Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 30, line 8, at end insert new Clause A—
A.—(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 hate 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 second time all those representing parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, that Bill shall be deemed not to have been read the second 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 second time.
§ (2) Subsection (I) 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 but would, if it had related to or concerned Scotland, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly."
Lords amendment: No. 5, in the Title, line 2, after "Scotland" insert:
and in the procedure of Parliament".
§ The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith)
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
No doubt right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will regard this debate with something of a sense of déjà vu. We debated the issue as recently as 17th July. At that time the House rejected by 288 votes to 282 the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to the new clause from the House of Lords.
By the casting vote of Mr. Speaker the new clause, as unamended, was rejected by the House. The clause which the Lords have sent back incorporates the two main amendments proposed by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. That comes as no surprise. The Front Bench Opposition amendments were apparently readily accepted by the Lords. The proposition is that a second vote should take place at Second Reading instead of at Third Reading and that the main condition precedent should be narrowed so that it applies only to Bills which are within the legislative competence of the Assembly if they concern Scotland.
When we debated the matter previously I made clear on the Government's behalf that we opposed the proposition in principle. I suggest that it was unrealistic as a practical proposition. In the short time that has elapsed I have not been persuaded that either of those views were wrong. I shall argue that proposition forcibly again today. I shall oppose it on grounds of principle and impracticality.
I hope that other hon. Members will have had time to reflect that this proposal is not sensible and that it should not be inserted in the Bill—for all sorts of reasons to do with the way in which 1639 Parliament is run and the way in which we should handle legislation post-devolution.
I turn to the issue of principle. I explained on the last occasion that we debated this subject why the Government do not accept that there is a case in principle for either "in and out" voting or the somewhat half-hearted and perhaps even half-baked compromise in the present new clause.
Parliament will remain sovereign and 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 the Assembly. Even in devolved areas, in addition to its inherent power to legislate, Parliament will directly control the use of the Government's reserve powers of override. Even in matters which do not formally or directly touch Scotland, legislation for England and Wales—which contains nearly 90 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom—is bound to have repercussions for the remaining 10 per cent. of the population in a way that does not apply to the same degree in the reverse direction. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made that point clearly on the previous occasion.
§ Mr. Raison
I do not understand the Minister's argument. If, for example, it is decided by Parliament in England that there must be comprehensive education, does the Minister say that it necessarily follows that there must be comprehensive education in Scotland? If that is what he is saying it makes nonsense of devolution.
§ Mr. Smith
I am not surprised, because the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) has shown his total opposition to devolution in any shape or form. I am glad that he has turned out to listen to my explanation.
I am not trying to make a partisan point or to argue a case which is based on 1640 party politics. I am comforted by some research into a book called "Inside Right" written by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who is a member of the Shadow Cabinet. In the chapter on the constitution, on page 220, it is stated thatTo give Scotland by devolution what was in effect, say, a federal system without imposing federalism elsewhere seems to me to be quite feasible.No doubt that will be of great interest to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, in view of the recent speech that he made. The same paragraph in that chapter reads:the objection that Scottish MPs would have a vote on, say, housing and education in England while English MPs (and also Scottish MPs) would have no control over those subjects in Scotland seems legalistic. Whatever happens in England will have a great influence on what is done in Scotland, since great disparities between England and the rest would not be tolerated in the devolved areas. It is not therefore unreasonable that the Scots should be allowed some influence on decisions made for England. That surely would not be too high a price to pay for the maintenance of the Union.It is most important that Conservative Members should know the views of the right hon. Gentleman. We have here the nub of the argument. In-and-out voting and the apology for it that we are considering under this clause are divisive. That is one of the reasons why the amendment seems to have the support of the SNP. That is something on which the Conservatives ought to reflect.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. William Benyon (Buckingham)
I can see that if there is a financial aspect to what we do in England that could conceivably affect what happens in Scotland. But why should it possibly have any effect on the point just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—comprehensive education—where, if the expenditure is the same, there would be no effect on Scotland?
§ Mr. Smith
There may well be different schemes for the organisation of education as between Scotland and England. But there are many other matters where the pattern of spending policy which is followed for 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom is bound to have some effect on the rest, albeit that it is controlled by a devolved Assembly. That is such an obvious point, that I do not put it 1641 forward with any claim of originality. It is one that I was pleased to read in an important book by an important and thoughtful Member of the Opposition.
§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)
My right hon. Friend does not agree with the rest of the book. Why does he agree with that bit?
§ Mr. Smith
It is quite common for us to read propositions and agre with some parts of them while disagreeing with others. That is something that my hon. Friend might even occasionally do himself.
I accept that not everyone shares this view of the matter. There are others in the Conservative Party who hold a different view, and there are obviously some of my hon. Friends who take a different view from me. But even those who do not share my view on the matter of principle should pause to consider whether we should write this ill-considered scheme into the Bill. Hon. Members should carefully reflect upon the practical considerations.
Let me draw the attention of the House to the main condition precedent, that is, the requirement that there will be a second vote after a gap of 14 days. Bills subjected to this procedure would be those that did not concern Scotland but which, if they did, would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly. I do not know whether that means that every provision in a Bill has to relate to devolved matters, or whether one minor provision would bring the Bill within the net. Perhaps those who support the amendment will explain that.
