HC Deb 07 April 1981 vol 2 cc865-76
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 52, line 15, leave out clause 56.

Clause 56 deals with the requirement to give notice for processions. It is an issue that the House has debated on several occasions over recent months and years and it is one on which many of my right hon. Friends still feel strongly. We contend that the clause should be omitted. I accept that it has been considerably improved as a result of petitions and objections, especially in another place, and that many of the worst features have been eliminated. However, I still believe that it should not be included in the Bill.

Should locally promoted Bills deal with issues of this sort? It has been said from the Front Benches that public order and processions should be dealt with in national legislation and not in local legislation in a piecemeal fashion. However, it seems that the promoters of some local Bills have been determined to deal with such matters locally. They should consider their position carefully. If it is logical that these issues should be dealt with in local measures, there should be different measures in different localities to take into account different circumstances. On the other hand, national issues should be dealt with in one set of measures that should be considered as a result of national legislation.

At one stage the promoters of local Bills went for a common clause that had a seven-day provision. When they began to run into difficulties in the House they modified the common clause and it took the form of clause 56. It is now plain that circumstances are the same in each of the metropolitan authorities and in some of the county authorities. I suggest that a local measure should meet local circumstances. That was the position before local government reorganisation.

In Greater Manchester there was a requirement to give notice for processions in some districts and not in others. The districts that found it necessary to receive notice had the necessary powers. The districts that did not consider it necessary did not have those powers. I think that some authorities required notice for processions that included services and performing animals while others required notice for slightly different circumstances. Different authorities required different periods of notice to take into account local circumstances. It seems odd that we are now considering proposals for, in effect, national legislation by the back door by means of local Bills.

In Greater Manchester one of the fundamental principles of free speech was established by those who went to Peterloo to establish the right to assembly and to march to that assembly. We are removing that right by requiring people to give notice.

I do not object to the requirement to give notice. I think that in our debates almost everyone has agreed that it would be good practice for notice to be given where that is possible. However, on many occasions it is difficult to give notice, and it is especially hard to require an individual to give notice. That is an obnoxious feature and it appears in other local Bills. The provision is that an individual is required to give notice and is, in effect, required to act, and to claim to be able to act, on behalf of those participating in the demonstration. Anyone who knows what happens at demonstrations knows the impossibility of one person accepting responsibility for what takes place on such occasions.

Once notice has been given, can the procession be banned by the implementation of the Public Order Act 1936? I have been disturbed about the number of bans that have been imposed in the past few months. I fully understand that people impose bans because of the possibility of a breach of public order when certain groups, particularly those with strong racist attitudes, threaten to demonstrate. It is dangerous to impose such bans. It is particularly dangerous to impose blanket bans for a month or more rather than saying which organisation is likely to lead to a breach of public order and that a ban should be imposed for the minimum time required to stop that group of people marching. There should be no suspicion that one is trying to achieve the banning of all marches and that that should become established. That would be a dangerous development.

I hope that if there is to be a Front Bench intervention, the Home Office spokesman will make it clear that he deprecates long bans which affect all organisations rather than a ban which is specifically aimed at a group which is setting out to cause public disorder in its demonstration. That development, which has taken place in the last few months, is particularly disturbing.

The clause should be deleted from the Bill to increase the pressure on the Home Office to bring forward in the next Session legislation to deal with the whole area rather than to go on imposing it in a piecemeal way in such Bills, particularly when the rules and laws change in an undesirable way from one authority to another.

Mr. Tom Arnold (Hazel Grove)

The debate has an air of déjà vu about it. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) suggested, I believe that the matter is best dealt with by local legislation and not by national legislation. I have held that point of view for some time. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's murmurings, I would point out that the Home Secretary in the last Labour Government thought that there were occasions when it was right and appropriate for local authorities to decide what sort of powers they needed to deal with the circumstances of their own area. That point came out in the debates in the last Parliament.

The circumstances of Greater Manchester are such that the chief constable, the police authority and the sponsors of the Bill believe that there is a case for the clause. Contrary to what has been suggested by Opposition Members, the powers that are being sought are not so great as to cause offence. As the hon. Member for Stockport, North said, considerable modifications have been proposed since the original proposal for a period of notice of seven days. We are now down to 72 hours. There is a defence of diligence, if it can be shown that someone took due care and yet was unable to provide the information necessary, for whatever reasons. No prosecution can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and so on.

