejecting legislation on this score. Morally there is much to be said for that.

Another possibility was, oddly enough, brought about by the Minister of State a few minutes ago when he reminded the House that this House will still, under the devolution scheme, have the power to legislate about anything it likes, whether it be a devolved matter or not. We have always known that the House will continue to be able to legislate about housing, education, and so on, in Scotland, but the assumption has been that this House will not choose to do so. However, if the House is pushed too far—and the Government are pushing it too far in their scheme—the House may well take the opportunity, which will still be open to it, to legislate on devolved matters in Scotland.

I can see that process beginning with Private Members' Bills. I visualise a Private Member saying "I have won a place in the Ballot. I will bring forward a Bill which will apply to Scotland just as much as to England." There is nothing to stop private Members from doing so: the powers will be there, as the Minister has just acknowledged.

I do not pretend that that will be a satisfactory way of proceeding, because it makes a nonsense of the devolution scheme, but if Parliament is treated as the Government propose to treat Parliament there are likely to be odd results of that type.

This debate is about a particular approach. I do not pretend that the scheme which is being put forward is perfect, but I believe that it is impossible to find a perfect scheme. This is our trouble. The essence is to give what has been described as a cooling-off period. I do not know whether it will work. I am not prepared to say that I believe that the cooling-off period will necessarily work. I have a good deal of sympathy with Baroness Bacon who said that she had spent a long time in this place and had never found Scottish Members as accommodating as that—in other words, she did not expect Scottish Members to go away and think about something for a fortnight and return with a different answer. She may well be right about that.

I also have a good deal of sympathy with another Labour Peer—Lord Sefton—who in his maiden speech said that we should not try to amend a positively bad Bill. I should have liked to share that attitude, but the fact must be faced that it is so late in the proceedings that we cannot afford to take that curious view. I know that there are those who take that curious view and think that we should not touch the Bill at all, but I believe that, having reached this late stage in our proceedings, we should salvage something from it.

It may well be that what was put forward in the other place represents the least objectionable remedy to an almost insoluble problem. It was Lord Houghton of Sowerby who took that view. Tonight we must decide whether to try to salvage something out of this appalling wreck. I am not certain whether it is worth the attempt, though I think that on balance it is. Having reached this appalling pass, on balance I think it is probably worth backing the Lords in the scheme they have put forward. I do not feel strongly about whether we should do it by the Second Reading mechanism my right hon. Friend has proposed or by the Third Reading mechanism the other place has proposed, but in the circumstances I think it is right to support the other place in what it is trying to do.

Mr. Dalyell

My colleagues may think that I have had more than my say in these debates, and because this is a guillotined debate I shall take only a couple of minutes.

It is a matter of incredulity that at 9.31 p.m. on day 44 of our proceedings on this Bill there should be the kind of exchange that we heard between the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and the Minister of State. I shall look into this very carefully because it seemed to me that the Minister of State was rushing to put the proverbial plug in the hole in the dam while letting the water rush in at another point in the structure.

The truth of the matter is that this kind of arbitration on what affects Scotland and what does not lies at the root of the problem. I shall leave it at that. But some of us will look at the exchanges tonight very carefully.

The Minister of State asked a rhetorical question. He asked what would happen if after 14 days the Members adhere to the vote. To some of us it becomes crystal clear that Members of Parliament are voting on matters for which they have literally no responsibility in the circumstances.

The Minister of State then said that he was pointing out the difficulties and troubles. There is a deep division of opinion here because some of us think that it is very proper at an early stage to point out the precise difficulties and trouble, and to make them crystal clear. It is not a question of inadvertently straying into the wrong Lobby. It goes far deeper than that.

Lord Raglan made a remark in another place. He said: If the proposal had been the other way around and Members from England should vote on certain matters affecting Scotland while Members from Scotland were excluded from voting on the same matters affecting England—"[Official Report, House of Lords, 16th May, 1978; Vol 392, c. 266.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) knows that he cannot quote anyone in another place except a Government Minister.

Mr. Dalyell

In those circumstances, this measure would never have been entertained. That puts it in a realistic light.

Mr. Russell Johnston

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) when he said that this matter had not had a proper debate. In fact, the West Lothian question, as it has been properly called, has lain like a cloud over practically every debate on this Bill. The matter has been discussed continually.

I would say that it is a matter of practicality, as the Minister of State has said already. If this were a House of independent Members without party affiliation, a second vote in a fortnight might work. But this House has a very rigid party structure. If one goes into any Whips' office before a vote takes place and asks about the result of the vote, those Whips may not be able to tell the exact figures but they will tell the result and they will almost always be right.

It is true that a dilemma exists, and from the very beginning of our debates I have recognised this fact. However, I do not agree that it improves matters to attempt what might be described as a clawback. That is really what this is. The resolution of difference must take place before the clash. Once the clash takes place, with all the build-up before hand, I do not believe that the situation is either reconcilable or recoverable.

I do not believe that the amendments have about them the air of political reality. If one says to people that they have a second chance, it means only that they do not work at their first chance. For that reason I recommend my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

I say that, not because I dissent from the objectives of the amendment or because I believe that it is a bad or stupid thing for the Members of the other place to have sought this way out or for the major Opposition in the other place to have given support to it. The West Lothian question persists, and will persist. But in this critical area, I believe that only an institutional solution will provide a way out.

Other people have suggested that there may be a way out through conventions. I doubt it, but I should be prepared to try it. However, what seems clear is that, lacking either of these approaches, to try to have two runs at the matter does not make things any better.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I understand the reluctance of another place to tell us how to conduct our business here. If the Lords were to develop some system under which they could divide the sheep from the goats, or the Scots from the English and Welsh, and if they were to suggest that it was a tightly drawn matter, they could have a second vote. But we know that the people in another place are not Scots, Irish or Welsh. They are all members of the British peerage. There was a time when there were Scots there, but I do not think that it would have made any difference.

Mr. George Cunningham

There are Scots there.

Mr. Ross

This test will apply only in a matter of contention. I cannot see anything being all that contentious in another place, although we all know that this has happened in the past. I can remember a Tory Government who received an amendment from the other place and who insisted on amending it and returning to a form of words that was even worse, and a provision which had never been discussed. I know that you will remember this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you and I were on opposite sides on that occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am beginning to wonder whether a disclosure of that kind should be made, now that I am in the Chair.

