HC Deb 15 July 1981 vol 8 cc1243-59
Mr. Cook

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 15, line 42, at end insert less any sum deducted under subsection (1)(b) of section 6 of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 28, in page 16, line 10, after 'of' , insert 'six-sevenths of.

No. 29, in page 16, line 15, after `to', insert 'six-sevenths of.

Mr. Cook

It is perhaps appropriate that, after a debate in which we looked at the effect of the Government's fiscal policy on low-income groups in general, we turn to a debate on the effect of that fiscal policy on two particular groups of low income holders. I refer to those who are on strike and who are, therefore, deprived of any income from their work and to those who are unemployed and, therefore, largely dependent on the benefits that they receive.

I am sure that the Financial Secretary will not object if I once again refer to that bible, the Conservative campaign guide. In a separate section that deals with health and social security the guide contains the following observation about the Labour Government: The heavy taxation of the poor is among the most discreditable features of the Labour Government. In our last debate we established that the income tax burden on the poor had increased under this Government beyond a level that the Conservative Party regarded as discreditable when the Labour Party was in office. The amendments concern specific proposals that the Government have introduced in order to impose a novel tax burden on the incomes of two groups which are, at the time of the tax levy, by definition, living in poverty.

Amendment No. 27 deals with the method of assessment for the tax liability of the striker and his family.

Hon. Members will be aware that, when the Finance Bill was published, assurances were given that the tax to be levied would be confined to the amount payable in benefit for an adult dependant, and that the additions that were paid, for instance, in respect of children, would not be liable to tax. Hon. Members will also recollect that when this was debated in Committee, I demonstrated that that assurance—at least in respect of the striker and his family—was pure humbug.

The striker's benefit is subject to a deduction of £12. If he has a wife and no children, he is left with a net benefit of about £6 and he is taxed on that. If, however, he receives the child addition, his total amount of supplementary benefit returns to the adult dependant rate and he is taxed at the full adult dependant rate, although patently the sum being taxed is the child's addition being paid to top up the original sum. If the Financial Secretary and the Treasury Bench wish to avoid that the result and tax being levied on the child addition, they will have to provide that the maximum amount taxable is the adult dependant rate less the deduction levied under the Act introduced last year. That would be the effect of amendment No. 27. Anything else will have the most unfortunate effect—which I regard as repugnant and I hope the House regards as repugnant—that we would be levying a tax on the child additions which are calculated as the sums necessary to support, feed and clothe the children of a striker to ensure that he continues to send them to school.

There is another way to demonstrate the effect of taxing the child additions. Let us take two families—one with children and one without. Let us assume that they receive £12 from a trade union—which was the justification for docking £12 under the 1980 Act—and that both families declare that £12. The result would be that the married man with no children would receive a portion of the adult dependant rate of £6. When he adds his £12 received from the union, he will return to the adult dependant rate and it is at that rate that he will be taxed when he returns to work.

However, the married man with two children will receive the full adult dependant rate and more because he is receiving child additions and will also have to declare the £12 he receives from the union. He will be taxed at the full adult dependant rate plus £12. The only difference in income between the two families is the child additions. It is therefore logically inescapable that the child additions are taxed. That is the only additional income that the second family has and it must be that income that is being taxed in one case and not in the other.

The Financial Secretary knows that that arrangement is indefensible, because it was debated in Committee. In Committee he denied that that was so, but plainly that is the effect. If he wants to avoid that effect he should accept amendment No. 27. If he will not accept it, he must justify why he feels able to ask the House to tax the child additions which the House has set at a level necessary for the subsistence of a child.

Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am loath to interrupt the proceedings on the Finance Bill, but I understand that there has been a rather serious incursion by the police in the heart of Brixton today. There are serious possibilities of riots resulting from that this evening. I hope that the Home Secretary might be prepared to consider the matter, to ask for a report arid perhaps to make a statement to the House later. I understand that he could not possibly make a statement at such short notice, but I hope that my point of order will be listened to and understood by the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that such matters are not arranged by the Chair. I am sure that his words will have been listened to.

Mr. Cook

Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 deal with the taxation of the unemployment benefit which is provided for in the clause. The effect of the amendments would be to exempt one-seventh of unemployment benefit from tax. As will be immediately apprehended by numerate hon. Members, one-seventh is 15 per cent. The effect of exempting 15 per cent. will be to leave in the hands of the claimants 5 per cent. of the total benefit. That is the amount that was deducted last year from the unemployment benefit on the basis that unemployment benefit is not liable to tax. Our amendments are a device, albeit a clumsy device, to make good the 5 per cent. abatement that was applied to unemployment benefit by the Government on the pretext that it was in lieu of taxation.