We must consider the problems of policing in Greater Manchester. The problems which have arisen in recent years may arise again. It is not sufficient to give examples of other parts of the country, they have their own problems. The sponsors of the Bill are seeking to deal with the problems of Greater Manchester. That is why I believe that much of the criticism which has been directed against the clause is misconceived.

The proposal is fairly modest and goes some way towards dealing with the legitimate fears and worries of the police and other authorities in Greater Manchester, in coping with the sort of problems which we have seen in recent years. I hope that the clause will stand.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

I intervene briefly in the debate as one of the signatories of the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett).

The sponsors of the Bill have not proved that the clause is necessary. When I gave evidence to the Private Bill Committee about that proposal no evidence was brought forward by counsel or by Mr. Anderton that the trade union and labour movements in the Greater Manchester area had not co-operated with the police on every occasion, given adequate notice. They believed that it was their right—in a spontaneous manner, if necessary—to demonstrate in a democracy, in the city of Manchester, when they felt that that was necessary. That right is being taken away.

It must be borne in mind that the legislation is basically proposed by chief constables, who have got together and brought forward such proposals. They have been forced down by the House of Commons from seven days' to three days' notice. Mr. Anderton, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, advocated 14 days' notice, but he acted in an entirely different manner when the National Front demonstrated in Manchester and the infamous Martin Webster march was protected by 6,000 police.

There may be a slight difference between my hon. Friend for Stockport, North and me on this matter. If there is threatened public disorder, the Public Order Act should be invoked until there is different legislation, when racialist and Fascist organisations can be dealt with in other ways.

We feel strongly about the issue. I believe that the Home Office Minister will confirm that the Home Secretary is now considering the Public Order Act, processions and the licensing of those processions. If he is doing that, why are we going through Bill after Bill in the House of Commons? Why are we making it difficult for the sponsors to enact many provisions in the Bill to which Opposition Members do not object?

Mr. Tom McNally (Stockport, South)

Would it be unduly cynical if I suggested to my right hon. Friend that the answer to his question is that that cabal of chief constables believes that if the measure is included in sufficient Bills they will make up the Home Secretary's mind for him?

Mr. Orme

I hope that the Home Secretary will not be influenced in that way. That would be pre-empting the decision. The Home Secretary will be faced with a large number of decisions about the three-day proposal, which could influence him in his recommendations to the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North has played a commendable part in the defence of civil liberties. He has opposed many of these Bills, and many of my hon. Friends have assisted him. He has been successful in bringing down the proposed notification date from seven days to three days. The sponsors of the Bill should take away the clause on the basis that the matter is being discussed by the Home Office, which, I assume is consulting the chief constables and every other organisation, including the civil liberties organisations, the trade unions and every other bona fide organisation. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) should take away the clause on the basis that it is an impediment in the Bill. We should proceed no further with it.

If the sponsors of the Bill will not see reason, I hope that we shall have a Division to record yet again our dissatisfaction with the proposal. It is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with a sensitive and important civil rights issue.

7.30 pm
Mr. Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)

The Liberal Benches are empty, but according to my local papers the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is interested in Manchester—in a proposed rubbish tip in my constituency. I should have thought that he had enough problems in his constituency without pushing his nose into mine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] I was taught that it was a convention of the House to write to an hon. Member in advance if one went to his constituency on political business. That courtesy was not extended to me. Had it been, I could have saved the hon. Gentleman the journey.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are discussing the subjects of processions.

Mr. Montgomery

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was carried away, like the hon. Member for Truro. Rubbish tips are covered by the Bill, but that may come later.

The clause that we are discussing is contentious. Opposition Members have strong and genuine fears, but the issue has been debated for years. Initially Greater Manchester wanted seven days' notice, but the Acts for Merseyside, Cheshire, the West Midlands and the Isle of Wight contained a modified processions clause providing for 72 hours. The Greater Manchester council, therefore, realistically and regretfully, decided to accept that, which is sensible. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) was Minister of State, Home Office, he stated in the debate on the West Midlands legislation: There are grounds for debating the provisions of the new clause, and even in its present form it may not be regarded as suitable by every local authority that wishes to have a notice of procession provision in local legislation. However, I believe that it is desirable that some measure of uniformity should be achieved wherever the inclusion of such requirements in local legislation is thought to be necessary. No doubt local authorities will wish to look at the new clause when considering how they wish to fonnulate any proposals that they intend to put before the House."—[Official Report, 21 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 114.] Greater Manchester is not jumping on the bandwagon created by the West Midlands legislation. The situation in Greater Manchester is a patchwork quilt. Different periods of notice have to be given in different parts. It is 24 hours for parts of Oldham, Rochdale and the Urmston part of Trafford; 36 hours for parts of Trafford, Tameside and Stockport, the former West Riding area of Saddleworth, Swinton and Pendlebury; and 48 hours for the former Bolton county borough, so it makes sense to have a uniform period for the whole of Greater Manchester.