Mr. Ross

It used to be one of the guiding rules of the House that we did not put ex-Ministers in the Chair because it would be rather embarrassing for their past to be quoted. I believe that practice was departed from by Winston Churchill when he became Prime Minister after the war. It is embarrassing, but it is not out of order to quote the matter. I can make that statement without fear of contradiction because I have looked up the matter.

On that occasion I do not remember any English Member weeping and saying "Let us think again". If the votes of the Scots who voted in the House that night had been accepted, Strathclyde would not now be in existence. It was the English Members of the Tory Party, and some misguided Members of the Labour Party, who brought that about, but if all the Scottish votes had been taken together, Strathclyde would not now be in existence. Certain areas that went into the Glasgow district were put there by English votes.

Mr. Cunningham

So?

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman is a Sudeten Scot and his interest in Scotland in terms of Scottish legislation has been recent and sudden. This may well be the last speech—at least I think that it will be the last speech—I shall be delivering in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] However, it will not be my last vote. During the greater part of that time, I have been in a majority within a minority. For a long time, every Scottish Grand Committee had to have added Members. When the Scottish Standing Committee was formed, it had to have added Members. At present, there are 16 Tory Members from Scotland, 39 Labour Members, two independent Labour Members, three Liberals and 11 SNP Members. This sort of situation has persisted for a long time.

10.15 p.m.

Between 1964 and 1970, when the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) sat on the Government Front Bench, he guided through a terrible Education Bill. He was in a minority in Scotland, but I do not remember the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) saying that it was wrong for a majority of English Members to do down Scotland.

I have mentioned the Local Government Act. There was a Housing Act that was anathematised in Scotland. That was put through not by Scottish Members but by English Members. Suddenly now, it is to be all wrong if some Scottish Members vote on matters of English legislation. If this principle is wrong, it was wrong for 50 years while there were Irish Members on the Government side voting on matters affecting Scotland and England.

I do not remember any obsession from West Lothian about this matter. Let it not be thought that this Government were unaware of the problem. Our first White Paper said, effectively, that there would be no change in the number of Scottish Members at Westminster, and the question whether there should be a reduction in the number of hon. Members from Scotland is one of the real arguments in this matter.

I take it ill from the Conservatives, who accepted, particularly in 1951, that the Tory majority that allowed them to form a Government came from Northern Ireland, that they should suddenly discover that it is wrong in principle for Scottish Members to vote on English matters. In the days when the Conservatives could count on the unfailing support of Northern Ireland Members, it was apparently all right for them to vote on these contentious issues.

If we are prepared to reject the gnat, what about the camel of another place? What right has it to make itself the arbiter of the rules of this House or to sit in judgment on every Act passed by this House?

Mr. Galbraith

In order to introduce a little common sense.

Mr. Ross

It is not often that we see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) here and it is even more seldom that we hear him. I am sure the people of Hillhead will be glad to know that he has surfaced again.

The structural weaknesses that have been referred to are not so little. Will the leave of the House have to be given in respect of matters that are purely Scottish? That may seem easy at the time, but there have been criticisms in the past simply because certain aspects of Scottish legislation have contained references to England. I remember a Mental Health Bill that was queried in that respect. There was nothing contentious about the Bill and it eventually went through. We are able to do this sort of thing in many respects at present.

One of the ways which the English Tories have used to get out of their difficulties is by lumping Scottish Bills along with English Bills. I remember a Town and Country Planning Bill in which at the end of every clause there was a Scottish application. It was considered by a large Committee which included only two Scottish Members, George Willis and myself. Hon. Members can imagine what sort of time we had. The present Lord Drumalbyn was the junior Minister, and was he sorry for himself!

We shall still be legislating on Scottish matters in this House even if the Assembly is set up. There are many aspects of Scottish legislation which will remain. We shall get into considerable difficulties.

There may be the question of the dual right. It is not for Mr. Speaker to decide this but for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was especially insisted upon that that Committee should decide what was ultra or intra vires. This is not a simple matter. For our proceedings in the Scottish Grand Committee all that is required is that 10 hon. Members should rise in the Chamber and the matter does not go to the Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will remember exercising that privilege more than once in this Parliament.

What is the effectiveness of this provision proposed by another place? We are to have a Second Reading or a Third Reading and then we are to be asked to think again. It reminds me of a song I heard somewhere—I do not know whether it has anything to do with Argentina—with people being sent home to think again. It is an exercise in futility to suggest that we should have another Second Reading.

Incidentally, it is a wonder that the Lords did not say whether we should debate the matter or whether the Question was to be put forthwith. I suppose that someone will need to decide that. It will probably take us three or four days to decide whether to pass a regulation in respect of that. Is parliamentary time suddenly to become available?

This is one of the silliest things that I have ever read as a solution to a problem. I admit that there is a serious problem. I have always said so. The hon. Member for Cathcart should be the last person to talk about the Scottish people not being aware of this. I have spoken about it to the people of Scotland. I can assure him that I was prepared to accept the implications of what happened in respect of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman cannot suddenly say, when the Northern Ireland Members acted in the way that they did, that he will deny this right to the Scots. The Second Reading proposal, to take place after a fortnight, is nonsense. Anyone who expects the Scots to change their mind within 10 parliamentary sitting days—

Mr. Galbraith

The right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind.

Mr. Ross

The hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind on anything since the clay he was born. This proposal is an exercise in futility and time-wasting and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in what is, sadly, perhaps his last speech in this Chamber. It is an irony that his last speech should be one in favour of devolution because for 30 years of his honourable parliamentary career he has been the implacable opponent of Scottish separatism. It is only recently that he has displayed, as he would no doubt argue, his intelligence and his concern for new ideas which has enabled him to accept this measure of devolution.