I believe that we are faced with a very unwieldy procedure. It would be open to a Government to write small provisions into a Bill in order that it could escape the test. There is also the very serious problem to which I drew attention before, namely, who is to decide whether, in a particular case, the special procedure is to apply? Apparently that will be Mr. Speaker. That amounts, in effect, to trying to reach a decision on the vires of Scottish Assembly legislation in the absence of any advantages which the Judicial Committee has for deciding such a proposition. Therefore, on what might be even a small provision Mr. Speaker would be required to make a difficult and sensitive decision which might have consequences that were not foreseen.
1642 We have heard a good deal about the 14-day period, but little justification of the reason for such a gap. It might be longer than 14 days, because the amendment concentrates on 14 sitting days, but that is a minor matter. The arrangement seems to put Scottish Members of Parliament into a peculiar situation. It has been described as a cooling-off period, a sin bin, and various other things, and evidently there is to be special concentration during the period required for reflection upon the matter by Scottish Members in order to see whether they will change their minds. That almost implies that they would vote in some hotheaded way on the first occasion and that in the intervening period somehow they would reach another conclusion.
Surely Scottish MPs, given that it is conceded that they are entitled to vote on all matters coming before the House—because it is no part of this proposition that they should not be—can be assumed to exercise their votes on the first occasion, as on the second occasion, in as considered, careful and responsible way as any other Member of Parliament.
I think that the proposal is a bit of a gimmick. In another place, nearly every Member said that he did not think much of the clause but felt it necessary to draw the matter to the attention of the House of Commons and send it back here for further consideration. It had very few friends, because no one actually endorsed the proposal. I believe that that, too, was the tone of the debate in this House on 17th July. The proposal is ill-conceived in principle. It would be capricious in its application. We should not seek to change long established procedures almost by a sidewind in a Bill of this kind.
§ Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrewshire, East)
I do not accept the argument that the Minister has put forward. Will he go so far as to admit that we are faced with one of the most serious difficulties arising from the whole Bill? Will he offer some solution to the problem which, whatever views we hold, we must admit exists?
§ Mr. Smith
The right hon. Lady well knows that we are discussing one particular amendment and whether we can improve the situation for the House of Commons post-devolution. The so-called problem is greatly exaggerated. I accept however, that there are other views 1643 on that matter. I am trying to concentrate on the practical issue. This is not a debate about the principle, but about whether we amend the Bill. The amendment provides a foolish way of making a change. The proposal is not beneficial for the House or its procedures. It is on that practical ground that I base my argument. We should avoid approaching the issue in a narrow and partisan way. We have to be careful about our procedures. This is the wrong way to change them, and we would regret doing it.
§ Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's arguments against the amendment in principle. He spoke of introducing some kind of in and out system, but the amendment does not do that. He talked about the override powers and the sovereignty of Parliament but this amendment does not bear on the override powers. It may be possible to arrange an Assembly in Scotland without comparable Assemblies in other parts of the United Kingdom and without affecting the unity of the United Kingdom, but not under this Bill. Therefore, I disagree with him on all those points.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought the amendment would result in excessive divisiveness. He said that in essence it was divisive, and later he referred to it as a gimmick. I believe that it will contribute to reducing, although perhaps only to a slight degree, the divisiveness that is inherent in the Bill. He said that he thought that it was unwieldly, whereas I think that it is extraordinarily simple.
We did not table an amendment last time on the question of the 14 days. I agree that this is a matter that could be argued about, but 14 days seemed to us a reasonable time and we therefore took that proposal at its face value when it came from the other place. I am certain, however, that the House is right to return to the issue because sooner or later it will prove fatal to the satisfactory working of devolution as proposed.
We have argued for many months about the many flaws that we feel are in the scheme, but we believe that this flaw is one of the worst. I am glad that we have returned to the matter, because it makes the House of Commons face the reality of what we are doing, which, as 1644 the Bill stands, is to put Members of Parliament representing Scottish seats in something of a privileged position, while disadvantaging the rest of us.
There is no doubt that it would be possible for Members representing Scottish seats to vote on matters affecting England which no other Member can vote for in respect of Scotland, and that will apply even with this amendment. It does not supply a solution to that difficulty. I do not see how it can supply a solution to the insoluble. However, in a gentle and reasonable way it gives the House a chance to have second thoughts, to have time for reflection, on a Bill not relating to Scotland, which has been passed at Second Reading but would not have been pasesd but for the vote of Scottish Members of Parliament.
At present, and for many years past, all hon. Members of this House have been entitled to vote on all issues, with the result that on occasions a policy has been imposed by this House on one part of the United Kingdom, be it Scotland, England, or wherever, which that part of the United Kingdom did not want. But that position and that result have proved acceptable throughout the United Kingdom and have been accepted because they apply throughout the United Kingdom. All parts of the kindom are treated exactly the same. It is how this parliamentary system has worked for a very long time in this unitary State.
Under the Bill, that is to be altered. The Government like to pretend otherwise. They studiously neglect even to acknowledge the existence of this change or to explain it and its significance either to the people of Scotland or to the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. The silence of Ministers throughout the country on this important business is a very remarkable fact.
