§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Dewar
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with a subject that is a much vexer question to our colleagues south of the border but has not had a great deal of publicity in Scotland. I refer to the so-called "sus" law.
It was a slight surprise to me to discover, almost by chance, in casually reading through the second report of the Home Affairs Committee, that section 15 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1871 extends to Scotland the provisions of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which is the specific "sus" provision.
In Committee we tabled a new clause in an attempt to have this provision repealed in Scotland. I think that we were right to do so because it is clear from what we have heard that the Vagrancy Act is very seldom used in Scotland, and that when used it is used on different grounds and in a way that is very different from that in England.
Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act refers to every suspected person or reputed thief. As I understand the position, the reputed thief provision is very seldom used in England, but it is the only concept within section 4 of the Act that is used in Scotland—and even then it is used very sparingly.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, in answer to a written question on 17 June, told me that in 1977 there were 6,762 persons prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act 1824 or under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, which has provisions about known or reputed thieves. In 1978 that figure fell to 504.
It is common ground among all of us who have tried to find out what is happening in this area that, while the separate figures for the two pieces of legislation are not kept, the vast majority of the 504 prosecutions are under the Burgh 372 Police (Scotland) Act 1892. Although I would not say that prosecutions under the 1824 Act are unknown in my experience—I have come across them in the Glasgow district court—the very fact that I remember them so clearly underlines that they are comparatively rare. Certainly they concentrate very much on the reputed thief possibilities as an alternative to the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act.
I freely concede that the "sus" laws are nothing like as controversial in Scotland as they are in England, for the reasons that I have just given, and also because a great deal of the anxiety—an anxiety which I regard as very well founded and justified—about its operation in England arises because of the relationships between the police and the various minority communities, particularly coloured communities. Fortunately, we do not have that kind of tension in Scotland. We have in Glasgow a significant minority coloured community, but it has not encountered these difficulties. Not, perhaps, because we are essentially more liberal than our colleagues south of the border but because our communities are under less pressure, we have been fortunate in avoiding these difficulties. But, for all that, the general theoretical arguments advanced in the Home Affairs Committee about "sus" still seem to provide substantial reasons for removing the provision from the statute book in Scotland.
The Committee referred in paragraph 25 to theobjectionable nature of 'sus' in principle".The immediately preceding paragraph stated:By its very nature, 'sus' is peculiarly liable at best to misinterpretation and at worst to abuse.The report went on to quote one of the witnesses as saying that:No other offence is so besmirched by the whole concept of suspicion.The conclusion wasWe are satisfied that it is not in the public interest to make behaviour interpreted as revealing criminal intent, but equally open to innocent interpretation, subject to criminal penalties.The general argument in principle that is set out in the report would in itself justify the removal of "sus" from the statute book in Scotland. But over and above that is the argument that it was 373 imported almost by accident in the days of high Victorian Unionism. I see that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is nodding assent. All sorts of pieces of English legislation were imported into Scotland almost casually and without a great deal of thought. Apart from its essential flaws, it provides no useful function in the armoury of the prosecution system in Scotland.
I should like to quote what the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee in reply to our very brief debate, which took place at a time when we were all cooperating in order to get to the end of the Committee stage. It was very truncated but I do not intend to make up for that at any great length today. The Under-Secretary of State advanced an interesting argument. Basically, it was that:The Government intend to publish this summer a draft civic government Bill for Scotland. It will be published as a White Paper and will include the Government's proposals to replace the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and the other legislation covering this area."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 24 June 1980, c. 1573.]The Under-Secretary of State went on to argue that as the "sus" law, unused as it was, dealt with the same area as the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, that as the working party on civic government published an impressive report, and that as we shall have a White Paper and legislation on the subject in the next Session, we should not do anything about the "sus" law at present. I thought at the time that that was a reasonably persuasive argument, and I did not press the matter to a vote.
Since then I have read through the report of the working party on civic government, which makes a number of references to this area of the law. A number of interesting suggestions emerge for the reform of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, which certainly needs reform. I read with interest the comments on the enticement of constables on duty and on the practising of games of hazard. But on other sections, where the 1824 Act might be relevant, the suggestions for change are based on the 1892 Act, and variations and improvements on it. I cannot see how the necessary reforms that will be put in train over the next year to achieve better legislation will in any way be hindered by passing judgment 374 on the "sus" laws, which are essentially irrelevant to the main question of criminal law in Scotland. It may, of course, help by clearing away a clutter on the statute book.