I find it hard to support the proposals put forward by my Front Bench because there is some truth in the criticism that these are attempts to solve the insoluble. I shall vote for them, but I shall persist in the view that the West Lothian problem is insoluble. Having said that consistently throughout these 43 days, I must say that I have reflected upon the way in which previous difficulties between subordinate Parliaments have been resolved. I looked with interest at a book written by one of the greatest of Liberal Prime Ministers, Lord Rosebery, about one of the Tory Prime Ministers, the Younger Pitt. In that book, at page 193, Lord Rosebery spoke of the way in which the last Parliament in Ireland came to its unhappy end. He said: Of the corruption by which the Union was carried something remains to be noted. It was, admittedly, wholesale and horrible. But it must in fairness be remembered that this was the only method known of carrying on Irish government; the only means of passing any measure through the Irish Parliament; that, so far from being an exceptional phase of politics, it was only three or four years of Irish administration rolled into one. No Irish patriot can regard the Union as other than the sale of his Parliament, justifiable or unjustifiable according to his politics; but, for an English minister of that day, the purchase of that Parliament was habitual and invariable. The quotations of the parliamentary market were as well known as the quotations of wheat and of sugar. It is scarcely possible to open a letter from an Irish Viceroy or an Irish Secretary of that time without finding a calculation for the hire, open and avowed, of some individual or influence; or some cynical offer by some hungry nobleman of his interest for a determined price. It was the ordinary daily life of Dublin Castle; it was the air which the Government breathed; the nourishment which alone enabled it to exist.

Mr. George Cunningham

May we have the rest tomorrow?

Mr. Budgen

This is a very moving passage. It demonstrates exactly the way in which in a previous age the essential conflict between this House and a subordinate Parliament was resolved. In those days it was resolved by corruption. At the end of that passage, Lord Rosebery said: For a government which rules in disregard or defiance of Parliament must resort to bribery or resort to force. In relation to our dealings with Scotland, we have already had a threat of force from the Scottish National Party. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) interrupted me most helpfully in a previous speech. I was amazed. However, he has been good enough to supply me with the quotation. He spoke of a quotation in the Glasgow Herald of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) at a public meeting in 1955. That is, of course, a long time ago. But, no doubt, if there were conflict between this House and the Scottish Assembly, the hon. Gentleman would remember his remarks and act upon them. He said: If there are any English men here tonight I say that if they have any sense they will get out of Scotland now, while the going is good. It may not be so good in a few years' time. They should get out while they are still in one piece.

Mr. Douglas Henderson (Aberdeenshire, East)

The hon. Gentleman was good enough to bring to my attention something from a quarter of a century ago, which is quite a long time in my life. I want to make it clear that these are not my views, they are not the views of my party, and I repudiate them.

Mr. Budgen

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's handsome remarks. I accept that he no longer holds those views. But I understand he admits that he did express those views. It may be that other people would adopt those views in the event of there being a conflict between this House and the Scottish Assembly. It may be that the Irish expedient will be the next one that we try. Here I refer to the most helpful views of a Labour intellectual, Paul Johnson, who wrote an extremely interesting article in The Sunday Telegraph dealing most helpfully—

Mr. Robin F. Cook

A great intellectual paper.

Mr. Budget

Yes. One of the advantages of our unwritten constitution is its flexibility. One of the most interesting and no doubt exciting innovations introduced by the Labour Government was the whole business of quangos. We have heard that under our flexible constitution there are now—as Paul Johnson says, it would be to the envy of Sir Robert Walpole—nearly 18,000 quango members who are appointed by Ministers of the Crown.

10.30 p.m.

We are told that in the year up to May 1977 Ministers made over 1,100 such appointments. Maybe that will be the way in which the West Lothian problem is resolved, at least initially. Let us hope that it will not be resolved by force or corruption. Perhaps initially it may be resolved by the widespread distribution of quangos. But in the end, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, and as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock no doubt argued so eloquently for 30 of his 32 distinguished years, this central conundrum will break relations between this House and the Scottish Assembly.

It is the problem which will break and gnaw away at relations between this the sovereign Parliament and the subordinate Parliament which we are about to set up.

Mr. Henderson

It is a tradition of this House that one always congratulates an hon. Member on his maiden speech. I am not sure what the formula is in relation to a valedictory speech which the righ hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) announced that he was delivering tonight. Listening to it, I had the uneasy feeling for the first time in my life that I wished he would continue making speeches because he seemed to be moving closer and closer to the position of my party. Perhaps given a little more time, this worrying event, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) describes it—although not as worrying as his moving to this Bench—might confront us.

There are not so many occasions on which I find myself in a certain sympathy with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), but tonight is that almost unique occasion. I sympathise with him in the sense that I, too, believe that this is the first time we have had an opportunity to come to a firm decision on the matter.

The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that this matter had been a cloud over the whole proceedings—an admirable description of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—and that the matter had been referred to at various stages. But I understand the difficulty because I tabled an amendment requesting that this issue be dealt with in a particular way, that is, that Scottish Members in this House should not vote on matters which were analogous to devolved matters in the Scottish Assembly, but it was ruled out of order. In spite of great sympathy from the Chair, which hoped to find a way of having the matter discussed, there was no opportunity to take a decision on it. This is therefore the only opportunity we shall have to make any kind of a decision.

The Minister of State made a rather naïve comment when he said that this matter would require a great deal more thought. I thought the Government would have given it a great deal more thought before introducing the legislation.

Mr. John Smith

I meant that the amendment required a great deal more thought.

Mr. Henderson

I do not want to misquote the Minister of State, but I understood him to say that the implications and possibilities of this matter required a great deal more thought.

Mr. John Smith

What I was referring to—and it was quite clear—was the fact that the amendment had so many obvious defects.

Mr. Henderson

Although the Minister pointed out defects in that amendment, he could suggest no solution to the central problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is none."] Perhaps that is right.

I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian who said in an article in The Daily Telegraph today that the Bill was introduced not as a package of constitutional change for the better government of all the peoples of these islands but because of 11 Members on this Bench and the threat of others joining them. The missing link in this package is an England Bill so that English matters can be dealt with properly in an English Assembly.

It was in an attempt to provide a substitute for that Assembly that we tabled an amendment to provide that Scottish Members should cease to be Members of the House of Commons when it constituted itself into an English Assembly. That was done in a constructive spirit. Hon. Members pointed out defects in that amendment, but the defects in leaving this system as it is are much more serious. It is not fair or equitable that a Scottish majority should be able to impose a decision on English Members in respect of a matter on which they cannot vote in Scottish terms.