I admit at once that this is a clumsy and inelegant—albeit an ingenious—device, and we should much prefer not to have to press these amendments to a Division. We should like the Financial Secretary instead to give us an assurance that he will restore the full rate of unemployment benefit, and restore the 5 per cent. abatement that has been taken from the unemployed in the last two years. But if we are unable to achieve a greater assurance and with more confidence than we had in Committee, we shall feel obliged to press the amendments to a Division.

Since we debated these matters in Committee two things have developed which have coloured our debate on the taxation of unemployment benefit. First, there are even more unemployed than when we last debated the matter in Committee. Indeed, it is now evident—it is agreed in all parts of the House—that unemployment will shortly top 3 million. That is an inescapable figure. The CBI has put forward its own forecast of unemployment for early next year of 3¼ million, and the CBI's estimates have tended to lag behind the rate of increase in unemployment.

The second thing that we have seen—as the intervention on the point of order has reminded the House—is the effects in our streets of the social stress that arises from mass unemployment. In particular, we see it in the pockets of our inner urban areas where we now have youth unemployment in excess of 50 per cent. It need surprise no one that that rate of unemployment in a single generation gives rise to intolerable social stress which has the kinds of results that we have been obliged to discuss over the past fortnight.

It is also evident—we have seen it in the last fortnight and discussed the consequences of that rate of unemployment—that Conservative Members do not understand why we protest so much and are so concerned at the mass outrage of unemployment. How else are we to explain our feelings when, having achieved a level of unemployment that is higher than any level of unemployment since records have been kept, the Government have the nerve to respond to that novel and unique situation by bringing in a new tax on the same people that they themselves have put out of work?

While we have demanded the creation of new jobs in manufacturing industry or in the public services, what is contained in the clause is a proposal to create another 3,500 jobs in order to tax all the other people who are out of work. We find that proposal paradoxical. But if Conservative Members are bent on taxing unemployment benefit, at least let them give us a guarantee that they will restore the 5 per cent. abatement that they removed from the unemployed on the basis that they were not liable to taxation.

During our debate in Committee, I got into hot water because I was rash enough to suggest that that 5 per cent. abatement had been stolen from the unemployed. The Financial Secretary corrected me by saying that what is legally enacted and approved by the House of Commons cannot be construed as theft. I would assent to that proposition technically and legally. What is passed by the House cannot be construed as legal theft. But in judging the propriety of what the House passed two years ago we are surely entitled to have regard to what the House was told at the time that it passed the measure providing for the 5 per cent. abatement. I have before me some quotations from the speeches of the Secretary of State for Social Services when he introduced the measure. On Second Reading, he said: taxation in 1982 is two years away, and the Government have decided that we must start … with an interim scheme in lieu of taxation. Indeed, for the avoidance of doubt, he repeated it later in the same speech. He said: The right hon. Gentleman accused me of using the words 'This is a form of taxation.' I never said that. I said that it was an interim measure in lieu of taxation."—[Official Report, 15 April 1980; Vol. 982, c. 1040–59.] Then again, for good measure, he said in Committee: I made it abundantly clear on Second Reading … that we recognised that this is not proper taxation. This is an interim scheme in lieu of taxation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 29 April 1980; c. 358.] So, on three successive occasions, on Second Reading and in Committee the Secretary of State assured both the House and the Committee that the 5 per cent. abatement was an interim scheme in lieu of taxation. I shall not go so far as to challenge the authority of the Chair by suggesting that the Chair had allowed the Secretary of State to be tedious and repetitive, but he has persisted and put on record several times his assertion that this was an interim scheme in lieu of taxation.

8.30 pm

In Committee, the Secretary of State was asked what he meant when he suggested that the 5 per cent. abatement would be restored, subject to the availability of resources. He replied: I shall not be drawn on that. However, the yield from proper taxation will be three times what will be saved by clause 1. One is perfectly capable of looking at the accounts as a whole, at both revenue and expenditure. I do not therefore anticipate any difficulty in meeting the obligation to restore the benefits and fulfilling the pledge that I have given. When the benefits come into tax, the revenue will be there.".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 May 1980; c. 684.] There we have it. The Secretary of State plainly said that when the benefits were taxed the resources would be there to restore the 5 per cent. abatement.

I can go further than the Secretary of State. I can advise the House that he understated the amount by which the revenue from taxation would exceed the 5 per cent. abatement. He said that it was three times. We know from the figures that we obtained in Committee that the revenue that the Treasury will receive as a result of taxing unemployment benefit will be five times the amount necessary to restore the 5 per cent. abatement.