§ I recognise that there is a formidable thicket of legislative proposals and legislative changes lying in wait for us next year, and it might be of assistance to cut away some of the thicket by removing the essentially irrelevant suggestion that the "sus" law should be kept on the statute book. It has nothing to do with modern-day criminal procedure in Scotland. It never had very much to do with our criminal procedure, and it is unsound. Having given the matter some thought, and having read again the persuasive arguments—as I thought then—of the Under-Secretary of State, I see no reason why we should not abolish the "sus" law in Scotland. Possibly by doing so we shall set an example for other areas of the United Kingdom.
§ Miss Jo Richardson (Barking)
I wish to make only a brief contribution because it is always difficult for an English Member to intervene in an essentially Scottish debate. I have always felt that English and Welsh Members should creep quietly away during a Scottish debate and leave matters to the Scots, but I hope that on this occasion I may be allowed to put in my two pennyworth on the subject.
I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee whose Sub-Committee on Race Relations and Immigration recently produced a report on race relations and the "sus" law. I am sure that hon. Members who are present will have referred to the conclusions of that report when deciding to frame the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Scottish version of our law was not used in Scotland and that, in a sense, it was irrelevant. I think that it is important to abolish this law, and it is also important for the country to realise that the "sus" law is unevenly used in England. There are large areas in this country where the "sus" law has never been heard of, and certainly never applied. That does not apply only to areas with a totally white population, as compared with areas with an ethnic 375 minority population. As the Select Committee found, in the Metropolitan area there were large variations between one part of London and another, both of which had roughly the same black population and the same problems of housing and possibly social and racial disadvantage. I take the point that the law is not used in Scotland, but it is also outdated in England and should be done away with.
I was disappointed with the reaction of the Home Secretary, and more particularly that of the Minister of State, to the Select Committee's proposal. On 14 July the Home Secretary generally accepted the Committee's findings, but did not seem convinced that nothing should be put in place of the "sus" law. That sentiment was echoed in his Birmingham speech and in a speech by the Minister of State.
Unused though we know that section of the law is in Scotland, if the new clause is passed it will reinforce the hand of many of us who wish to see the "sus" law disappear in England. I hope that there will be strong support to get rid of the outdated law in Scotland, which will also help England to get rid of her law.
§ Mr. Maxton
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) that we are delighted to see her participate in Scottish debates, particularly with such a contribution.
Earlier today we voted to reform the Scottish law on homosexuality to make it more liberal to bring it into line with that in England. We now have the opportunity to give a lead to England and Wales over the "sus" law, mainly because that law is not widely used in Scotland. Conservative Members may feel that getting rid of the "sus" law in England could do enormous damage, but that could not be said of Scotland.
I am afraid that the Minister may have at the back of his mind the argument that that example in Scotland may reinforce the case in England and Wales for getting rid of that law. Many Conservative Back Benchers do not wish to get rid of the "sus" law. The Minister will therefore be under strong pressure to retain that law in Scotland, even though it is obsolete, because its removal would set an example to England and Wales.
376 I sincerely hope that the Minister will see the measure merely as the removal of an obsolete law in Scotland. Conservative Members frequently say that they do not like to put unnecessary laws on the statute book. Here is their opportunity to get rid of an obsolete law. I hope that the Minister will support the new clause.
§ Mr. Buchan
I hope that this will be my shortest speech on this Bill. I had not intended to speak, but was encouraged to do so after hearing a maiden speech on Scottish affairs by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). Unlike most maiden speakers, she did not spend most of her time discussing her constituency and saying how beautiful it was. She got to the heart of the matter.
The "sus" laws have long been regarded by all right-thinking people as highly reprehensible. Above all, they should be repealed and got rid of as quickly as possible. It is not altogether true to say that they are in complete desuetude in Scotland. On the contrary, they have been used recently. Also, it is true to say that they are rarely used. If there is no intention to continue to use them in Scotland, they should be abolished forthwith in line with the arguments we heard from the Minister every time we tried to introduce fresh clauses and new legislation into the Bill. We were told that they were unnecessary and that legislation should not be cluttered up. Here is an example. If the Government do not intend to use the provision, they can clear it away.
The argument for abolition has already been dealt with as a result of the documents that came out—the working party report and others—suggesting that this would not necessarily happen.
This Bill is the most reactionary piece of criminal justice legislation that we have seen for a very long time. It brings in fresh police powers of detention and search. Above all, in clause 1 there is the question of the identification and naming of possible suspects and witnesses. This adds up to a vicious package of repression. If the Government are prepared to do that, the idea does not go away from my suspicious mind that they may also, at some time, find the necessity—if this is the course that they have embarked upon—to resuscitate the use of the "sus" laws.