For the Minister of State to retreat into this airy-fairy world of Dicey and the constitutional theoreticians and to talk about soverignty not being devolved and Parliament remaining sovereign is to live in cloud-cuckoo land. He surely cannot imagine that a Parliament in Scotland, with electoral legitimacy and responsible to its own electorate, will tolerate any interference from this House in matters which are properly its concern. I do not believe that members of the Minister's own party in the Assembly, or Conservatives, or Liberals—if there are any—or SNP members will tolerate that.

It is not a party matter. It is an intensely patriotic Scottish matter: either we are given the responsibility to run these things or we are not. Consequently, to say that there is no need for any kind of change in the procedures of the House of Commons or in the power structure between Edinburgh and London as a result of this legislation because Parliament remains sovereign is so specious and naive that I am surpised the right hon. Gentleman put the argument forward.

Then we came to the question whether Mr. Speaker could certify matters as appropriate for discussion in a particular way. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, in a masterly understatement, said that things would never be crystal clear under this legislation. The Government should have made things crystal clear when they put it forward, and we should know where we stand. I was always brought up to believe that this famed House of Commons was the cradle of democracy, that its famed flexibility—

Mr. Douglas Crawford (Perth and East Perthshire)

Do not forget the 40 per cent. rule.

Mr. Henderson

My hon. Friend reminds me of the 40 per cent. rule for voting in the referendum—

Mr. Canavan

Crawford's 70 per cent. proof.

Mr. Henderson

The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) is neither proven nor not proven: he is guilty every time.

Can this House remain the same after a Scottish Assembly is established? I do not know that this is a valuable or valid way of tackling the problem, but I should have thought that this House, with all its experience, would have been able to adapt and to show some flexibility.

Therefore, I cannot accept the Minister's view that the amendment places the House or Mr. Speaker or some Committee in an impossible position. If it is carried, it will be a powerful pressure on the Government to bring forward new proposals quickly to deal with this matter and to ensure that responsibility for English matters is as clearly defined as responsibility for Scottish and Welsh matters.

If this amendment achieves anything, it is a period for reflection—sin bins, according to the Privy Council Office; but it is not that at all. It will put the spotlight on every vote in this House that is carried by a Scottish majority and imposed upon English people. I believe that that spotlight will bring an increasing political pressure to bear to ensure that a much more effective system is worked out.

In the sense that I regard this as an interim measure which will highlight this difficulty and put pressure on whichever Government are in power at the time to take action on it, I recommend to my right hon and hon. Friends that we support the amendment in the Divison Lobby.

Mr. Robin F. Cook

The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) was kind enough to refer to my own term "false prospectus" in the preceding debate. It is quite appropriate that he should have begun in that way, because we come in this debate to the other half of that false prospectus, namely, that we are offering the Scottish people the possibility of having devolution and a separate tier of government without any effect on their representation at Westminster.

I do not believe that that can be sustained, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was perfectly correct to say that the real issue at stake in this debate was the number of Scottish Members at Westminster. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) disagrees, but that is the real issue at stake in this debate. Indeed, if my hon. Friend disagrees, he has only to refer to the reports of the Lords debates to discover that there was a very lengthy debate in the other place which focused on the representation of Scotland here. The noble lord, Lord Brown, accurately summed up the balance of opinion in that debate when he said that everybody agreed that the representation of Scotland was too large and should be cut and that the only matter about which they disagreed was whether this Bill was the appropriate legislation with which to do it.

If we succeed in achieving devolution and set up an Assembly in Scotland, I do not believe that we shall also be successful in retaining 71 Members in this House. The effect of devolution will be to spotlight the fact that 71 Members representing Scottish seats will continue to come here and vote on matters pertaining solely to England.

I might add that it is not good enough to pray in aid the position of the Northern Ireland Members. We all know that at the one time in history when those right hon. and hon. Members made the difference in the House of Commons—in the 1964–66 Parliament—they became the focus of attack and of a spotlight aimed at the fact that they were participating in decisions which were devolved in Northern Ireland. During that period, the point was raised time and time again. If it was a focus of attention then, when it involved only 12 right hon. and hon. Members, how much more can we expect when it is a matter of 107 Welsh and Scottish Members voting in England?

Mr. Dewar

Will not my hon. Friend agree, however, that it is a total non sequitur to suggest that because devolution has come, we ought to reduce the number of Scottish Members at West-minister? After all, Scotland will still be represented here in terms of finance, foreign affairs and defence. It would be a tremendous injustice to say that because Scottish Members were no longer dealing with Scottish education at Westminster, it was right for Scotland to be underrepresented in these vital matters.

Mr. Cook

I have no dispute with my hon. Friend. I am not pressing that we lose either Garscadden or Edinburgh, Central. I am in favour of all 71 of us coming here. What is more, I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. Friend will be able to convince the electors of Garscadden that that should continue to be the case, as I shall be able to convince the electors of Edinburgh, Central. But I doubt whether we shall be able to go on convincing the electors of Cambridgeshire that this should remain the case, and, at the end of the day, they and others will have the largest number of votes in this House. This is where it comes under attack.

Having said that, I find very little in this series of amendments to commend them. It is very noticeable, reading through the debate in the House of Lords, that very few noble lords found very much to commend this amendment. It is very striking that the other place has given us an amendment which deals with the West Lothian question in the House of Commons but which makes no suggestion about the fate of Scottish peers in the House of Lords. The sole effect of this amendment would be to introduce a delay in our proceedings. It would do nothing more.

10.45 p.m.

If Scottish Members have persuaded themselves to come to this House and to vote in a certain way on English matters, they will not change their mind because for 10 days afterwards they are subjected to remarks at Prime Minister's Question Time and they are subjected to a running commentary in the editorial of The Times. If we were that easily browbeaten, we ought not to have been elected and we ought not to be here.

Nor will there be agonised debates within the Whips' Office whether they can really ask the Scottish Members to come back and vote for a second time. I regret to say that men given to self-doubt do not get appointed to the Whips' office. It is most improbable that they will, in the course of those 10 days of agonised reflection, come to a different viewpoint on the use of the Scottish votes.