From what the right hon. Gentleman said, I realise that he does not like this amendment. I think that one reason why he does not like it is that it exposes what the Government have sought to keep secret. It exposes an arrangement that cannot for long remain acceptable to the other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Long Title of the Bill was designed, of course, by the Government. It precluded any amendment at all on this subject, until the Lords gave us this opportunity. The Long Title was drawn 1645 deliberately—I make no complaint about this, but it must have been so drawn—to deny the possibility of making a change of this kind.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and, for that matter, all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, whether they think that it is likely to prove acceptable that their colleagues representing other parts of the United Kingdom can have their preferences and their policies relating to their part of the United Kingdom overturned or overruled by the votes of Scottish Members of Parliament, when no Member of this House can vote on those same issues for Scotland.
How many hon. Members—apart from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and perhaps one or two others—have explained this aspect of the Bill to the people of Scotland? Certainly I and some of my hon. Friends have tried to do so, and I know that some others have. But there has been no serious attempt to explain this flaw to the people of Scotland. The Government, certainly, have made no effort to do so; indeed, the very opposite. I do not think that either the press or the media in Scotland have given it enough attention.
To this extent, we have the argument that when the referendum campaign comes—if it does, and that seems quite likely—a false prospectus will be being put to the people of Scotland, or at any rate a lack of profound understanding of what is involved.
§ Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton)
I think that I understand perfectly the force of my right hon. Friend's argument about the weakness of the Bill. However, will he be going on to explain, as I hope he will, to those innocents abroad such as myself, exactly how the amendment before us would help to resolve this position? I am afraid that it is not clear to me.
§ Mr. Pym
As I have said, it does not resolve this position. Nothing can resolve it because the data of the problems as presented in the Bill are incompatible. They conflict. There is no solution. But what the amendment does is, in a slight degree, to bear up on it, to the extent that if a Bill not affecting Scotland in the devolved areas is voted in a particular way but would not have been voted in that way but for the vote of Scottish Members 1646 of Parliament, there is this time for reflection—to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words—when there is a second vote when hon. Members can return and vote again. If they decide to vote in the same way, so be it.
The right hon. Gentleman frowns. Does he not think that it is a good idea that if a vote has had that effect it would be very reasonable for hon. Members to pause and reflect upon what they are actually doing, which is causing something to be decided for one part of the United Kingdom which this House could not decide for another part of the United Kingdom?
§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are many people north of the border who do not know at present that the situation will be that their representatives will have a say on purely English matters after devolution and that the value of this amendment is that in the referendum campaign the passing of the amendment will bring that point home a little better than would otherwise be the case?
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Pym
The right hon. Gentleman says that they do understand. From all my visits to Scotland, I am sure that they do not. I do not pretend to be a Scot, but I do not accept that for one moment.
The amendment does not seek to interfere in any way with the voting rights of any Member of this House. All can continue to vote on all issues. But in the circumstances envisaged here, which I have just described, the amendment provides a pause for second thoughts. It may very well put strains on hon. Members during those 14 days. There may well be tensions and stresses pulling in opposite directions on hon. Members during the interval and between the two votes. But that is precisely what the interval is for.
If, after reflection, and after judging the matter, the House decides that it will confirm what it voted upon earlier in the way that it voted earlier, so be it. But 1647 it is just possible that on second thoughts, hon. Members might decide that it was not absolutely reasonable that their vote should have that effect on some other part of the United Kingdom in which they were not directly interested.
There is then the question of deciding about whether a Bill applies to Scotland. In my view, it will be no more difficult for this House to decide which Bills do not apply to Scotland than it will be for the Assembly to decide what is within its competence. That is something which the Government have claimed all along has been carefully and clearly drawn.
Each United Kingdom Bill relating to matters in a devolved area will have to state that it does not apply to Scotland, otherwise it will be assumed automatically that it does apply and is being put through this House regardless of the Scotland Act. Already now we have the procedure whereby a United Kingdom Bill states whether it applies to Scotland. I see no difficulty in extending this process in the new circumstances.
The decisions that are required are these: first, does the Bill apply to Scotland? Already now we have a procedure for deciding that matter. Secondly, is it in a devolved area? That would be no more a matter of debate here than would the same issue be in the Assembly. So already we have procedures in this House for deciding whether a Bill applies to Scotland. We have other procedures for deciding such matters as hybridity. I see no difficulty in determining the question whether a Bill does or does not apply to Scotland.
§ Mr. John Smith
Perhaps I may draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that when it is decided by Mr. Speaker whether a Bill applies to Scotland and, therefore, can be sent to the Scottish Grand Committee or a Scottish Standing Committee, that is always conditional upon the fact that the Opposition can always block that happening by 12 hon. Members rising in their place, so it must have consent before it is operated. That is quite a big difference.
§ Mr. Pym
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right about that. All that I am saying is that we already have a procedure for deciding matters of that kind 1648 and other matters in relation to Bills. I do not see that the difficulty that he mentioned in his opening remarks is as real as all that, and I certainly do not think that it is impossible for this House to arrive at a conclusion as to whether a Bill referred to in this amendment applies to Scotland.
