§
`In the Forestry Act 1967 there shall be inserted at the end of section 39 the following subsection—
(7) In any sale of land made under this section it shall be a condition of sale that a covenant be inserted binding the original purchaser and any subsequent purchaser to maintain a stock proof boundary fence". '.—[Mr. Mark Hughes.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
4.15 pm§ Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I have much sympathy with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon), namely, that on Report or in Committee the other place is empowered to press and perhaps to succeed in pressing, amendments which our rules do not permit. This is in no sense a criticism of your office, Mr. Speaker, in having to decline to select. It is in the nature of the different rules of order of the two Houses. I hope that when the Bill is debated in another place such a new clause will receive favourable consideration. Therefore, though not selected, I tell the hon. Member for Buckingham—I hope without a suggestion that your decision was improper, Mr. Speaker—that I am grateful to him for having tabled the new clause. I wish that the rules of order had allowed new clause 2 to be selected.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) should feel that the compliment paid to him has more than compensated for the fact that his new clause was out of order. I hope that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) will not pursue new clause 2 as long as it was pursued in Committee.
§ Mr. HughesIn no circumstances, Mr. Speaker. When we discussed something akin to new clause 3 in Committee I was advised by the Parliamentary Secretary 168 that the amendment was legally unsound and could not be sustained. Therefore, on Report we introduce a new clause that I trust is legally sound. I hope that it will command the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not seeking to inhibit the ability of the Forestry Commission, under the orders of the Secretary of State, to sell forestry land for any purpose. He may not agree with the terms of clause 1, but the new clause is based on the premise that clause 1 has been carried and that the Bill is about to become part of the law.
We are about to impose upon the purchaser of such land, and any subsequent purchaser, a covenant that forces him to maintain a stock-proof boundary fence on and around the property. This stems from a gentleman's agreement entered into in 1956 between the Forestry Commission and the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, whereby, although not legally required to maintain such stock-proof fence, the commission undertook, at its own expense, to do so. This has been of immense benefit to farmers farming land adjacent to forestry land. They have not had the normal legal responsibility of fencing in their stock. The commission has accepted that part of its public responsibility was to fence out stock from forestry land and that, when sold, such fencing should be maintained.
I accept that new fencing is expensive. We are asking not that new fencing should be erected by the new owner but that the new owner should maintain a stock-proof fence round forestry land.
I accept that there are difficulties in Scotland, where the situation is significantly different. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Chamber. No gentlemen's agreement exists between the Scottish NFU and the Forestry Commission in Scotland. Therefore, different interpretations of the rules on grant-aid for boundary fencing obtain in Scotland. I doubt whether Scottish farmers have been the net beneficiaries of the different arrangements.
In England and Wales many small farmers in upland and hill areas on marginal land have had a significant improvement in their capital and current positions because of this gentlemen's agreement. The agreement has operated since 1956, and there is no evidence that it has significantly inhibited the Forestry Commission's ability to purchase land, to manage land, and to plant and reap the rewards of previous planting.
It may be argued that the inclusion of the new clause would mean the net receipts of sales under clause 1 being significantly reduced. That is not sufficient to undermine and abandon an arrangement that the NFU and the commission have allowed to continue to their mutual satisfaction for 25 years.
A farmer who in good faith bought his farm last year, in the expectation that the boundary fence would be maintained by the Forestry Commission, will, if the commission should sell adjacent land, have by retrospective legislation imposed upon him the duty to maintain the fence. The terms upon which he entered into the original contract for the purchase of that land will be changed by an Act of Parliament after the making of the contract. It is not in the best traditions of the House that contracts honourably entered into in 1979 or 1980 should be materially affected by an Act passed in 1981.
We are concerned possibly with a small hill farmer in, for example, central Wales—Gwynedd, Dyfed, or Powys—who has purchased a smallholding with perhaps 169 two-thirds of the boundary towards the mountain adjacent to forestry land. That farmer bought in the expectation that the Forestry Commission would maintain the stock-proof boundary fence and that there would be no call upon him to continue the maintenance costs, but by virtue of this legislation and the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, he will find that that no longer obtains.
In Committee we were told that the pre-existing maintenance would be continued. Therefore, when in the late 1940s and 1950s a previous acquisition by the commission had been undertaken and the green and blue lines on the conveyance indicated that that would be the new purchaser's responsibility, that was waived, because of the gentlemen's agreement that the commission would undertake that responsibility. Those would have been the terms upon which the new purchaser bought the freehold or leasehold two or three years ago.