Mr. Kenneth Marks (Manchester, Gorton)

It is strange that the periods that the hon. Gentleman is quoting are all less than the period in the Bill and that the districts that he did not mention have no rules.

Mr. Montgomery

That is right. I merely argue for conformity. The 72-hour period has been agreed in the other local government Acts and it is sensible that it should also apply to Greater Manchester.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Is not the hon. Gentleman trying to have it both ways? One cannot argue that Greater Manchester should have a provision whether it is required throughout the country or not, while arguing that the period should be 72 hours because that is what has been agreed in other parts of the country.

Mr. Montgomery

As 72 hours has been agreed for other parts of the country, the sponsors perhaps felt that that was the period most likely to be acceptable to Parliament. I repeat that the issue has been debated many times in the West Midlands legislation and in this Bill. The Bill was debated in the House of Lords, came to this House in January for three hours and then went to a Select Committee, where the issue had a two-day hearing involving counsel and witnesses. I was present when Mr. Anderton, the chief constable, gave evidence, and his evidence was absolutely on the ball. He voiced the view of the police force in his area. He comes in for a great deal of abuse from Opposition Members, but he is responsible for maintaining law and order.

I hope that if we vote on the amendment we shall demonstrate that the House is clearly and conclusively in favour of retaining the clause.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-Under-Lyne)

I am unhappy about the arguments, because we are discussing Greater Manchester and not the West Midlands or the country as a whole. If it is intended to achieve uniformity throughout the country we need legislation to cover the country as a whole, but I speak only for the area that I know.

What are the problems and the evidence that point a need for this provision? I do not believe that there is a need. In East Manchester and Manchester as a whole we have a long tradition of free and willing marching to show our views. The Bill is not concerned with traditional church or trade union marches, but those marches illustrate the way in which we voice our feelings about the things that matter. It does not take much for people in Manchester to form an orderly procession to convince others of the strength of their witness or the conviction of their views.

The reasons given for the provision are wholly inadequate. If there were a great deal of disturbance or disorder, or people were being hurt, I could understand it, but we do not have that. We have sensible and responsible people acting together to convey their views. If people go beyond what is reasonable and necessary, we have public order legislation. If this provision had come before the House after a long and difficult period, it would be understandable.

In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) we have had a march and a scuffle or two, but that is no reason for legislating in this House. If it were, we should be legislating every minute of the day. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) laughs because he does not understand the problems. He has come to them only recently. He is not aware of the strong convictions that we hold and that he rather scorns. We take note of his attitude to problems about which many of us feel deeply.

Mr. Churchill (Stretford)

The right hon. Gentleman has so far failed to address himself to the reasons why he believes that the request of the police force, and the chief constable in particular, should be turned down in this case. Why should not due notice be given of marches? Is it fair that the police, who are heavily over-committed at weekends—I know this well from the Stretford area when there are football matches—should be given no notice at all of processions which may lead to racial or other violence, about which the police are naturally and rightly concerned?

Mr. Sheldon

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. Does he believe that the House should simply listen to a request from a police force and rubber-stamp it? We listen to the request, and, if there is merit in it, we weigh it up. But when one considers the disturbances that have taken place in Greater Manchester, there is no case whatever for this provision. It is a peaceful area of the country. Before action of this kind is taken, the contrary must be proved. That case has not been made.

Mr. Orme

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Private Bill Committee to which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) referred counsel for the Bill was unable to find any post-war example of any demonstration other than a National Front demonstration which had given rise to any difficulty or any complaint from the police?

Mr. Sheldon

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This measure seems to have been designed to placate the law and order lobby, which seems anxious to create problems where they do not exist. We have peaceful demonstrations, regularly and frequently, in all parts of Greater Manchester, and it is right that they should continue.

Mr. Montgomery

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for most people when he says that peaceful demonstrations are all right, but has he forgotten that on 1 March 1980, in his own constituency, the National Front staged a demonstration and rally to coincide with a "Troops Out of Ireland" meeting? Could there not have been grave public disorder on that occasion if the police had not had prior notice?