I ought to add that the amendment as it now appears does not apply to all non-Scottish Bills but only to those which deal with matters which in Scotland are devolved to the Assembly and governed by the Assembly. Thus, the amendment, if accepted, would not apply to any Bill that dealt with a matter in the rest of the United Kingdom that was not devolved to Scotland. In other words, it is a narrower amendment than when we originally saw it.
Therefore, despite the Government's anxiety about the matter, I hope that this proposed change in our procedure will commend itself to the House this evening. I believe that it will help at least to mitigate one of the greatest weaknesses in the Bill. As the Bill stands tonight, it will prove to be divisive. For that reason it cannot endure. This is a modest contribution towards introducing a simple procedure that will allow time for second thoughts. In the circumstances that I have described—strain between different parts of the United Kingdom because of the different voting rights of Members of Parliament in this House—the amendment ought to be accepted. It will help to alleviate the problems which will otherwise arise. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends, and other hon. Members, will support it.
§ Mr. Dalyell
Criticisms were made of the amendment that it is capricious, that it changes the procedures of the House and that it creates first-class and second-class Members of the House of Commons. That is the general criticism. The first two criticisms I ascribe to the Minister of State, but not the last one.
It is not the amendment that will lead to first-class and second-class Members, nor it is the amendment that will, of itself, lead to a change of procedures of the House. Rather it is the Government's proposals in the Bill, sooner rather than later, that will lead to different categories of Members and change the procedures of this House.
1649 The truth is that the clock is being moved backwards for the first time since the great Reform Bill of 1832, and the principle is being reintroduced of decision-making in Parliament by those who have literally no responsibility for certain areas —in this case, education and housing—in which they are making those decisions for part of the State.
Supposing that there is an Assembly in Edinburgh, what better right does the Member for West Lothian have to cast what might possibly be a decisive vote on, for example, pay beds or comprehensive schools in England than the representative of Old Sarum had pre-1832? It is totally different from the current situation, in that there will be two different Governments involved, not one single Government as at present—so different, in fact, that one Minister in one Government, as we learnt last Thursday, stumbling on an amazing new fact, can actually sue another Minister of another Government in a court of law. That is the situation that can happen, and, given the political circumstances, it is not so wild a surmise that it could happen.
The immediate issue before us is relatively simple at one level. Do we try to conceal this geological flaw in the very structure of the Bill, or do we do our best to reveal it to the electors before they cast their votes in a referendum? Apart from any other consideration, within a short time of an Assembly's being set up in Edinburgh, whether the Government or pro-devolutionists like it or not, the problem of Scots MPs deciding matters for England for which they have no responsibility in their own constituencies is certain to rear its head. So there is nothing in terms of good government to be gained by trying to sweep under the carpet until the referendum is over the design fault in the structure of the Bill.
People will have to understand that the first time a controversial measure affecting England is carried by non-English votes, there will be a constitutional crisis in these islands. It is healthier that they understand this before and not after the referendum takes place.
§ Mr. Gerry Fowler
My hon. Friend said that this would be the first time that this has happened. Does he not recognise that under the old Stormont arrange- 1650 ment in Northern Ireland such a situation existed for nearly 50 years?
§ Mr. Fowler
I agree that many of us did not like it, but we accepted it for nearly 50 years in this House. There may have been only 12 Members from Northern Ireland, but they supported only one party.
§ Mr. Dalyell
We accepted that situation until it came to the crunch. I remember when the crunch arrived. Desmond Donnelly and Woodrow Wyatt were going to vote another way on steel nationalisation, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), then Prime Minister, had all sorts of things to say about the presence of Irish Members.
The question asked by the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) is very relevant. This amendment is no kind of a solution. It is no use pretending that it is a solution to the so-called West Lothian question. As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, there is no solution to the insoluble; if there had been it would have been discovered long ago. But at least this amendment does something in the direction of pinning a constitutional price tag on the neck of the Assembly, and it is for that reason, as a warning signal to the electors of Scotland during the referendum campaign, that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it.
§ Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)
To adopt this amendment would be to put a price tag not so much on the Scottish Assembly as on the United Kingdom Parliament. If the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) thinks that by supporting the amendment we shall make the Assembly operate any differently, he is quite wrong. Like him, I recognise the problem. It is bound to be the problem of any scheme of devolution within the United Kingdom. I certainly do not sweep it under the carpet. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said, it is virtually insoluble looked at in terms of principle. What we now have to do, given the problem and that the majority of hon. Members support devolution, is to decide whether, in trying to 1651 deal with the problem in the way proposed here, we shall be making devolution better or worse.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that the amendment recognises the problem. We all recognise the problem, and have done for a long time. But it does not necessarily make sense to write into the Bill, for the purposes of the referendum, something that will remain in the legislation, hanging around the neck of this Parliament for years to come.
If we are to solve the problem, let us do so in a proper way. That way is through an in-and-out system. It is the only way in which we shall be able to deal with the situation. It does not make sense in practical terms that the amendment goes half-way towards the in-and-out system. If we want the in-and-out system, let us have it; if we do not want it, I believe that the Bill should stand as it is, and that in our practices in this House we shall be able to cope with the problem. The amendment tries to go to an in-and-out system by stealth instead of tackling the problem head on. To that extent, it does not make sense.
