§
Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 18, line 1, after "so" insert
and of his reasons for doing so
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the
632
Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 171.
§ See Division 449
§ in column 1085
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendment No. 110 agreed to. [Special Entry].
§ Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 39, 41 to 109, and 111 to 116 agreed to.
§ Mr. John Heddle (Lichfield and Tamworth)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise this brief point of order. I understand that during my absence elsewhere in the House about 10 minutes ago, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), in seeking to persuade the House to carry Lords amendment No. 29, made a certain implication about a contribution that I made to a BBC 2 television programme last night. I should like to place in the official record the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not give me notice that he would raise this matter. On a point of personal clarification, I should like to say that in that programme I was replying to what I considered to be an outrageous misrepresentation of the interpretation of the Bill—[Interruption.]—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. If any hon. Member has been criticised, I normally let both sides make a brief explanation of their innocence.