If we pass the Bill without new clause 3 we shall cause mischief to a number of purchasers who, in good faith, have bought and invested in properties during the past three of four years. That good faith is being undermined by the Government's unwillingness to allow this minuscule but important restriction and covenant on sales.
We may be told that such a covenant drives a coach and horses through all the laws of tort and contract in the United Kingdom. I remind the House that "forestry" stems from the Latin word "foris", which means "outside the normal run of common law". It has nothing to do with trees. "Foris" is concerned with common law arrangements, and it means that people may hunt and shoot but, as human beings, not have protection.
4.30 pm
Therefore, to say that a forestry Bill cannot include a specific covenant is to deny the whole of the mediaeval history of forestry legislation. The whole of the legislation on forestry until the major appeals in the Cromwellian period is about exclusion from normality. Therefore, if it is argued in this specific case that this makes the purchase of foris land—that which is outside the normal procedures of law—abnormal, that is absolutely classic for forestry legislation. That is what forestry legislation from the period of William Rufus has been about, and that is what it should still be about. Therefore, I trust that no arrow hits the Parliamentary Secretary when he next visits the New Forest.
We do not wish to delay the House on this matter, but we hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the feeling of many farmers—both those who have bought their farms recently and those who have been occupying them for many years—that this change, whereby they are made to bear a maintenance cost that was not part of their original bargain or contract, puts upon them a form of retrospective cost that they could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate when they made their original contract.
If the Parliamentary Secretary believes that the wording could be improved, I have no doubt that we would welcome his undertaking to do that. We are not asking that the new purchaser should create stock-proof fencing. That is not what is in the new clause. It is that he and his successor shall maintain the new fencing that already, under the gentleman's agreement, the Forestry 170 Commission has provided. We are not asking them to make a major capital investment. We do not believe that the loss of purchase value to the Crown, or to the Government—even though we regret the Government's desire to sell off such property—should be encumbered by a major capital charge, and that new fencing should be produced. We are simply saying that the purchaser shall maintain stock-proof boundary fencing that within England and Wales since 1956 it has been the custom and habit of the commission, whatever its legal obligations, to maintain.
Therefore, in moving this new clause as briefly as I can I hope that even at this late stage the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that this is in no sense an amendment that seeks to undermine the principle of the Bill and reduce the contribution made to the Exchequer by the sales beyond a minuscule level. It does no harm to the principle of the Bill and it would give major relief to a vast number of small farmers throughout England and Wales.
§ Mr. Donald Coleman (Neath)It is a pity that we are not discussing new clause 2, but I understand the reason—that it would have concerned maintaining access and amenities. However, we are talking about a new clause which will affect access to forestry land, and I support what my hon. Friend said. We are asking to have put into the Bill a requirement that the Forestry Commission and those who may buy forest land maintain proper stock-proof fencing around the boundaries of their existing forest.
If we insist upon this and if the covenant is put into the Bill it will not do anything more than what is at present required under the gentleman's agreement. One of the advantages of ensuring that this provision is made is that it will rule out some of the difficulties and troubles with which we are familiar in places such as my constituency, where there are forests on the hills and hill farming is undertaken.
There has been friction from time to time between the Forestry Commission and the farmers in these hill farms because stock has strayed into the forest. The gentleman's agreement, when it works, is helpful and ensures that we do not have these difficulties.
I hope that the House will ensure that in this Bill we have the means of providing such a permanent arrangement for the future. I hope that the Minister will consider what we are asking and accept the new clause. It is designed not to cause additional expenditure but to ensure that amicable arrangements continue to exist between forestry and agriculture interests.
I support my hon. Friend's new clause.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)I have some doubts about the new clause and I would seek clarification before deciding whether or not to support it. As it stands, it appears that it would require a purchaser from the Forestry Commission to maintain an existing fence under the provisions of a covenant running with the land.
§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. MaclennanGladly, if the hon. Gentleman has a serious point.
§ Mr. CormackI merely wondered whether the hon. Gentleman's party was on the fence or coming down on one side of it.
§ Mr. MaclennanI regret my generosity in giving way to the foolish hon. Gentleman.
The question in my mind is this. If the original purchaser of land already owns land adjacent to the forestry land which he has acquired and seeks to amalgamate the new land with his existing land, will he still be required to maintain the fence? As I understand it, that would be the effect of the clause.
§ Mr. Mark HughesIt is precisely for that reason that the word "boundary" is introduced. If the new land is running with his land surely there is no boundary. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that a boundary which would have to be maintained cannot exist within a single holding. Therefore, there can be no such implication.