It is not without significance that the amendment is supported by the Scottish National Party. I believe that that is so because the SNP sees in the amendment not something that affects the Assembly one way or another but something that affects this House. It sees the amendment as a time bomb under the House of Commons. For that reason alone, we should reject it.
§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)
As so often, I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said. We all recognise that the problem is logically insoluble. But it does not necessarily follow that the system will not work. Many things are insoluble in logic but work in practice. We have to decide whether the amendment helps it to work in practice or not.
The argument has not been helped by the exaggeration of the problem. It is certainty one of the great problems of the Bill, and it is right that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who has argued so valiantly, 1652 should argue as he does, but I do not think that in isolation it is an insuperable problem. For example, there are the problems of non-financial responsibility and of being unable to get the popular will on the question of devolution or independence. Thus, the three bulwarks are not there in the Bill to make it work. But we must now ask ourselves whether this one remaining pillar of the West Lothian question will be helped by the amendment. My hon. Friend was right to emphasise this aspect.
Equally, those who have tried to minimise the problem are guilty of great disservice. I read the article in the Glasgow Herald by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and I do not think that it began to approach the depths of the problem. It is not sufficient to say that there will be no difference between this situation and the old Stormont situation. There is a very big difference, once characterised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) as the de minimis problem in that there were only 12 Members from Northern Ireland.
There was another aspect—the political connection of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom for which there was no basic fissiparous force in the majority community. This may not necessarily be the position which will apply in relation to Scotland. The legislative powers of Stormont are not analogous to the legislative powers that we are giving to the Assembly. But the big difference, surely, is that what we are to have here is a situation in which Scottish Members can affect English legislation but English Members will not be able to affect Scottish legislation. Some hon. Members have said that this is not a basic problem. I resent that strongly, because it is a basic problem. My fear is that if we continually underplay it, we shall start the Assembly under such illusions that it will crack. We must face this problem.
The second problem which arises is that in a sense the Scottish Members in this Parliament will no longer be properly representative of or responsible for those areas of legislation in this Parliament which are already devolved to Scotland. In the event of an election, we shall not be returned to this House to legislate, for example, on questions of 1653 education. That will be a matter for the Assemblymen of Scotland. In a sense, therefore, it is also cutting across the representative and responsible nature of the Member of Parliament to his electorate. I shall not be saying to my electorate in West Renfrew "Return me to Westminster so that I can vote in relation to English education."
§ Mr. Buchan
Or Scottish education, as my hon. Friend points out. If we try to say that it is a simple problem, and try to dismiss the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, I believe that it is as dangerous as magnifying the problem. There is only one way to solve the problem, and that is through the process of a period of time, given the will in the Assembly that it will not crack into separation, and given the will in this House to allow a modus vivendi to develop. It is against this question of a modus vivendi developing over a period of time that we have to look at the amendment. I can think of nothing more calculated to crack the modus vivendi, or to prevent a modus vivendi from developing, than to have this amendment.
§ Mr. Buchan
I have already said this. I do not believe that the problem is soluble in logic. I have no doubts about that at all. Unless we live with it and work with it, and allow Scottish Members to vote in this House, over a period of time, I do not think that there is another solution. That is why I reject the in-and-out solution. If we are to have a rational, logical solution, the federal solution is the rational and logical solution.
§ Mr. Buchan
The problem with the federal solution is that we cannot have equality in relation to Scotland and England. We somehow have to allow a situation to work in which Scottish Members here will be voting on English problems. Do not let us sweep it under the carpet. It will cause problems. By accepting this amendment, however, we should be writing in from the beginning that we must make people aware of this problem. Gov- 1654 ernments will know it and draw attention to it. Members will know it and draw attention to it. This will become the locus of the very conflict itself, instead of a means of solving the conflict. I cannot think of anything better to prevent a modus vivendi developing at all than to have the provision set out in the amendment written in from the beginning. Of course, it will be deployed by parties. Of course, it will be deployed by Governments. Of course, Governments will ask "How do we get round the hon. Member for Tiverton?" They will say "We shall have a clause in here to cover a non-devolved situation". We all know this. This is the nature of the beast. This is the nature of the life that we live here. This amendment is certainly no solution to the problem.
What is necessary is for hon. Members who support the Bill, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and others, to insist on making it clear that this problem will exist, that we shall have conflict, but that that of itself will not be allowed to crack the Assembly. This is the only way for it. I have no logical solution to put forward, because there is none. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian was right.
I am quite sure that to adopt an amendment which will make this problem the focus of all argument and conflict in the House can only exacerbate the position. I hope that hon. Members on each side of the House will try to apply their reason to this problem. I hope that they will try to do a little teaching throughout the referendum campaign. For heaven's sake, let us not bring this amendment into legislation in order to make it easy in the referendum campaign, because we shall then have to live with it long after. It will require a lot of reason, a lot of sense, a lot of understanding and a lot of teaching during the referendum campaign. The one weapon that we have left in our hands is to teach the Scottish people what we are doing before we embark on this adventure.