The Financial Secretary has the resources, and with them he should restore the 5 per cent. abatement. I know why he and the Government are reluctant to do so. It is true that they want the money, but there is another reason. It is what they are pleased to call the "Why work?" syndrome. Despite the startling rise in unemployment since they came into office, despite the obscene, tragic contrast between the number of vacancies and the number of people unemployed, those who are seeking work now exceed the number of vacancies in most regions 15 to 20 times. Despite that, the Government nurse a secret suspicion that they are unemployed not because they have been thrown out of work but because they are better off unemployed.

I concede that there are many more people for whom it is financially better to be unemployed than in work under this Government than under the previous Government, because the number of people in the poverty trap has increased by 40 per cent. under this Government on the Government's own estimates. It has increased because the Government have failed to uprate the tax allowances. Those at the bottom end of the spectrum are paying more taxes, and to that extent the Secretary of State has widened the poverty trap.

The solution to the poverty trap is to raise the tax thresholds to let people out. The solution that the Government seem bent on is, having penalised those in work with a higher tax burden, equally to penalise those who are out of work by retaining the 5 per cent. abatement on their benefit. I do not believe that the House can be prepared to accept that. If it does accept it, the unemployed will be liable to double taxation—the 5 per cent. deduction, which we were told was being levied in lieu of taxation, and the proper taxation that is being introduced in the Bill.

My hon. Friends who sat through the last debate will recall the passion with which the Financial Secretary came to the defence of the higher income earners who pay the higher tax rates. My hon. Friends who were present yesterday will recall that when we debated tax avoidance and evasion there were a number of interventions from hon. Members below the Gangway who defended with passion the cuts made by their Government in the higher rates of tax, cuts made on the basis that the previous rate of tax levied by the Labour Government had been confiscatory, to use the word used by one of them.

I invite my hon. Friends to contemplate with what passion, anger and indignation Conservative hon. Members would rise if it were proposed to apply a double taxation penalty to the high income earners. We should be lucky if we concluded the Report stage in time to save tomorrow's business if such a proposal were before us. Yet that is precisely what is proposed for the taxation of the unemployed, who from 1982 onwards are liable to be taxed by the 5 per cent. abatement levied in lieu of taxation and taxed properly on the unemployment benefit that they receive net of that 5 per cent. abatement.

That would be intolerable. I hope that the Government do not intend to allow it to happen. We tabled the amendments to give the Financial Secretary an opportunity to assure the House that that is not the Government's intention, that they will give a guarantee to restore the 5 per cent. abatement to the unemployed next year.

If we are unable to obtain that assurance, we shall be failing in our duty to those whom we represent, too many of whom are now, sadly, unemployed, if we do not press the amendments to a Division.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has said, and particularly his argument about the unemployment benefit being liable to double taxation. In my constituency the Department of Employment is unable to pay the unemployment benefit that it should pay. In addition, the Department of Health and Social Security is unable to keep its offices open to pay social security benefit to my people who are entitled to unemployment benefit, and the local authority is unable to make any emergency payment.

In Hackney tonight families are starving. There are now threats of looting, of people doing things to obtain food. Yet the Financial Secretary sits on the Treasury Bench as though nothing has happened. Double taxation may or may not be all right, just so long as those concerned are ever paid the unemployment benefit. What right has the Financial Secretary to sit there in the full knowledge that people are not being paid their due? I urge him to say what he will do about it. Who will pay the unemployment benefit to which my families are entitled?

I have seen the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Services. It is true that one of them is giving me an interview next Tuesday. But what will the right hon. Gentleman do about those in my constituency—news of this is on the tape tonight—who will line up tomorrow for money that they will not receive?

I hope that the Financial Secretary will take advice and tell me how his Government can reduce our country to its present state, with people starving because there is no means of their obtaining food. Do the Government intend to set up workhouses and soup kitchens? How are my people to be paid? They have no money and they have had none since last Friday. I want an undertaking from the Treasury, since it is responsible, about what it intends to do so that families in my area will be told tomorrow how they can get money to buy food for their babies.

No money is available. The social services department of Hackney borough council has no money. The council was put in the penalty box by the Government and had £15 million withdrawn. We are in a disastrous state. I urge the Financial Secretary to tell me how I can help my constituents to get what is rightly theirs—unemployment benefit, or, if they cannot get that, supplementary benefit. If they cannot get supplementary benefit, no other help is available.