The truth of the matter is that those 10 days would not be a cooling-off period during which we would quietly and calmly reflect on the propriety of Scottish Members voting on an issue. It would be a period in which the temperature would be heated up, as is generally the case with cooling-off periods. It would be a period in which the spotlight would be turned on the role of Scottish Members, but yet when it came to it, the same vote would be taken again.

What we have in this amendment is the unfortunate achievement which highlights the invidious nature of the problem and does nothing to remedy the problem. Indeed, I think that if it had any practical effect at all, it would be precisely the effect touched on by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), which was also spelt out with brutal frankness by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, who said that this could become on occasion, the reason, the excuse, for the House of Lords to reject a Bill passed through the House of Commons. I am bound to say that if the effect of the amendment would be to create the House of Lords as a sort of English Assembly exercising an English veto on United Kingdom Bills, we really would have put ourselves in a very unfortunate and very unstable position.

The truth of the matter is that if we went to solve this issue, we have to go much further than the amendment that is before us. I think that the noble Lord Lord Shinwell adequately summed up the difficulties with a particular vivid metaphor. During the debate in the other place, he said that we were on the horns of a dilemma and we were impaled on both of them.

If we really want to solve this problem, it is not enough simply to change the voting pattern in this House, either by convention or by some technique re- quiring us to have a replay of any vote that is particularly crucial or significant. It is not simply the voting that has to be changed. What has to be changed is the administration, because we all know that the real problem with the West Lothian question is that an administration for United Kingdom purposes might well lose its majority for English purposes. That is what would have happened, of course, in this Parliament. It might well happen in the course of the next Parliament. That is the nub of the difficulty.

We shall escape the West Lothian question and resolve that difficulty only when we are prepared to countenance a separate Administration for England or for parts of England. That is the inevitable corollary of what we are proposing for Scotland in this Bill, and that is what is bound to flow from it if we go through with it.

Mr. Grieve

We have had an Alice-in-Wonderland debate. The Alice-in-Wonderland quality proceeds from the fact that the Treasury Bench and the Minister of State have resolutely refused to face the reality of the problem with which the House is trying to deal tonight. The reality of the problem is that it would be quite intolerable for the people of England, the day after the passing of this measure into law, and in the days, weeks, months and years that succeed, to find that Scottish Members and/or Welsh Members have a voice in making decisions for England and that English Members have no voice in making comparable decisions in the same field for the people of Scotland and Wales.

That is the dilemma. That is the problem. The Minister of State flippantly ignores it. He does not go to the root of the problem at all. As for the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), his speech bristled with fallacies. The Minister of State said that the classic way in which this problem had been resolved was the way in which it had been resolved in Northern Ireland. That way was that Northern Ireland was grossly under-represented in this House because the people of Northern Ireland, in their own Stormont, had control over a number of the major issues affecting their everyday lives.

Scotland under this Bill will remain grossly over-represented, as it has always been, because we cannot touch it. The Lords have tried to deal with the problem in the amendment. What we are doing, with the support of some hon. Members opposite, is to support the Lords amendment because it is a way of dealing with the problem, which will not go away and must be dealt with. For that reason, it has my support, and I shall also support the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) because they introduce a more realistic element into dealing with the problem by making it a Second Reading and not a Third Reading matter.

I do not pretend for a moment that this is a perfect way of dealing with the problem. I do not believe that there is a perfect way of dealing with it. I have always resolutely been opposed to devolution altogether. I do not want the United Kingdom to be broken up in any way, and I believe that in this legislation lie the seeds of such a break-up. Those seeds lie in the conflict which will appear when the people of England see what they regard as interference by other peoples in matters in which they have not got comparable rights.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) was right in pinpointing the attitudes which will be taken by Her Majesty's subjects residing in England—that is the way I prefer to regard this—and the attitudes taken by Her Majesty's subjects residing in Scotland, who will have the right to control their affairs over a wide range whereas those residing in England will not have that right.

This problem must be dealt with. It goes to the whole root of the legislation. For that reason, I shall support the Lords amendment. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland situation because the Government and the Minister of State are completely unrealistic in their approach. They are unrealistic because they approach the matter in what they believe to be political realism, in that they wish, through the Scottish Members, to keep their control of the House of Commons. The people of England will not tolerate that.

Mr. George Cunningham

I think that the representative of an English consti- tuency is entitled to say a word on this subject, more than on most others we have debated. It is rightly said that the proposal before us is not a perfect solution to the problem. It is not a solution. It does not come anywhere near to solving it. The problem is totally insoluble.

I shall support the proposal tonight for only one reason—that the people of Scotland, in the course of the referendum campaign, are entitled to know that the difficulties that will be created by the Bill as it stands are insoluble. The proposal before us will do nothing to solve them or ameliorate them or do anything at all after devolution comes into effect, if it does. As I see it, its value is that perhaps the people of Scotland can be brought to understand what they do not, with respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), appreciate now, that there is an imbalance in the arrangements and that that imbalance will ensure the destruction in due course, as the Scottish National Party wants and trusts, of the devolution proposals.

What will happen during the fortnight of the cooling-off period is this. English constituents will make representations to English Members of Parliament saying "If that is the way the thing is to work, we want you, as soon as you have a majority in the House for this view, to change it." It will have to wait for a Conservative majority, because in party terms it will be the Conservative Party that has the principal interest in making the change. As soon as there is a reasonable Conservative majority in this House, the situation will be changed and the result will either be that Scots Members are excluded from voting upon purely English matters or one of the other halfway houses that have been suggested.

But none of those devices actually solves the problem. One has only to ask oneself, as has been said many times, what will happen after a general election when a majority of the English Members is Conservative and a majority of the British Members is Labour.