§ Mr. George Reid (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
The Minister of State said that he has a sense of déjàvu about the debate, but both he and the hon. Member for North Angus and Meatus (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) succeeded in injecting a little fresh venom into the proceedings by suggesting that SNP support 1655 for the amendment was based primarily on the fact that it was divisive. My hon. Friends and I reject that charge. We support the amendment on the grounds of equity and principle, as we did with proportional representation, because we are concerned about an orderly and effective transfer of power to Scotland. We also support it because it is a chance—perhaps the last chance—to debate the central issue of the Scotland Bill.
The issue is simply that one cannot graft federalism on to a part of a unitary State. There has been a great deal of naivety from the Government Front Bench today in refusing to recognise the essential issue of the inter-relationship of the respective nations which make up the United Kingdom, and the fact that establishing a legislature in Scotland is boud to have consequences for the procedures of this House. I think that we should all be grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for pursuing this matter with such percipience and persistence. He, like us, I think, has a similar view that between independence and status quo there is very little central option.
It has been claimed by Member after Member, in both this Chamber and in another place, that the problem is insoluble. That is not quite true in terms of logic because, if I am being fair to the Bench in front of me—to the solitary Liberal—it is possible to reach a logical solution through federalism. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has toyed with that in recent weeks. The trouble, as we know, is that there is no real will for devolution in England.
There is another logical way, and that is the way proposed by my own party—to accept that Britain is not a nation but a multinational State, and that the nations should resolve themselves into respective parliamentary units. That is perfectly logical, and the problem can be taken care of in that way.
If the amendment were to come back yet again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friends and I would not support it. We support it today on straightforward, pragmatic grounds. But we feel that it, is now equally important to get the Bill on the statute book, to get Royal Assent and to have the Assembly established. 1656 Secondly, we do not pretend that this is the most effective way in which to deal with the problem. Putting Scots Members in a sin bin for 14 days is not really very effective.
There is, of course, another way out, which has been advanced by my hon. Friends in times past. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns is perfectly correct. The SNP has argued in this House in time past that there should be an in-and-out system, that there should be a self-denying ordinance by Members of the House, so that Scots simply would not vote on matters of exclusive English concern, and vice versa in terms of Wales or Northern Ireland. That is a logical way of dealing with the problem. The danger there, of course, is that then probably no United Kingdom Government could be formed by the Labour Party. Indeed, in 1951, in the case of the Conservatives, there was a similar example, where they depended on the votes of Northern Ireland. That is the problem about this being a multinational State.
We support the amendment because we have no desire on our Bench, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be beastly to the English. We think that in their own devolved areas of government they should get, in terms of policy, what they voted for, and likewise for the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
Behind this debate I think we see a sort of nascent English nationalism beginning to show through. There have been expressions of rage that the Scots could somehow determine matters of purely English concern. We have plenty of experience of that on this Bench and in Scotland. The Scots were outvoted by 10 to one in this place. Remember, for example, the guillotine on the Scotland and Wales Bill, with Scots from all parties voting by two to one in favour, but the guillotine failing on the votes of English Members. Remember that monster Strathclyde, being inflicted on Scotland by the votes of English Members. Remember areas being put into Glasgow district by English Members. Remember measures on housing and education—anathema to most Scots—forced through by English votes. We have plenty of experience of that particular problem.
§ Mr. Buchan
There is plenty of evidence of measures being forced upon the English people because of Scottish and Welsh votes. We are Members of one 1657 House. One might as well say that certain measures have been forced through by red-headed Members of Parliament.
§ Mr. Reid
That reinforces my basic point, that people voting in the constituent nations of the United Kingdom should get the measures for which they voted at the polls, and should not have other measures affecting them inflicted on them from other parts of the kingdom.
As I said, SNP Members give their support to this Lords amendment, primarily to air what we believe to be the central constitutional issue which has dominated the whole Scotland Bill. Our own view is that the sooner this House again resolves itself into an English Parliament, and the sooner we have our own Parliament north of the border, the better, because in that way, and try as I might, I see the only solution to the West Lothian question.
§ Mr. William Ross
One should be careful about what one says in this House. The last time I spoke, on 17th July, I suggested that it might well be my last speech. But only yesterday I met Lord Muirshiel, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, and he reminded me that when I made my maiden speech he congratulated me on it and hoped that he would hear me again. He said that he never regretted any speech more than he regretted that one.
We are not really talking about devolution in this instance. Nothing about this amendment will affect devolution; it is the consequence of devolution. It was not one which was unknown to us. Some right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition seem to think that we concealed this from everyone. I have in my hands the first White Paper produced by the Government in June 1974, a Government of which I was a member. On page 20 there are two sections, (e) and (f), in paragraph 56, the first of which deals with the question:is it acceptable to the people of England that while the Westminster Parliament would in general not be able to legislate for Scotland and Wales in matters of health, education, local government, etc., some 90 Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster would participate in legislation for England on these matters?that I have been talking about.
§ Mr. Ross
No, it did not know what to say, because the Conservative Party was still stuck with a thing called "the Declaration of Perth". Even before we debated the White Paper, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that the Conservative Party had a clear-cut policy for devolution and for a legislative Assembly. That was the cause of all the trouble, and that is why certain Conservative Members sit on the Back Benches instead of on the Front Bench. Some of them ought to be ashamed of themselves for the way in which they have conducted themselves over this period.