Mr. Horam

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has put, with his customary sincerity, an important point which I hope the Government will answer. The Government should feel responsible for the hardship that they are causing in many parts of the country. Their handling of the Civil Service dispute has made worse problems that are having serious effects on many people who draw benefit.

That is not the first incursion, to use the word employed by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) earlier, of events outside the Chamber. We know that there is further trouble down in Brixton, which shows the extent to which the country is under stress as a result of the Government's economic and social policies.

The general theme of our debate bears on all those problems. The Social Democrats support the principle that social security benefits should be treated as taxable income. The Child Poverty Action Group also supports that general principle, and we believe that it is right to treat social security benefits as income, just as earnings are treated as income.

Equally, it is right to help with the problem of work incentive by taxing social security benefits. In addition, the money that the Government gain by taxing benefits is available to improve the level of benefits. That was brought out well by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) who quoted figures obtained in Committee. The money that the Government gain from taxing benefits is about five times what they would need to make good the real cut in benefit made last year in lieu of taxation.

We are asking for very little and for something which is compatible with the Government's general stand on work incentives. The Social Democrats agree that it is right in principle that all income should be taxed. However, we also support higher levels of benefits and we believe that the Government should restore the cuts that they made on the ground that they could not at that time bring in measures to tax benefits.

In case the Government fall back on the argument that higher benefits would affect the work incentive, I should point out that a recent survey by the Institute of Policy Studies, financed by the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission, found that only 3 per cent. of white men and 5 per cent. of men in any minority group received more in benefits than they had previously earned.

An astonishing aspect of that survey was that the average incomes of those men had declined by 46 per cent. since they had become unemployed. There can be no problem of work incentives when the gap between what is received in benefits and what is received in incomes is so great. The study also showed—and this relates to a point by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—that there is real hardship for people living on the present level of unemployment benefit, particularly if they live on that benefit for a long time.

8.45 pm

My constituents in Gateshead are just as much at risk in this respect as are the citizens of Hackney. Indeed, unemployment in Gateshead, I suspect, is higher than, or a least as high as, the unemployment rate in parts of inner London. I know that parts of inner London are suffering an increasing level of unemployment. This is an issue about which those hon. Members who represent inner city areas feel concern. It is evident in the present, real troubles that the country faces.

The pat argument that the Government and the Prime Minister tend to evoke does not stand up. The way to increase benefits, in the short term, is to use the money that the Government have gained by taxing benefits not simply to restore cuts but to make substantial increases, for example in the long-term supplementary benefit grade as it applies to the unemployed. The unemployed are the only group outside it. The cost would be about £75 million to be added to the £45 million entailed in what the amendment seeks. This would make a direct contribution to lessening the tensions and the difficulties that are evident in the country and that must cause the Government the utmost concern.

The Prime Minister said only recently that this has been the most difficult period of her premiership. The right hon. Lady recognised the sense of responsibility that she must feel for the riots that have occurred across the country. If she is to do anything about them—there are many aspects to the problem—she must pay attention to the plight of the unemployed. This is the central fact to which the amendment seeks to direct the mind of the Government.

Mr. Soley

Today, as on other occasions during the progress of the Finance Bill, much has been heard about the Government's economic policy. This is an appropriate time to say that underlying that policy is what amounts almost to a desire to punish people who go on strike or who are seen as scroungers. They are put in the firing line. It is unique to this Government that, both at the time of the election and since, they have chosen to blame the failures of British economic policy on some moral failing of the British people. No one can believe that. The failings have much deeper causes. Clearly, however, the people in the front line are those on low incomes and those who might have been on strike.

I acknowledge to some extent the Minister's argument that higher rates of tax were absurdly high. The problem that arises is that if tax levels are increased on people at the lower end of the scale at the same time as reliefs are granted at the higher end, our people, who are not stupid and who understand what is happening, become angry. Their anger is understandable. They are aware that there is no effective tax on wealth. Yet they are told that those at the lower end of the income scale must make extra sacrifices for the good of the country. People know that that cannot be fair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South arid Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has drawn attention to a matter of terrifying significance. I received a letter recently, the contents of which I was inclined to doubt although it came from a good source, stating that in my constituency the supply of Girocheques to pay benefit was becoming exhausted. I have taken steps to check whether that is so. It is clear from what my hon. Friend says that it must be. It is terrifying to think that, at a time when law and order is already in a shaky state, not least because of the Government's policies, people might be denied benefit. On top of all the other sufferings, that must impose yet greater strains on the fabric of society.