377 Either those laws are not used, in which case they should be got rid of, or they are to be used, in which case the Minister should say so, and we may decide how to vote in relation to that. Both arguments lead to the point that the "sus" laws should be rejected in Scotland.
Now is the time to do away with the law because of the present climate of opinion in the country as a whole—by that, I include England and Wales, rather than Scotland—that the "sus" laws should go. There is a climate of opinion on both sides of the House, as was shown by the decision of the Select Committee, that the "sus" laws should go.
Until the bringing into the House of this Bill, the Minister was widely regarded as a liberal in Scottish legal circles [Hon. Members: "Was he?"] Yes, indeed. Hon. Members may not believe it after the months we spent in Committee. We use the term comparatively. Throughout the sittings of the Committee the Minister and his colleagues were held out as shining lights of liberalism. We are disappointed in the Government Front Bench. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to set his seal of authority on a liberal step forward, not only north of the border. It would be highly regarded and welcomed. He would be seen as returning to the fold of his former ways if he were to announce this tonight.
§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
The last thing that the Minister wants at this stage is to have a liberal label pinned upon him. It would be very dangerous for his advancement in the Government if his former reputation were to be revived. I am sure that he accepted this onerous job of steering the Bill through the House to obliterate those aspects of the reputation that he once enjoyed.
I should like to rebuke the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for the way in which he approached this new clause. It seemed to me that his main object in supporting it was to make Scotland, in effect, a guinea pig for England in that the experiment should be carried out on the body of Scotland for the benefit of England. I cannot go along with that concept. I can only think that he was beguiled and seduced by the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) 378 and had to take up the English cudgels in such a strong way.
More seriously, the case for the abolition of this legislative provision was amply made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It was incorrect of the hon. Member for Barking to indicate that this provision was not used in Scotland. It is used in Scotland. However, it is not used with the frequency with which its companion legislation is used in England.
It is always extremely uncomfortable when one is faced with a complaint containing a charge in which the presumption of innocence had gone away and where one has to found on previous guilt by association. That is the worst condition to be found within the corpus of our criminal law. Ministers always advance that argument, no doubt because when changes are made they like to take the credit for the fact that nothing should be done. The example has already been used of forthcoming changes in the burgh police provisions which allow this matter to be tidied up and taken care of as part of a comprehensive re-examination of these provisions in Scots law.
If it has been accepted, as indeed it has, that the "sus" provision is bad law, there is no argument for maintaining it on the statute book for another year or two. When the opportunity is provided for us to get rid of bad law, that opportunity should be taken immediately. Therefore, I urge the Minister, regardless of what the impact of this change might be upon his colleagues in England, to do his duty in relation to Scotland, to concede that these provisions are bad, and that they should be rooted out. He should urge his hon. Friends to support the new clause.
§ Mr. Millan
I read the report of the proceedings in Committee and I have looked up the appropriate references in the report of the working party on civic government. The working party was set up in 1972 in anticipation of local government reform. I am ashamed to say that it reported as far back as January 1976. I do not know when we shall have proper legislation. We were promised a draft Bill in the summer but there is no 379 sign of it yet. It will be a fascinating Bill when it arrives.
I do not believe that because we shall have a comprehensive Bill dealing with the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and associated legislation we should not make this minor change in Scotland by abolishing a provision which is not relevant to Scottish circumstances, which is rarely, if ever, used and whose removal from the statute book would be a legislative tidying up, to put it no higher. That tidying up is required.
Of course, the provision has its implications for England, but I do not wish to argue the English situation here. A Select Committee has dealt with Scotland as well as England and this is a legislative opportunity to remove the provision affecting Scotland. There is not a similar opportunity to do the same for England, but if there were I would wish to see the provision removed for England as well. We must take the opportunities that are presented to us, and the opportunity has come to us in Scotland.
The Minister's argument in Committee was like the argument used in the debate on new clause 2, which was that there is nothing much wrong with what has been put down on the Amendment Paper, and that in other circumstances the Government would be happy to see such a provision on the statute book but that they did not want to be inconvenienced by having such a provision in this Bill. The House did not find that argument particularly persuasive on the earlier provision and I think that the House will not find it persuasive on this new clause.
This is a matter of public interest. The Select Committee looked into the matter and came to the firm view that this provision should be abolished. That view was taken by an all-party Committee and the members of the Committee maintained that view in a debate in the House.