§ Mr. Ross
I am dealing with the amendment. It was said that majorities in other places, be it Wales, Scotland or England, accepted this because it applied to everyone. That is not true. For 50 years Members of Parliament from Stormont dealt with Bills which included the words "This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland." There were eight Departments of Government in Northern Ireland, including certain aspects of national insurance and home affairs, yet Northern Ireland Members dealt with all the matters in this place, despite the fact that they had no implications in respect of Northern Ireland. At that time, no matter what anyone says, there was an automatic majority, but the position today is very different. However, from my first days in this House up to a few years ago there was an automatic Tory block vote from Northern Ireland. I know that one or two people used to be elected for the Republican Party, but they were elected on the basis that they would not come. Some of them did not come. I remember that one was in prison all the time.
The source of this amendment, the House of Lords, showed its willing acceptance of an amendment which only a short time ago was thrown out by this House. Had the majority of Scottish people been in favour of the Tory Party, I wonder whether the House of Lords 1659 would have acted in the same way. Of course it would not.
We do not vote in this place as Scots; we vote as members of parties, and we shall still do so after devolution. But for the first time the amendment suggests that we vote as Scots. If one looks at the party affiliations in this House, one sees that there are 41 Scottish members of the Labour Party and 30 others. That makes a majority of 11, exactly the same majority as the block Unionist vote, which never concerned right hon. Gentlemen all those years. Indeed, in 1951 it was that Unionist majority which created a Government for the Conservative Party.
With all due respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), he did not do anything about it when he was Prime Minister of the day. He accepted this fatal principle. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) should not exaggerate. This is a fatuous amendment, which will not solve the problem. There are other ways of getting round it. In fact, there is a way that makes nonsense of the amendment. At the present time we have a system in respect of even English legislation going to a Committee for Second Reading.
§ Mr. Ross
It comes back here for a Second Reading that is subject to certain procedures, which are not the same in Scotland. There are all sorts of sillinesses within the amendment. What could be more fatuous than the idea of waiting for a fortnight and taking another vote?
I have always accepted that there were problems in this regard, but this is not the
§ way to solve them. The House of Lords is not the place to tell us how to run our business. We could do this at any time without legislation. We could do it on the basis of a sessional order. I remind hon. Members that we changed the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee. I always thought that Committees of this House reflected the composition of the House of Commons. If one looks it up —and it was the Tory Party which did it —one will discover that all Members of the Scottish Grand Committee have to be Members from Scottish constituencies. Mind you, it came to a point where the Conservative Party could hardly man the Committee, so it reduced the size of that Committee. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) still suffers from what happened to him in regard to a particular Bill.
§ Really, will the House of Commons accept such a silly thing as this amendment? I am surprised that the SNP has fallen for this kind of thing. It is absolute nonsense. We know about the "in-and-out" business. In Scotland there used to be county and borough councils, and the boroughs used to send members for certain purposes. But they did not vote on other matters. There are other ways of solving this problem. This is not the way. No self-respecting House of Commons would accept this amendment from another place.
§ Mr. John Smith
The main point on which hon. Members have concentrated—and I am glad that they have—is that this is a practical matter. We have had many debates about this, it is whether—
§ It being three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 276.1665
|Division No. 313]||AYES||[7.49 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank||Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Bishop, Rt Hon Edward|
|Anderson, Donald||Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Blenkinsop, Arthur|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Bates, Alf||Boardman, H.|
|Ashley, Jack||Bean, R. E.||Booth, Rt Hon Albert|
|Ashton, Joe||Beith, A. J.||Boothroyd, Miss Betty|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Boyden, James (Bish Auck)|
|Bradley, Tom||Howells, Geraint(Cardigan)||Pendry, Tom|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Perry, Ernest|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Huckfield, Les||Prescott, John|
|Buchan, Norman||Hughes, Rt Hon C.(Anglesey)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Buchanan, Richard||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Radice, Giles|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Hunter, Adam||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Campbell, Ian||Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A.(Edge Hill)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Cant, R. B.||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Robinson, Geoffrey|
|Carter, Ray||Janner, Greville||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Cartwright, John||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||John, Brynmor||Roper, John|
|Cohen, Stanley||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Coleman, Donald||Johnson, Waller (Derby S)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Colquhoun, Ms Maureen||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Concannon, Rt Hon John||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Corbett, Robin||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Ryman, John|
|Cowans, Harry||Jones, Dan(Burnley)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)||Judd, Frank||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Kelley, Richard||Selby, Harry|
|Cronin, John||Kerr, Russell||Sever, John|
|Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Cryer, Bob||Kinnock, Neil||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Lambie. David||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Davidson, Arthur||Lamborn, Harry||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Lamond, James||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil||Lee, John||Silverman, Julius|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Deakins, Eric||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Snape, Peter|
|de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Litterick, Tom||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Dempsey, James||Loyden, Eddie||Stallard, A. W.|
|Dewar, Donald||Luard, Evan||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Doig, Peter||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Dormand, J. D.||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Stoddart, David|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson||Stott, Roger|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||McCartney, Hugh||Strang, Gavin|
|Dunn, James A.||McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Dunnett, Jack||McElhone, Frank||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Swain, Thomas|
|Eadie, Alex||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Edge, Geoff||McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Maclennan, Robert||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|English, Michael||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Madden, Max||Tiemey, Sydney|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Magee, Bryan||Tilley, John|