Mr. Sheldon

In the past 100 years the hon. Gentleman can quote that one example. Let him quote some more, or tell me when legislation has been passed by the House as a result of one example. The House is rightly slow to legislate on many matters. On matters concerned with public order it is extremely slow, and it is right that that should be so. To rush into legislation because of the views put forward by one chief constable, perhaps aided and abetted by a couple of others, is not the correct way to proceed. We must be convinced in our own minds not that it is desirable but that it is necessary and even essential. That case has certainly not been made.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, sadly, there have been fairly riotous occasions in the Greater Manchester area but that the most riotous of them were a very long time ago? The Oldham by-election in 1897, which I believe was contested by Churchill and Mawdsley, occasioned a considerable breach of public order, but no one went forward for a ban then. In the period 1911–12 a series of demonstrations caused problems, but no one went forward for a ban. Recent incidents have been far more peaceful than some of those that took place in the past.

Mr. Sheldon

My hon. Friend rightly puts the matter fully into perspective.

Mr. Churchill

The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is, however, wholly incorrect. Mr. Churchill, as he then was, never fought a by-election in 1897.

Mr. McNally

But did he cause a riot when he did?

Mr. Sheldon

The essential point remains, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that one must go back a long way to a period when there was disorder. We have a reputation for tranquillity and knowing how to behave ourselves. With that kind of background and tradition, there is no justification whatever for a clause of this kind. We should throw it out.

7.45 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew)

I intervene with some diffidence in a Greater Manchester matter in the hope that it will be helpful if I explain what the Government propose regarding the Public Order Act and the Government's attitude to the clause. We believe that it must be for the House to decide whether the case for the provision has been adequately made in terms of the special needs of the Greater Manchester area.

The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) referred to the review of the Public Order Act being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. That is certainly so. The issue was discussed in the Green Paper published not long ago. I cannot say precisely when my right hon. Friend will be able to publish the results of his review. I am glad to say that there have been a considerable number of responses. It would therefore not be right, as hon. Members have suggested, to shelve or to delete the clause purely on the ground that the Government's conclusions on this matter are imminent. Without in any way wishing to prejudge what those conclusions may be, one clearly cannot conclude that legislation would immediately follow the publication of the results of the review. I believe that the House should therefore look carefully at the present proposal-in the light of the case made by the sponsors of the Bill.

In that regard, it must be relevant to recall that a Committee of the House which considered the matter concluded that the clause should remain. The fact that advance notice provisions already exist in 10 parts of the metropolitan counties is clearly also relevant, as is the fact that 107 local authorities have restrictions of one kind or another relating to notice.

Mr. Orme

The decision of the Private Bill Committee to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers was a majority decision.

Mr. Mayhew

The right hon. Gentleman is rather keen on majorities carrying the day in a democracy. I do not think that one can look too far behind the decision of the Committee. It is plainly a matter that the House would wish to take into account.

In view of what has been said about the desirability of national legislation rather than inclusion of a clause of this kind in local legislation, the fact that restrictions are imposed in 107 local authorities—three in Scotland—and that it is also the law in Northern Ireland that notice should be given, is a matter that the House may properly take into account, together with the view of the chief constable. Clearly, none of these matters is decisive by itself.

I understand the concern of those who do not wish the clause to prevent processions which arise suddenly out of an immediate issue. Several right hon. and hon. Members have stated that it is the right of people to demonstrate spontaneously. I do not think that the clause as drafted would have the effect that they fear. It is modelled closely on similar provisions in recent local Acts—notably the West Midlands County Council Act 1980. I know of no evidence to suggest that that Act, so far—I appreciate that it has not been in force for very long—or others like it have caused any difficulty for those who genuinely wish to march spontaneously in order to express their views on a pressing issue. The clause contains the magic words: or as soon as reasonably practicable after that time. I should have thought that there would be a sensible interpretation of those words in that kind of circumstance.

In conclusion, I suggest that, faced with the problems which processions can cause both to the police and to the rest of the community, it is not unreasonable that those who wish to process should have to give the police some notice of their intention to do so.

Mr. Charles R. Morris (Manchester, Openshaw)

I am grateful for the Minister's comments so far, but I was struck by his reference to 107 local authorities taking separate legislation and creating a proliferation of different periods of notice for processions of this kind. Can he give some indication when the Home Secretary will arrive at a final decision? He must surely have some idea when he will make a decision.