There is no way out of the dilemma. The sooner the Scottish people realise that in the end they have to choose between independence or more or less the status quo, the sooner we shall have an honest choice made in Scotland. There is no middle way, and the value of tonight's debate, and of the result, if we pass the amendment, will be to bring that home a little more realistically to the people of Scotland.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)

The totality of what can be achieved by the Scottish Assembly will be determined entirely by the English Members. It is entirely in their power to decide what happens. I find myself at complete variance with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and many of my hon. Friends who have spoken this evening. I can say equally that there may be many things, for instance, in the field of education in England where, if a change is made, the amount of money involved will at once have repercussions on what happens to Scotland. I am absolutely opposed to any idea that as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament I should not vote on every matter which comes before the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. George Robertson

The noble Lords in another place, who spent quite some time considering the matter that they chose to call the West Lothian question, did so in the belief that they were considering the problems associated with groups of people voting on matters for which they would have no ultimate responsibility. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that that decision was taken by them in the other House, where none of them is responsible at any stage to any electorate for any of the decisions taken.

It is all the more ironic, indeed, when we consider that the voting figures in that Division were 99 for the amendment and 72 against the amendment. If we remove from that vote the component of hereditary peers who apparently were drafted in for the occasion, the majority the other way would have been 37 votes—66 votes against the amendment and 29 votes in favour of the amendment. A lot of the noise being made on behalf of those who suggest that we should simply establish a principle of those not having the tight or having the responsibility not being able to vote, seems to me a little different in the light of these facts.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

What makes the hon. Gentleman think that the appointed Members of the Upper House are any better than the others?

Mr. Robertson

They were at least appointed on the basis of the skills they have and not the skills that their fathers had. I will paraphrase the words of Lord Campbell, who, in a previous debate on another subject, asked where the Government would be without a second Chamber. There are two responses to that. One of them is self-evident. The second is to ask where that particular noble Lord would be without the second Chamber.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing (Moray and Nairn)

rose—

Mr. Robertson

What facts have been produced here?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson

I will not give way. What has been produced—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

rose—

Mr. Robertson

The noble Lord Lord Houghton described this as being the worst—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. It must be clear to the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is not giving way.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

Feart.

Mr. Robertson

I am still the Member of Parliament for Hamilton. Lord Shin-well supported it but opposed it, Lord Banks supported it but opposed it, and Lord Glenkinglas supported it but opposed it.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 288.