|Faulds, Andrew||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Tomlinson, John|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Marks, Kenneth||Tomney, Frank|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Torney, Tom|
|Flannery, Martin||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Maynard, Miss Joan||Urwin, T. W.|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Meacher, Michael||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Ford, Ben||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Forrester, John||Mikardo, Ian||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Ward, Michael|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Mitchell, Ausitn (Grimsby)||Watkins, David|
|Freud, Clement||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Watkinson, John|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Molloy, William||Weetch, Ken|
|George, Bruce||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Weitzman, David|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.||Wellbeloved, James|
|Ginsburg, David||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Golding, John||Morton, George||White, James (Pollok)|
|Gould, Bryan||Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Whitlock, William|
|Graham, Ted||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Newens, Stanley||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Grocott, Bruce||Noble, Mike||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hartford)|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Oakes, Gordon||Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Ogden, Eric||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Hardy, Peter||O'Halloran, Michael||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Orbach, Maurice||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Woodall, Alec|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Ovenden,John||Woof, Robert|
|Hayman, Mrs Helena||Padley, Walter||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Pardoe, John||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Hooley, Frank||Park, George|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Parker. John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Horam, John||Parry, Robert||Mr. Joseph Dean and|
|Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Pavitt, Laurie||Mr. James Tinn.|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Alison, Michael||Garrett, W. E.(Wallsend)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)||Moate, Roger|
|Arnold, Tom||Glyn, Dr Alan||Molyneaux, James|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Monro, Hector|
|Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)||Goodhart, Philip||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Awdry, Daniel||Goodhew, Victor||Moore, John (Croydon C)|
|Bain, Mrs Margaret||Goodlad, Alastair||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Baker, Kenneth||Gorst, John||Morgan, Geraint|
|Banks, Robert||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)|
|Bell, Ronald||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Neave, Airey|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Grieve, Percy||Nelson, Anthony|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Griffiths, Eldon||Neubert, Michael|
|Benyon, W.||Grist, Ian||Newton, Tony|
|Biffen, John||Grylls, Michael||Normanton, Tom|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Nott, John|
|Blaker, Peter||Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Body, Richard||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hampson, Dr Keith||Osborn, John|
|Bottomley, Peter||Hannam, John||Page, John (Harrow West)|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Haselhurst, Alan||Page, Richard (Workington)|
|Brittan, Leon||Hastings, Stephen||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Brotherton, Michael||Hawkins, Paul||Penhaligon, David|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Hayhoe, Barney||Percival, Ian|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Henderson, Douglas||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Buck, Antony||Heseltine, Michael||Phipps, Dr Colin|
|Budgen, Nick||Higgins, Terence L.||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hodgson, Robin||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Holland, Philip||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Carlisle, Mark||Hordern, Peter||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Channon, Paul||Howell, David (Guildford)||Raison, Timothy|
|Churchill, W. S.||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Hunt, David (Wirral)||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hurd, Douglas||Reid, George|
|Clegg, Walter||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Cockcroft, John||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||James, David||Rhodes James, R.|
|Cope, John||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Cormack, Patrick||Johnson Smith, G (E Grinstead)||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Corrie, John||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Costain, A. P.||Jopling, Michael||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Crawford, Douglas||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Critchley, Julian||Kershaw, Anthony||Ross, William (Londonderry)|
|Crouch, David||Kimbali, Marcus||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Crowder, F. P.||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Dalyell, Tam||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Knight, Mrs. Jill||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Lamont, Norman||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Lawrence, Ivan||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Lawson, Nigel||Shepherd, Colin|
|Durant, Tony||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Shersby, Michael|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Silvester, Fred|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Lloyd, Ian||Sims, Roger|
|Elliott, Sir William||Loveridge, John||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Emery, Peter||Luce, Richard||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||McCrindle, Robert||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)|
|Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||Macfarlane, Neil||Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)|
|Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)||MacGregor, John||Speed, Keith|
|Eyre, Reginald||MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Stainton, Keith|
|Farr, John||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forost)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Fell, Anthony||Madel, David||Stanley, John|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Marten, Neil||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Mates, Michael||Stokes, John|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Mather, Carol||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Maude, Angus||Tapsell, Peter|
|Forman, Nigel||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Mawby, Ray||Taylor, Teddy (Carthcart)|
|Fox, Marcus||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Tebbit, Norman|
|Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Mayhew, Patrick||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Fry, Peter||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Mills, Peter||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Thompson, George||Warren, Kenneth||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Townsend, Cyril D.||Watt, Hamish||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Trotter, Neville||Weatherill, Bernard||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|van Straubenzee, W. R.||Wells, John||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Vaughan, Dr Gerard||Welsh, Andrew||Younger, Hon George|
|Viggers Peter||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)||Whitney, Raymond||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Wakeham, John||Wiggin, Jerry||Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and|
|Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek||Wigley, Dafydd||Mr. Anthony Berry.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business.