In relation to the report of the working party on civic government, whatever is in the draft Bill will make no difference in the Scottish context to the abolition of this provision and I hope that the House will take the opportunity to get rid of it. It is redundant and it is. of course, in certain circumstances south of the border an extremely offensive provision. As it is, in Scotland it has not raised the same kind of controversy, because our 380 circumstances are different. Nevertheless, as the Select Committee said, it is an offensive provision in principle and we should get rid of it as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Rifkind
I think that the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) will agree that when the Select Committee considered the "sus" law it did not consider the position in Scotland, naturally, because that was not where the area of controversy had existed. The findings of the Select Committee, of great importance as they are to the situation south of the border, are not of any direct help to the position in Scotland. Even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) acknowledged in Committee and on the Floor of the House that the circumstances which led to the operation of the "sus" law south of the border do not exist in Scotland. We cannot ignore that factor. We are entitled to take it into account.
§ Mr. Dewar
I think that the Under-Secretary will accept that there were two main attacks on the "sus" law in the Select Committee's report. One was on community relations, which I agree is not a matter relevant to Scotland, but the other was a fundamental attack upon this kind of law, the onus of proof and innocence and the whole concept of loitering with intent in the fashion in which it is wrtten into the Vagrancy Act. I should have thought that that held good in Scotland.
§ Mr. Rifkind
I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. We are not really at variance on the issue. We are all agreed that the problem of ethnic minorities is not a relevant consideration in Scotland on the operation of this law.
On the prosecution of suspected persons, the hon. Member for Garscadden was right to say, as I said when we considered this matter in Committee, that the practice in Scotland has been not only to use the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act but to concentrate on reputed thieves and to bring prosecutions only when reputed thieves are involved. Therefore, there has been a tendency not to bring a prosecution because an ordinary member of the public, who is not a reputed thief. acts in a suspicious way.
§ Mr. Dewar
It might help me if the Under-Secretary would explain in what 381 situations he thinks prosecutions should be brought in terms of known thieves loitering with intent which could not be covered by the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act which ultimately we hope to reform.
§ Mr. Rifkind
I shall come to that later. I am dealing with the existing practice. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, the existing practice has been for the vast majority of prosecutions to be brought under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, and not this provision. Also, concentration has been on known thieves, not ordinary members of the public who might be acting in a suspicious way. In both respects, the situation in Scotland has been significantly different from the situation south of the border.
I turn now to the question whether this provision should be repealed. Given that the operation of the law in Scotland has not led to any great sense of grievance, public outrage or controversy, it cannot be argued that there is any urgency for repealing this provision. If we were not to have an early opportunity to consider the whole issue not only of the Vagrancy Act but of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, this might be as good an opportunity as any for the House to come to a view on the operation of this provision in Scotland. There is nothing wrong in principle in that sense, but, as the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) acknowledged, we have had the report of the working party on civic government, which covers a similar related area.
In the next few weeks we shall publish the draft Civic Government (Scotland) Bill as a White Paper. It will not be going through its legislative processes in the next few weeks. I am referring to the publication of the draft Bill, which will include provisions in this area. The Government hope that there will be early legislation on this matter. We would not be producing a draft Bill if that was not our intention. Therefore, we shall have a very early opportunity to come to a conclusion on this whole matter.
§ Mr. Rifkind
I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman shortly. These two issues are closely related and we do not have separate statistics.
I was asked how many prosecutions there have been under this provision. The two Acts are so intertwined that we cannot say which have been prosecutions under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act and which have been prosecutions under the equivalent of the Vagrancy Act. If the two are closely intertwined, and if the House has an early opportunity to reach a decision on the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, that will be the time to come to a decision on the closely related issue. To come to a decision on one issue now and to reach a decision on the other subject in a few months' time would be a pointless exercise and would be of no benefit.
§ Mr. Millan
As the draft Bill is to be published soon, the Minister must know what is in it. Does it contain a provision for the repeal of this measure in Scotland?
§ Mr. Rifkind
I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Bill. He would not expect me to give a different reply, nor would he have given a different reply in the same circumstances. Within the next few weeks a draft Bill will be published. The House and all outside interests will have an opportunity to discuss it.
There is no great urgency in Scotland. Even in this debate, no hon. Member has suggested that there is any such urgency. The hon. Member for Barking simply used the argument that if we did this today we should promote her cause and the repeal of the measure in England and Wales. That may or may not be correct, but it cannot be a legitimate argument in relation to the merits of the provision as it affects Scotland.