Division No. 275]	AYES	[11.0 p.m.
Aitken, Jonathan	Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	Mather, Carol
Alison, Michael	Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Maude, Angus
Arnold, Tom	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Mawby, Ray
Awdry, Daniel	Glyn, Dr. Alan	Maxwell-Hyslop, Hobin
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	Mayhew, Patrick
Baker, Kenneth	Goodhart, Philip	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Banks, Robert	Goodhew, Victor	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Bell, Ronald	Goodlad, Alastair	Mills, Peter
Bendall, Vivian	Gorst, John	Miscampbell, Norman
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Moate, Roger
Benyon, W.	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Molyeneaux, James
Berry, Hon Anthony	Grieve, Percy	Monro, Hector
Biffen, John	Griffiths, Eldon	Montgomery, Fergus
Biggs-Davison, John	Grist, Ian	Moore, John (Croydon C)
Blaker, Peter	Grylls, Michael	More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Body, Richard	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Morgan, Geraint
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Bottomley, Peter	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Hampson, Dr Keith	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Hannam, John	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mudd, David
Brittan, Leon	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Neave, Airey
BrocKlebank-FowIer, C.	Haselhurst, Alan	Nelson, Anthony
Brooke, Peter	Hastings, Stephen	Neubert, Michael
Brotherton, Michael	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Newton, Tony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hawkins, Paul	Normanton, Tom
Bryan, Sir Paul	Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Nott, John
Buck, Antony	Henderson, Douglas	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Budgen, Nick	Hicks, Robert	Osborn, John
Bulmer, Esmond	Higgins, Terence L.	Page, John (Harrow West)
Burden, F. A.	Hodgson, Robin	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Holland, Philip	Page, Richard (Workington)
Carlisle, Mark	Hordern, Peter	Parkinson, Cecil
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Howell, David (Guildford)	Pattie, Geoffrey
Channon, Paul	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Percival, Ian
Churchill, W. S.	Hunt, David (Wirral)	Peyton, Rt Hon John
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Hunt, John (Bromley)	Pink, R. Bonner
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Hurd, Douglas	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Clegg, Walter	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cockcroft, John	James, David	Prior, Rt Hon James
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)	Jenkln, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Cope, John	Jessel, Toby	Raison, Timothy
Cormack, Patrick	Johneon Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Rathbone, Tim
Costain, A. P.	Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Jopling, Michael	Reid, George
Crawford, Douglas	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Crouch, David	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Crowder, F. P.	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Rhodes James, R.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Kershaw, Anthony	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dalyell, Tam	Kilfedder, James	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Kimball, Marcus	Ridsdele, Julian
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Rifklnd, Malcolm
Dodsworth, Geoffrey	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Drayson, Burnaby	Knight, Mrs Jill	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Lamont, Norman	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Durant, Tony	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Dykes, Hugh	Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Lawrence, Ivan	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Lawson, Nigel	Royle, Sir Anthony
Elliott, Sir William	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Sainsbury, Tim
Emery, Peter	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Lloyd, Ian	Scott, Nicholas
Eyre, Reginald	Loveridge, John	Scott-Hopkins, James
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Luce, Richard	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Farr, John	MacCormick, Iain	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fell, Anthony	McCrindle, Robert	Shepherd, Colin
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Macfarlane, Neil	Shersby, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel	MacGregor, John	Sillars, James
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)	Silvester, Fred
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Sims, Roger
Fookes, Miss Janet	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Sinclair, Sir George
Forman, Nigel	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Madel, David	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Fox, Marcus	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Marten, Nell	Speed, Keith
Fry, Peter	Mates, Michael	Spence, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)	Thompson, George	Weatherill, Bernard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)	Townsend, Cyril D.	Wells, John
Stainton, Keith	Trotter, Neville	Welsh, Andrew
Startbrook, Ivor	van Straubenzee, W. R.	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Stanley, John	Vaughan, Dr Gerald	Whitney, Raymond
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)	Viggers, Peter	Wiggin, Jerry
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)	Wakeham, John	Winterton, Nicholas
Stokes, John	Walder, David (Clitheroe)	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Tapsell, Peter	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek	Younger, Hon George
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)	Wall, Patrick
Tebbit, Norman	Walters, Dennis	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Temple-Morris, Peter	Warren, Kenneth	Mr. J. Stradling Thomas and
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret	Watt, Hamish	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
NOES
Allaun, Frank	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Anderson, Donald	Duffy, A. E. P.	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Dunn, James A.	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Armstrong, Ernest	Dunnett, Jack	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ashley, Jack	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Judd, Frank
Ashton, Joe	Eadie, Alex	Kaufman, Gerald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Edge, Geoff	Kelly, Richard
Atkinson, Norman	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Kerr, Russell
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Lamble, David
Bates, Alt	English, Michael	Lamborn, Harry
Bean, R. E.	Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Lamond, James
Beith, A. J.	Evans, John (Newton)	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Lee, John
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Faulds, Andrew	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Bidwell, Sydney	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Bishop, E. S.	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Flannery, Martin	Litterick, Tom
Boardman, H.	Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)	Loyden, Eddie
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Luard, Evan
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Lyon, Alexander (York)
Bottomley Rt Hon Arthur	Ford, Benn	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Forrester, John	Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Bradley, Tom	Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)	McCartney, Hugh
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	McDonald Dr Oonagh
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Freeson, Reginald	McElhone, Frank
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Freud, Clement	MacFarquhar, Roderick
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Buchan, Norman	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Buchanan, Richard	George, Bruce	Maclennan, Robert
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Gilbert, Dr John	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Middleton & P)	Ginsburg. David	McNamara, Kevin
Campbell, Ian	Golding, John	Madden, Max
Canavan, Dennis	Gould, Bryan	Magee, Bryan
Cant, R. B.	Gourlay, Harry	Mahon, Simon
Carmichael, Neil	Graham, Ted	Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Grant, John (Islington C)	Marks, Kenneth
Cartwright, John	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Grocott, Bruce	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Clemitson, Ivor	Hardy, Peter	Maynard, Miss Joan
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol, S)	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter (Wakefield)	Meacher, Michael
Cohen, Stanley	Hart, Rt Hon Judith	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Coleman, Donald	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Mikardo, Ian
Concannon, J. D.	Hayman, Mrs Helene	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Conlan, Bernard	Heffer, Eric S.	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Hooley, Frank	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Corbett, Robin	Hooson, Emlyn	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Cowans, Harry	Horam, John	Molloy, William
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Moonman, Eric
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)	Howell, Geraint (Cardigan)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Crawshaw, Richard	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Cronin, John	Huckfield, Les	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Moyle, Roland
Cryer, Bob	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Davidson, Arthur	Hunter, Adam	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)	Irvine. Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Murton, George
Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Newens, Stanley
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Noble, Mike
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Oakes, Gordon
Deakins, Eric	Janner, Greville	Ogden, Eric
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	O'Halloran, Michael
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Orbach, Maurice
Dempsey, James	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Dewar, Donald	John, Brynmor	Ovenden, John
Doig, Peter	Johnson, James (Hull West)	Palmer, Arthur
Dormand, J. D.	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Pardoe, John
Park, George	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)	Urwin, Tom
Parry, Robert	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Pavitt, Laurie	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Pendry, Tom	Silverman, Julius	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Penhaligon, David	Skinner, Dennis	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Perry, Ernest	Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)	Ward, Michael
Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Snape, Peter	Watkins, David
Price, William (Rugby)	Spearing, Nigel	Watkinson, John
Radice, Giles	Spriggs, Leslie	Weetch, Ken
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Stallard, A. W.	Weitzman, David
Richardson, Miss Jo	Steel, Rt Hon David	Wellbeloved, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Stewart, Rt Hon Michael (Fulham)	White, James (Pollok)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Stoddard, David	Whitehead, Philip
Robertson, George (Hamilton)	Stott, Roger	Whtlock, William
Robinson, Geoffrey	Strang, Gavin	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Roderick, Caerwyn	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)	Swain, Thomas	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Rooker, J. W.	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Roper, John	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Rose, Paul B.	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)	Woodall, Alec
Rowlands, Ted	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)	Woof, Robert
Ryman, John	Tierney, Sydney	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Sandelson, Neville	Filley, John	Young, David (Bolton E)
Sedgemore, Brian	Tinn, James
Sever, John	Tomlinson, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	Tomney, Frank	Mr. James Hamilton arid
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Torney, Tom	Mr. Frank R. White
Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 286.