There is a fundamental fault in the Government's approach when they can continue increasing the burdens on the lower income groups, on the unemployed and on those on strike while they continue to give relief to those at the higher end of the spectrum. It is that flaunting of privilege in the face of deprivation that so damages people's trust and confidence in the system.

Unless the Government change and show some recognition of the needs of those at the lower end of the income scale, we are in for much more serious trouble than Britain has seen for many years.

Mr. Lawson

This debate has been briefer than the previous debate, but it has ranged no less widely. It has touched on many areas of deep concern. All of us are concerned about the level of unemployment. All of us are particularly concerned about the recent examples of riots, some of which have tended to be imitative, in some of our cities. We are also deeply concerned about the effects of the Civil Service strike on innocent victims such as the constituents of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown).

The Government deplore the fact not merely that the Civil Service unions should have called this strike but, in particular, that they should be causing hardship to some of the weakest members of our society through the failure to pay unemployment benefit in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. It is astonishing that a group of people who, over the past two years, have had an increase of 50 per cent. in their pay and who now have offered to them a further increase of 7 per cent., and who have a higher degree of security of employment than any other group in our society, should now be on strike and causing the sort of consequences to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer (Batley and Morley)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soley


Mr. Lawson

I shall continue.

I have every sympathy with the constituents of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. He has taken up the matter with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Social Services. They are the Ministers who have a direct responsibility. It is not a Treasury responsibility. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has done that. I understand that he felt moved to ventilate the difficulty in this debate. I would be the last person to criticise him for having done SO.

Mr. Soley

It is totally unacceptable that the right hon. Gentleman simply blames this on the civil servants, as though the Government have no responsibility. The Government are party to the negotiations. Everyone knows that if the Pay Research Unit had not been abolished, or that if the Government had set up some other negotiating machinery, they could have carried on the normal trade union negotiations in this respect. It is not enough to say, as the Government say over and again, "This is nothing to do with the Government; it is not our fault."

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. I did not intervene previously, but we had a major debate on this subject yesterday. The Financial Secretary was answering a question put by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), and I allowed that to continue. However, we must now return to the subject of the clause.

Mr. Lawson

I shall certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If at any moment I strayed out of order, I regret that. I did so only because of the intervention of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, who felt very strongly about the subject, and understandably so. I felt that I owed him a reply and that I should not ignore what he said by seeking to shelter around a narrow construction of the rules of order.

The main matter under debate is the question of the taxation of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit paid in respect of unemployment—because the two, obviously, in all equity, must be treated in the same way. When we discussed the matter in Committee, both the spokesmen for the official Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), conceded that it was right to subject unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit for the unemployed to tax. They argued about the method, but they agreed that those benefits should be taxed. However, in his most recent intervention, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central seems to have shifted away from that, and suggests that it is disgraceful that unemployment benefit should be taxed. I note his opportunism, but in all logic, equity and common sense, the people of this country recognise that the principle he enunciated in Committee was sounder than the one he now enunciates on Report. Indeed, that latter principle was also enunciated today by the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) on behalf of the Social Democratic Party.

I was asked to give an assurance that the 5 per cent. abatement of unemployment benefit would be made good when unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit in respect of unemployment come into tax in April 1982. I am afraid that I can add nothing to the statement that I made on this matter when we discussed it in Committee. I understand all the arguments that have been adduced by Opposition Members today, but we are discussing a public expenditure matter, and the decision will be taken in the normal way in the course of the annual public expenditure review which takes place during the summer and autumn of this year. The decision whether to make good the abatement will be announced publicly well before April 1982, when the benefits are due to come into tax.

The decision will be made not just, as was suggested by the hon. Members for Gateshead, West and Edinburgh, Central, in the light of the narrow question of how much is being collected in taxation and how much it would cost to pay the abatement—that may be relevant, but the decision will not be taken in that limited context—but in the context of the overall total public expenditure and the priorities within that total. That is the way that Governments of any political colour would address public expenditure matters, and that is the way that we shall do it. The matter remains to be decided, and therefore I cannot make a statement today. However, I have noted what has been said.

It is most unwise of hon. Members, however strongly they feel about unemployment and the suffering and hardship that it involves, to get carried away by the headlines and imply that it is responsible for the riots that have occurred in many of our cities recently. There is no evidence for that connection. We must take a serious view of the civil disturbances, and to explain them away glibly as automatic consequences of unemployment is irresponsible and regrettable.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the Prime Minister say that unemployment was a factor.

Mr. Lawson

My right hon. Friend went on to say that it was certainly not the main factor. I associate myself with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I am glad that the Opposition agree with the Prime Minister's words. On that happy and harmonious note I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 178, Noes 271.