The House will have an early opportunity to consider the whole issue. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue his new clause to a Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
|Division No. 423]||AYES||[8.56 pm|
|Adams, Allen||Flannery, Martin||Palmer, Arthur|
|Allaun, Frank||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Parry, Robert|
|Alton, David||Foster, Derek||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Anderson, Donald||Freud, Clement||Penhaligon, David|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Ashton, Joe||George, Bruce||Radice, Giles|
|Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)||Gilbert, Rt Hn Dr John||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Robertson, George|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Haynes, Frank||Rooker, J. W.|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)||Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Buchan, Norman||Home Robertson, John||Rowlands, Ted|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Hooley, Frank||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Campbell, Ian||Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed||Silverman, Julius|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Canavan, Dennis||Janner, Hon Greville||Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)|
|Clark, David (South Shields)||John, Brynmor||Spearing, Nigel|
|Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)||Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)|
|Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Stoddart, David|
|Crowther, J. S.||Jones. Dan (Burnley)||Stott, Roger|
|Cryer, Bob||Kerr, Russell||Strang, Gavin|
|Cunlilffe, Lawrence||Kilfedder, James A.||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Cunningham, George (Islington S)||Lambie, David||Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Litherland, Robert||Tilley, John|
|Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)||McCartney, Hugh||Tinn, James|
|Deakins, Eric||McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Dempsey, James||McElhone, Frank||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Dewar, Donald||McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)|
|Dixon, Donald||McKelvey, William||Welsh, Michael|
|Dobson, Frank||McNamara, Kevin||Wheeler, John|
|Dormand, Jack||McWilliam, John||White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)|
|Dubs, Alfred||Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shetlles'n)||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)||Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)|
|Eadie, Alex||Maxton, John||Woodall, Alec|
|Eastham, Ken||Maynard, Miss Joan||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Mikardo, Ian||Young, David (Bolton East)|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Ewing, Harry||Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Faulds, Andrew||Morton, Barry||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Field, Frank||O'Neill, Martin||Mr. Joseph Dean.|
|Alexander, Richard||Cockeram, Eric||Hawksley, Warren|
|Alison Michael||Colvin, Michael||Heddle, John|
|Ancram, Michael||Cope, John||Henderson, Barry|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Corrie, John||Hicks, Robert|
|Atkins Robert (Preston North)||Costain, A. P.||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)|
|Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)||Crouch, David||Hordern, Peter|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Dean, Paul (North Somerset)||Hurd, Hon Douglas|
|Bendall, Vivian||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Jessel, Toby|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Dunn, Robert (Dartford)||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey|
|Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)||Elliott, Sir William||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Fairbairn, Nicholas||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Fairgrieve, Russell||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Best, Keith||Faith, Mrs Sheila||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Blackburn, John||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)|
|Bonsor Sir Nicholas||Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Loveridge, John|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Fookes, Miss Janet||Luce, Richard|
|Bright, Graham||Forman, Nigel||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Brinton, Tim||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)||McCrindle, Robert|
|Brittan Leon||Garel-Jones, Tristan||MacKay, John (Argyll)|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)||Goodhew, Victor||McQuade, John|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Gow, Ian||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Budgen, Nick||Gray, Hamish||Major, John|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Greenway, Harry||Mates, Michael|
|Cadbury, Jocelyn||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Mather, Carol|
|Carlisle John (Luton West)||Grist, Ian||Mawby, Ray|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Grylls, Michael||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Chapman, Sydney||Gummer, John Selwyn||Mills, lain (Meriden)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)||Mills, Peter (West Devon)|
|Clark, Hon. Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Hampson, Dr Keith||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hannam, John||Moate, Roger|
|Clegg, Walter||Haselhurst, Alan||Monro, Hector|
§ The House Divided: Ayes 122, Noes 163.385
|Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)||Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Mudd, David||Rost, Peter||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Murphy, Christopher||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Tripper, David|
|Myles, David||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)||Viggers, Peter|
|Neale, Garrard||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Waddington, David|
|Needham, Richard||Shersby, Michael||Wakeham, John|
|Nelson, Anthony||Skeet, T. H. H.||Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)|
|Neubert, Michael||Speed, Keith||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek|
|Normanton, Tom||Speller, Tony||Wall, Patrick|
|Onslow, Cranley||Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)||Ward, John|
|Osborn, John||Sproat, lain||Warren, Kenneth|
|Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)||Squire, Robin||Watson, John|
|Parris, Matthew||Stainton, Keith||Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd&Stev'nage)|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Stanbrook, Ivor||Whitney, Raymond|
|Pollock, Alexander||Stevens, Martin||Wickenden, Keith|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Stewart, Allan (East Renfrewshire)||Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)|
|Rathbone, Tim||Stradling Thomas, J.||Wolfson, Mark|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Tebbit, Norman|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Temple-Morris, Peter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Mr. John MacGregor and|
|Rifkind, Malcolm||Thompson, Donald||Mr. Tony Newton.|
|Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.