Division No. 276]	AYES	[11.17 p.m.
Allaun, Frank	Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Faulds, Andrew
Anderson, Donald	Cohen, Stanley	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Archer, Peter	Coleman, Donald	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Armstrong, Ernest	Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Flannery, Martin
Ashley, Jack	Conlan, Bernard	Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Ashton, Joe	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Corbett, Robin	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, Norman	Cowans, Harry	Ford, Ben
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Forrester, John
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Bates, Alt	Crawshaw, Richard	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Bean, R. E.	Cronin, John	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Beith, A. J.	Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Freud, Clement
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Cryer, Bob	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)	George, Bruce
Bidwell, Sydney	Davidson, Arthur	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bishop, E. S.	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Ginsburg, David
Blenkintop, Arthur	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Golding, John
Boardman, H.	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Gould, Bryan
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Gourlay, Harry
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Deakins, Eric	Graham, Ted
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Grant, John (Islington C)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Dempsey, James	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Bradley, Tom	Dewar, Donald	Grocott, Bruce
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Doig, Peter	Hamilton, Rt Hon James
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Dormand, J. D.	Hardy, Peter
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Duffy, A. E. P.	Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Buchan, Norman	Dunn, James A.	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Buchanan, Richard	Dunnott, Jack	Hayman, Mrs Helene
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Heffer, Eric S.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Eadie, Alex	Hooley, Frank
Campbell, Ian	Edge, Geoff	Hooson, Emlyn
Canavan, Dennis	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Horam, John
Cant, R. B.	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Carmichael, Neil	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	English, Michael	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Cartwright, John	Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Huckfield, Les
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Evans, John (Newton)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Clemitson, Ivor	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Hunter, Adam	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Skinner, Dennis
Irvine, Fit Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)	Spearing, Nigel
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Molloy, William	Spriggs, Leslie
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Moonman, Eric	Stallard, A. W.
Janner, Greville	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Stoddart, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Morton, George	Stott, Roger
John, Brynmor	Moyle, Rt HonRoland	Strang, Gavin
Johnson, James (Hull West)	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Summerskill, Hon. Dr Shirley
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Newens, Stanley	Swain, Thomas
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Noble, Mike	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Jones. Barry (East Flint)	Oakes, Gordon	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Ogden, Eric	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Judd, Frank	O'Halloran, Michael	Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Orbach, Maurice	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Kelley, Richard	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Kerr, Russell	Ovenden, John	Tierney, Sydney
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Palmer, Arthur	Tilley, John
Lambie, David	Pardoe, John	Tinn, James
Lamborn, Harry	Park, George	Tomlinson, John
Lamond, James	Parry, Robert	Tomney, Frank
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Pavitt, Laurie	Torney, Tom
Lee, John	Pendry, Tom	Urwin, T. W.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Perry, Ernest	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Price, William (Rugby)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Litterick, Tom	Radice, Giles	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Loyden, Eddie	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Ward, Michael
Luard, Evan	Richardson, Miss Jo	Watkins, David
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Watkinson, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Weetch, Ken
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Weitzman, David
McCartney, Hugh	Robinson, Geoffrey	Wellbeloved, James
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Roderick, Caerwyn	White, Frank R. (Bury)
McElhone, Frank	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	White, James (Pollok)
MacFarquhar, Roderick	Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)	Whitehead, Phillip
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Rooker, J. W.	Whitlock, William
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Roper, John	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
MacKenzie, Gregor	Rose, Paul B.	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Maclennan, Robert	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
McNamara, Kevin	Rowlands, Ted	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Madden, Max	Ryman, John	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Magee, Bryan	Sandelson, Neville	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Mahon, Simon	Sedgemore, Brian	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Sever, John	Woodall, Alec
Marks, Kenneth	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	Woof, Robert
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Young, David (Bolton E)
Maynard, Miss Joan	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Meacher, Michael	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Mr. Peter Snape and
Mikardo, Ian	Silverman. Julius	Mr. Joseph Dean
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan	Brotherton, Michael	Dalyell, Tam
Alison, Michael	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Arnold, Tom	Bryan, Sir Paul	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Buck, Antony	Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Awdry, Daniel	Budgen, Nick	Drayson, Burnaby
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Bulmor, Esmond	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Baker, Kenneth	Burden, F. A.	Durant, Tony
Banks, Robert	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Dykes, Hugh
Bell, Ronald	Carlisle. Mark	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Bendall, Vivian	Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Channon, Paul	Elliott, Sir William
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Churchill, W. S.	Emery, Peter
Benyon, W.	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Clark, William (Croydon S)	Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Biffen, John	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Eyre, Reginald
Biggs-Davison, John	Clegg, Walter	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Blaker, Peter	Cockcroft, John	Farr, John
Body, Richard	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Fell, Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Cope, John	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Bottomley, Peter	Cormack, Patrick	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Costain, A. P.	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Braine, Sir Bernard	Crawford, Douglas	Fookes, Miss Janet
Brittan, Leon	Crouch, David	Forman, Nigel
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Crowder, F. P.	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Brooke, Peter	Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Fox, Marcus
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Loveridge, John	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fry, Peter	Luce, Richard	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.	MacCormick, Iain	Ross, William (Londonderry)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	McCrindle, Robert	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Macfarlane, Neil	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	MacGregor, John	Royle, Sir Anthony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Mackay, Andrew (Stechford)	Sainsbury, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Scott, Nicholas
Goodhart, Philip	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Goodhew, Victor	Madel, David	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Goodlad, Alastair	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Gorst, John	Marten, Neil	Shepherd, Colin
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Mates, Michael	Shersby, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Mather, Carol	Silvester, Fred
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Maude, Angus	Sims, Roger
Grieve, Percy	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Sinclair, Sir George
Griffiths, Eldon	Mawby, Ray	Skeet, T. H. H.
Grist, Ian	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Grylls, Michael	Mayhew, Patrick	Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Speed, Keith
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Spence, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mills, Peter	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Miscampbell, Norman	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Hannam, John	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Stainton, Keith
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Moate, Roger	Stanbrook, Ivor
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Molyneaux, James	Stanley, John
Haselhurst, Alan	Monro, Hector	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hastings, Stephen	Montgomery, Fergus	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Havers, Sir Michael	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hawkins, Paul	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Stokes, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Morgan, Geraint	Stradling, Thomas, J.
Henderson, Douglas	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admral	Tapsell, Peter
Hicks, Robert	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Higgins, Terence L.	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Tebbit, Norman
Hodgson, Robin	Mudd, David	Temple-Morris, Peter
Holland, Philip	Neave, Airey	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Hordern, Peter	Nelson, Anthony	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Howell, David (Guildford)	Neubert, Michael	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Newton, Tony	Thompson, George
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Normanton, Tom	Townsend, Cyril D.
Hunt, John (Bromley)	Nott, John	Trotter, Neville
Hurd, Douglas	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Osborn, John	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Page, John (Harrow West)	Viggers, Peter
James, David	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Page, Richard (Workington)	Wakeham, John
Jessel, Toby	Parkinson, Cecil	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Pattie, Geoffrey	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Penhaligon, David	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Jopling, Michael	Percival, Ian	Wall, Patrick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Walters, Dennis
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Pink, R. Bonner	Warren, Kenneth
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Watt, Hamish
Kershaw, Anthony	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Weatherill, Bernard
Kilfedder, James	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wells, John
Kimball, Marcus	Prior, Rt Hon James	Welsh, Andrew
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Raison, Timothy	Whitney, Raymond
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Rathbone, Tim	Wiggin, Jerry
Knight, Mrs Jill	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Wigley, Dafydd
Knox, David	Reid, George	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Lamont, Norman	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Winterton, Nicholas
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rhodes, James R.	Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)
Lawrence, Ivan	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Younger, Hon George
Lawson, Nigel	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Ridsdale, Julian	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and
Lloyd, Ian	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In accordance with precedent, I vote in favour of the form of the Bill as it left this House; that is to say, against the Lords amendment. Accordingly, I cast my vote with the Ayes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 87 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 88 to 96 agreed to.