Division No. 275] [8.55 pm
Abse, Leo Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Adams, Allen Home Robertson, John
Anderson, Donald Homewood, William
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Hooley, Frank
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Howell, Rt Hon D.
Ashton, Joe Huckfield, Les
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Bidwell, Sydney Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Booth, Rt Hon Albert John, Brynmor
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Johnson, James (Hull West)
Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro) Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Kerr, Russell
Campbell, Ian Lambie, David
Campbell-Savours, Dale Leadbitter, Ted
Canavan, Dennis Lestor, Miss Joan
Cant, R. B. Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Cohen, Stanley McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Coleman, Donald McElhone, Frank
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Conlan, Bernard McNally, Thomas
Cook, Robin P, McNamara, Kevin
Cowans, Harry McWilliam, John
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) Magee, Bryan
Craigen, J. M. Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Crowther, J. S. Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Cryer, Bob Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) Maxton, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Meacher, Michael
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Deakins, Eric Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Dempsey, James Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Dewar, Donald Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Dixon, Donald Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Dobson, Frank Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Dormand, Jack Newens, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Dubs, Alfred Ogden, Eric
Duffy, A. E. P. O'Halloran, Michael
Dunn, James A. O'Neill, Martin
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Eadie Alex Paisley, Rev Ian
Eastham, Ken Palmer, Arthur
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) Parker, John
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) Pavitt, Laurie
English, Michael Pendry, Tom
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Faulds, Andrew Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Field, Frank Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Fitch, Alan Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Robertson, George
Ford, Ben Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Forrester, John Rooker, J. W.
Foster, Derek Rowlands, Ted
Foulkes, George Sever, John
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce Short, Mrs Renée
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Golding, John Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Silverman, Julius
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Skinner, Dennis
Hardy, Peter Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Snape, Peter
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Soley, Clive
Haynes, Frank Spearing, Nigel
Heffer, Eric S. Spriggs, Leslie
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) Stallard, A. W.
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Stoddart, David Whitlock, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) Wigley, Dafydd
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Tilley, John Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Tinn, James Winnick, David
Torney, Tom Woodall, Alec
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom Woolmer, Kenneth
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. Wright, Sheila
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V) Young, David (Bolton E)
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Watkins, David Tellers for the Ayes:
Weetch, Ken Mr. George Morton and
Welsh. Michael Mr. Frank White.
Adley, Robert Eggar, Tim
Aitken, Jonathan Emery, Peter
Alexander, Richard Eyre, Reginald
Alison, Michael Fairgrieve, Russell
Ancram, Michael Faith, Mrs Sheila
Atkins, Robert (Preston N) Farr, John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) Fell, Anthony
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Fisher, Sir Nigel
Bendall, Vivian Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Best, Keith Fookes, Miss Janet
Bevan, David Gilroy Forman, Nigel
Biffen, Rt Hon John Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Biggs-Davison, John Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Blackburn, John Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Blaker, Peter Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Body, Richard Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bowden, Andrew Glyn, Dr Alan
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Goodhew, Victor
Braine, Sir Bernard Goodlad, Alastair
Bright, Graham Gorst, John
Brinton, Tim Gow, Ian
Brittan, Leon Gower, Sir Raymond
Brooke, Hon Peter Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Brotherton, Michael Gray, Hamish
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) Greenway, Harry
Browne, John (Winchester) Grieve, Percy
Bruce-Gardyne, John Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Buck, Antony Grist, Ian
Bulmer, Esmond Grylls, Michael
Butcher, John Gummer, John Selwyn
Butler, Hon Adam Hamilton, Hon A.
Cadbury, Jocelyn Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Hampson, Dr Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hannam, John
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n ) Haselhurst, Alan
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Hastings, Stephen
Chapman, Sydney Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Churchill, W. S. Hawksley, Warren
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Hayhoe, Barney
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Heddle, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Henderson, Barry
Clegg, Sir Walter Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Cockeram, Eric Hicks, Robert
Colvin, Michael Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Cope, John Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Cormack, Patrick Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Come, John Hooson, Tom
Cranborne, Viscount Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Critchley, Julian Hunt, David (Wirral)
Crouch, David Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset) Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Dickens, Geoffrey Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Jessel, Toby
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Dykes, Hugh Kaberry, Sir Donald
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) King, Rt Hon Tom
Knight, Mrs Jill Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Knox, David Rees-Davies, W. R.
Lamont, Norman Renton, Tim
Lang, Ian Rhodes James, Robert
Langford-Holt, Sir John Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Latham, Michael Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lawrence, Ivan Rifkind, Malcolm
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Rossi, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Rost, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) Royle, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Loveridge, John St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Luce, Richard Scott, Nicholas
Lyell, Nicholas Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Macfarlane, Neil Shelton, William (Streatham)
MacKay, John (Argyll) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. Shepherd, Richard
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Silvester, Fred
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) Skeet, T. H. H.
McQuarrie, Albert Speed, Keith
Major, John Speller, Tony
Marland, Paul Spence, John
Marlow, Tony Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marten, Neil (Banbury) Sproat, Iain
Mates, Michael Squire, Robin
Mather, Carol Stainton, Keith
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Stanbrook, Ivor
Mawby, Ray Stanley, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Steen, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stevens, Martin
Mayhew, Patrick Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mellor, David Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Stokes, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Stradling Thomas, J.
Mills, Peter (West Devon) Tapsell, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Tebbit, Norman
Moate, Roger Temple-Morris, Peter
Molyneaux, James Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Monro, Hector Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Moore, John Thompson, Donald
Morgan, Geraint Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S) Thornton, Malcolm
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Myles, David Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Neale, Gerrard Trippier, David
Needham, Richard Trotter, Neville
Neubert, Michael van Straubenzee, W. R.
Newton, Tony Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Normanton, Tom Viggers, Peter
Nott, Rt Hon John Wakeham, John
Onslow, Cranley Waldegrave, Hon William
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. Wall, Patrick
Osborn, John Walters, Dennis
Page, John (Harrow, West) Ward, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) Warren, Kenneth
Page, Richard (SW Herts) Watson, John
Parris, Matthew Wells, John (Maidstone)
Patten, Christopher (Bath) Wells, Bowen
Pattie, Geoffrey Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Pawsey, James Whitney, Raymond
Percival, Sir Ian Wickenden, Keith
Pollock, Alexander Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) Winterton, Nicholas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Wolfson, Mark
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Prior, Rt Hon James Younger, Rt Hon George
Proctor, K. Harvey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis Tellers for the Noes:
Raison, Timothy Mr. Anthony Berry and
Rathbone, Tim Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 16, line 10, after 'of, insert 'six-sevenths of.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 189,Noes 279.