Mr. Mayhew

Naturally, I hope that it will be as soon as possible, and so does the right hon. Gentleman. The Green Paper has been published for some time, and it will not be terribly long before the Minister's conclusions appear. But I should not be justified in saying to the House, first, that the conclusions will be here very shortly and, secondly, that it can assume that there will be some legislation one way or the other. I cannot do that. The House would therefore be wise to take into account the fact that a large number of local authorities have thought it right in the circumstances of their areas to have a provision of this nature. I put it no higher than that. In so far as it is of any help for the Government to express a view on this matter, our view is that the sponsors of the Bill have, on balance, made out a case for such a provision having regard to the needs of Greater Manchester.

Mr. George Cunningham

I must press the Minister to adopt a different approach, if not on this occasion then on others—if, unfortunately, we have any—when private local legislation comes before the House containing this sort of provision.

This is at least the third time that I have faced a Home Office Minister on this kind of point in the past 18 months or so. I think that we have had from Home Office Ministers generally a slightly more encouraging response about the prospect of national legislation—that is, about the Home Office's view of the desirability of such legislation. The danger is obvious. It is that Greater Manchester is seeking such legislation, and, further, that it is opting for 72 hours because Merseyside opted for something like that, and that Merseyside was doing that because some other authority did it. We shall end up with a patchwork quilt of something like a national norm but without the House of Commons having ever addressed its mind properly to the principle.

The principle is a national, not a local principle. I quote the words of no less a person than Lord Denning on this important subject. It is obiter, I know, but he was considering the right to process in streets as a result of the case of Hubbard v Pitt in 1974 and 1975. He said: Here we have to consider the right to demonstrate and the right to protest on matters of public concern. These are rights which it is in the public interest that individuals should possess; and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment so long as no wrongful act is done. It is often the only means by which grievances can be brought to the knowledge of those in authority—at any rate with such impact as to gain a remedy. Our history is full of warnings against suppression of these rights. Most notable"— and it is particularly apposite tonight— was the demonstration at St. Peter's Fields, Manchester, in 1819 in support of universal suffrage. The magistrates sought to stop it. Hundreds were killed and injured. Afterwards the Court of Common Council of London affirmed 'the undoubted right of Englishmen to assemble together for the purpose of deliberating upon public grievances'. Such is the right of assembly. So also is the right to meet together, to go in procession, to demonstrate and to protest on matters of public concern. The day after that judgment someone wrote an article with the heading "Denning's finest hour". Lord Denning was in no doubt as to the right under common law of people to demonstrate and to process, and of the need always to protect any infringement or regulation of that right so long as everything is done in an orderly fashion.

The point is that that is such a fundamental principle that it is not something to be dealt with in private local legislation. Of course, if certain provisions exist in some local authority areas and other provisions exist in other areas a difficult tidying-up operation is needed when there is local government reorganisation. But this issue demands now, as it always has in the past, national legislation so that the principle may be examined. The Home Office must now—very quickly before another Bill such as this comes before the House—produce its proposals for national legislation on the subject.

Mr. Silvester

I do not intend to cover all the ground again. That would add nothing fresh to the debate. I regret that I cannot accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) that the promoters should withdraw the clause. I take that view for two reasons. Although I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that in many respects this is a national matter, it is not solely a national matter. There is no suggestion that we should abolish the right of which Lord Denning was speaking. Under the Public Order Act, for example, restrictions have already been imposed on marches, and the problem under that Act is that it is not always known when the march will take place. I advise hon. Members to read the evidence of the chief constable to the Committee and of those who have the responsibility of keeping law and order in Greater Manchester, because it demonstrates that there is a substantial administrative problem.

Let me quote one part of the evidence given to the Committee by Mr. Anderton, which puts another side to the matter. He said: Marches and processions in 1981 are not the marches and processions of 50 years ago, net even when the Public Order Act 1936 was enacted. In the 1930s the vehicle level in this country was about 450,000 … today it is 21½ million … In 1980 my force had reported to it 180,000 indictable crimes, many of a most serious nature. That total of 180,000 last year in Greater Manchester was larger than the entire total of indictable crime recorded in the whole of England and Wales just 50 years ago. So what we now say, with all due respect, is that you have to contemplate the policing of public events, public order marches and processions in an entirely different environment and climate from what used to be the case. That is a not unreasonable statement from the person who is responsible for the practical problems involved. The Bill may not provide the right solution, but it is the solution that has been hammered out in other private Acts. If there is to be a national Act we would expect that that would overtake what we are doing here, just as it would overtake what the West Midlands has done. Perhaps it will be based upon what we are doing here. The police have made a good and reasonable case. This is a practical solution to a problem which they see. The House has debated the subject much and often, and I hope that it will give Greater Manchester the powers that have been given to other places.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 167.

Division No. 148] [8.00
Allaun, Frank Bray, Dr Jeremy
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)
Bradley, Tom Campbell-Savours, Dale
Carmichael, Neil McCartney, Hugh
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) McElhone, Frank
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. McKelvey, William
Cook, Robin F. McNally, Thomas
Cowans, Harry Marks, Kenneth
Craigen, J. M. Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Cryer, Bob Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Maxton, John
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Mellor, David
Dalyell, Tam Mikardo, Ian
Davidson, Arthur Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dewar, Donald Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Dixon, Donald Morton, George
Dobson, Frank Newens, Stanley
Dormand, Jack O'Neill, Martin
Dubs, Alfred Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Pendry, Tom
Eadie, Alex Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Edwards, R. (Whampt'n S E) Prescott, John
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) Richardson, Jo
English, Michael Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Evans, John (Newton) Rowlands, Ted
Field, Frank Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Flannery, Martin Skinner, Dennis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Forrester, John Snape, Peter
Foster, Derek Soley, Clive
Foulkes, George Spearing, Nigel
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Spriggs, Leslie
George, Bruce Stallard, A. W.
Graham, Ted Stoddart, David
Grant, George (Morpeth) Stott, Roger
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Strang, Gavin
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Haynes, Frank Tilley, John
Home Robertson, John Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Homewood, William Weetch, Ken
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Welsh, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Wigley, Dafydd
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Winnick, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Young, David (Bolton E)
Lamond, James
Lestor, Miss Joan Tellers for the Ayes:
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Ken Eastham.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Alexander, Richard Churchill, W. S.
Ancram, Michael Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Atkins, Robert (Preston N) Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th. E) Clegg, Sir Walter
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Colvin, Michael
Banks, Robert Cope, John
Bell, Sir Ronald Costain, Sir Albert
Berry, Hon Anthony Cranborne, Viscount
Best, Keith Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Bevan, David Gilroy Dover, Denshore
Biffen, Rt Hon John du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Biggs-Davison, John Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Blackburn, John Durant, Tony
Blaker, Peter Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Bowden, Andrew Eggar, Tim
Braine, Sir Bernard Fairbairn, Nicholas
Bright, Graham Fairgrieve, Russell
Brinton, Tim Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Brooke, Hon Peter Finsberg, Geoffrey
Brotherton, Michael Fisher, Sir Nigel
Bruce-Gardyne, John Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Butler, Hon Adam Fookes, Miss Janet
Cadbury, Jocelyn Forman, Nigel
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Foulkes, George
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Chapman, Sydney Fry, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Murphy, Christopher
Goodlad, Alastair Myles, David
Gow, Ian Neale, Gerrard
Gower, Sir Raymond Needham, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Newton, Tony
Gray, Hamish Onslow, Cranley
Grieve, Percy Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Grist, Ian Osborn, John
Gummer, John Selwyn Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Hamilton, Hon A. Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Haselhurst, Alan Parris, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney Percival, Sir Ian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Hicks, Robert Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Hill, James Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) Rifkind, Malcolm
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Howells, Geraint Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Rossi, Hugh
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Hurd, Hon Douglas Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Jessel, Toby Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Shersby, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Silvester, Fred
Kilfedder, James A. Sims, Roger
King, Rt Hon Tom Skeet, T. H. H.
Knox, David Speed, Keith
Lamont, Norman Squire, Robin
Lang, Ian Stainton, Keith
Lawrence, Ivan Stanley, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Lee, John Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Le Marchant, Spencer Stradling Thomas, J.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Thompson, Donald
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Loveridge, John Townend, John (Bridlington)
Luce, Richard Trippier, David
Macfarlane, Neil Trotter, Neville
MacKay, John (Argyll) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. Vaughan, Dr Gerard
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Viggers, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert Waddington, David
Major, John Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Marlow, Tony Waller, Gary
Mates, Michael Watson, John
Mather, Carol Wells, Bowen
Mawby, Ray Wheeler, John
Mayhew, Patrick Wickenden, Keith
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Younger, Rt Hon George
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Moate, Roger Tellers for the Noes:
Moore, John Mr. Fergus Montgomery and Mr. Tom Arnold.
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to