Division No. 276] [9.10 pm
Abse, Leo Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Adams, Allen Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Alton, David Home Robertson, John
Anderson, Donald Homewood, William
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Hooley, Frank
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Horam, John
Ashton, Joe Howell, Rt Hon D.
Beith, A. J. Howells, Geraint
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N) Huckfield, Les
Bidwell, Sydney Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Janner, Hon Greville
Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Bray, Dr Jeremy John, Brynmor
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Johnson, James (Hull West)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS) Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Campbell, Ian Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Canavan, Dennis Kerr, Russell
Cant, R. B. Lambie, David
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Leadbitter, Ted
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Lestor, Miss Joan
Cohen, Stanley Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Coleman, Donald Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Conlan, Bernard McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Cook, Robin F. McElhone, Frank
Cowans, Harry McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) McNally, Thomas
Craigen, J. M. McNamara, Kevin
Crowther, J. S. McWilliam, John
Cryer, Bob Magee, Bryan
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Maxton, John
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) Meacher, Michael
Deakins, Eric Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Dempsey, James Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dewar, Donald Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Dixon, Donald Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Dobson, Frank Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Dormand, Jack Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Dubs, Alfred Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Duffy, A. E. P. Morton, George
Dunn, James A. Newens, Stanley
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Eadie, Alex O'Halloran, Michael
Eastham, Ken O'Neill, Martin
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) Paisley, Rev Ian
English, Michael Palmer, Arthur
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Parker, John
Faulds, Andrew Pavitt, Laurie
Field, Frank Pendry, Tom
Fitch, Alan Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Ford, Ben Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Forrester, John Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Foster, Derek Robertson, George
Foulkes, George Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) Rooker, J. W.
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Roper, John
George, Bruce Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Rowlands, Ted
Golding, John Ryman, John
Grant, George (Morpeth) Sandelson, Neville
Hardy, Peter Sever, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank Short, Mrs Renée
Heffer, Eric S. Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Silverman, Julius Watkins, David
Skinner, Dennis Weetch, Ken
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark) Welsh, Michael
Snape, Peter White, Frank R.
Soley, Clive White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Spearing, Nigel Whitlock, William
Spriggs, Leslie Wigley, Dafydd
Stallard, A. W. Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Steel, Rt Hon David Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Stoddart, David Winnick, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) Woodall, Alec
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Woolmer, Kenneth
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) Wright, Sheila
Tilley, John Young, David (Bolton E)
Torney, Tom
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom Tellers for the Ayes:
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. Mr. James Hamilton and
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V) Mr. James Tinn.
Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Adley, Robert Crouch, David
Aitken, Jonathan Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Alexander, Richard Dickens, Geoffrey
Alison, Michael Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Ancram, Michael du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Arnold, Tom Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Aspinwall, Jack Durant, Tony
Atkins, Robert (Preston N) Dykes, Hugh
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Banks, Robert Eggar, Tim
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Emery, Peter
Bendall, Vivian Eyre, Reginald
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Fairbairn, Nicholas
Best, Keith Fairgrieve, Russell
Bevan, David Gilroy Faith, Mrs Sheila
Biffen, Rt Hon John Farr, John
Biggs-Davison, John Fell, Anthony
Blackburn, John Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Blaker, Peter Fisher, Sir Nigel
Body, Richard Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Fookes, Miss Janet
Bowden, Andrew Forman, Nigel
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Braine, Sir Bernard Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Bright, Graham Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Brinton, Tim Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Brittan, Leon Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Brooke, Hon Peter Garel-Jones, Tristan
Brotherton, Michael Glyn, Dr Alan
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) Goodhew, Victor
Browne, John (Winchester) Goodlad, Alastair
Bruce-Gardyne, John Gorst, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Gow, Ian
Buck, Antony Gower, Sir Raymond
Bulmer, Esmond Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Butcher, John Gray, Hamish
Butler, Hon Adam Greenway, Harry
Cadbury, Jocelyn Grieve, Percy
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) Grist, Ian
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Grylls, Michael
Chapman, Sydney Gummer, John Selwyn
Churchill, W. S. Hamilton, Hon A.
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hampson, Dr Keith
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hannam, John
Clegg, Sir Walter Haselhurst, Alan
Cockeram, Eric Hastings, Stephen
Colvin, Michael Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Cope, John Hawksley, Warren
Cormack, Patrick Hayhoe, Barney
Corrie, John Heddle, John
Cranborne, Viscount Henderson, Barry
Critchley, Julian Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Hicks, Robert Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Pattie, Geoffrey
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Pawsey, James
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Percival, Sir Ian
Hooson, Tom Pollock, Alexander
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Prior, Rt Hon James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Proctor, K. Harvey
Jessel, Toby Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Raison, Timothy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Rathbone, Tim
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Kaberry, Sir Donald Rees-Davies, W. R.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Renton, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom Rhodes James, Robert
Knight, Mrs Jill Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Knox, David Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lamont, Norman Rifkind, Malcolm
Lang, Ian Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Langford-Holt, Sir John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Latham, Michael Rossi, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan Rost, Peter
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Royle, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lester, Jim (Beeston) St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Scott, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Loveridge, John Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Luce, Richard Shepherd, Richard
Lyell, Nicholas Silvester, Fred
Macfarlane, Neil Skeet, T. H. H.
MacKay, John (Argyll) Speed, Keith
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. Speller, Tony
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Spence, John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
McQuarrie, Albert Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Major, John Sproat, Iain
Marland, Paul Squire, Robin
Marlow, Tony Stainton, Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stanbrook, Ivor
Marten, Neil (Banbury) Stanley, John
Mates, Michael Steen, Anthony
Mather, Carol Stevens, Martin
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mawby, Ray Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Stokes, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stradling Thomas, J.
Mayhew, Patrick Tapsell, Peter
Mellor, David Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Tebbit, Norman
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Temple-Morris, Peter
Mills, Peter (West Devon) Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Miscampbell, Norman Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Thompson, Donald
Moate, Roger Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Molyneaux, James Thornton, Malcolm
Monro, Hector Townend, John (Bridlington)
Moore, John Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Morgan, Geraint Trippier, David
Morris, M. (N'hampton S) Trotter, Neville
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mudd, David Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Murphy, Christopher Viggers, Peter
Myles, David Wakeham, John
Neale, Gerrard Waldegrave, Hon William
Needham, Richard Walker, B. (Perth)
Neubert, Michael Wall, Patrick
Newton, Tony Walters, Dennis
Normanton, Tom Ward, John
Nott, Rt Hon John Warren, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley Watson, John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Osborn, John Wells, Bowen
Page, John (Harrow, West) Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) Whitney, Raymond
Page, Richard (SW Herts) Wickenden, Keith
Parris, Matthew Wiggin, Jerry
Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Winterton, Nicholas Tellers for the Noes:
Wolfson, Mark Mr. Anthony Berry and
Young, Sir George (Acton) Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Younger, Rt Hon George

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to