§ Mr. MaclennanI am not so certain as is the hon. Gentleman that "boundary" is a legal term of art in the way that he describes. Perhaps he is right, but it would be unfortunate if the clause required subsequent purchasers to maintain unnecessary fences. Indeed, it would seem to obstruct the interests of sensible land use management and to impose wholly unnecessary burdens. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman resolves those problems in the wording of the clause. He may be able subsequently to clarify the point.
§ Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan)I endorse the sentiments that have been expressed and support the clause. As a hill farmer I declare my interest.
In respect of a fence erected, say, 20 or 30 years ago there has always been an agreement—sometimes a gentleman's agreement—between two neighbours that one farmer is responsible for 500 yards or half the length of the fence and the other farmer is responsible for the rest. The law of the land is that the owner of the stock must keep his animals at home.
I should like some clarification, as would many small farmers—hill farmers in particular. Suppose, for argument's sake, that the Forestry Commission sold 500 hectares of unplanted land to a private individual who did not erect a fence. Suppose that he planted thousands of small trees. The law of the land is that the farmer must keep his sheep at home. If they went across the boundary and destroyed all the trees, who would be responsible? Although the Minister and the Government will probably not accept the amendment, farmers need clarification.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) that there should be a covenant to maintain stock-proof fencing. There are many such covenants in the sale of farms in my part of the country. Perhaps the Government should accept the clause. It is a matter of common sense, which is the only way that people in the countryside will survive. Common sense must prevail if people are to live in harmony. Pressure has been brought to bear on the Minister from many sectors to accept the clause. For the sake of peace of mind and good relationships among farmers, the Forestry Commission and new owners, I hope that he will accept it.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)We had a lengthy debate on this subject in Committee, when the amendment's wording was marginally defective. My reply covered several columns inHansard, but I shall 172 not repeat all I said then. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) told me that he would raise the matter again on Report.
It is important to comprehend what we are talking about. It was not until a ministerial policy statement in 1956, which arose from the Mid-Wales investigation report, that the Forestry Commission undertook to maintain stock fencing around its plantations in hill farming and upland grazing areas in England and Wales, even after they were no longer required for forestry purposes. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) will remember that at that time there was considerable conflict between those who wanted to farm the hill areas of Wales for sheep and those who wished to afforest them.
One grievance concerned fences which were placed round new plantations, and still are. The answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Cardigan, about what would happen if 500 hectares of land were planted without a fence, is that the hares would eat the trees. So inevitably in the first instance the plantation would be fenced. The problem arises when the trees get bigger and no longer require vermin protection, and there is no stock-proof fencing—hence the agreement. That is how it come about. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) put his finger on the point. There are parts of the country where the practice is not to fence the forests. The shelter that is available from relatively mature woodland is useful in time of storm and tempest, and good for the forest, incidentally.
The maintenance of fencing under the gentleman's agreement is not in itself desperately expensive, but as time goes on so those fences collapse and require renewal. The hon. Member for Durham said that this was not costly, but it is currently costing the Forestry Commission about £500,000 a year to replace fences under that gentleman's agreement. No contractual or legal obligation is involved. If we were to accept the clause there would be a legal involvement for all time, and it would be an extremely expensive commitment for the purchaser to take on.
The purchaser anywhere in Britain, not just in the areas which at present are covered by the agreement, would be required to maintain a stock-proof fence even where there was no need for it. He would be legally bound to do so even if the adjoining owner also had a similar responsibility or there was a joint responsibility for a march fence, as happens in Scotland.
I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the principle of the fencing of stock in England and Wales is simply that the owner of the stock is responsible for the stock and if he wishes to constrain them on his land he must fence them within that land. In Scotland there is a different arrangement, whereby the cost of the fence is joined.
§ Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)It is a better arrangement in Scotland.
§ Mr. WigginI am the first to admit that there are many points in Scots law that we English would be wise to consider, but I am happy to say that that is not my responsibility.
In disposing of land the Forestry Commission will pass on all obligations that currently run with it, but I do not think that it would be right to impose a condition of this kind on a purchaser simply because the land is at present publicly owned. The clause suffers from the defect that the obligation that it seeks to impose is not usually passed on 173 to successive purchasers. Although I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Durham that if it says so in the clause this is what will happen, I believe that there are substantial legal problems in writing this sort of matter into the transfer of land. I am sure that he accepts that point.
I understand that there may be the odd rare occasion where land is sold and the purchaser believes that the forest next door will remain fenced, which is a pretty remote possibility. The purchaser would be unwise to read into the gentleman's agreement any contractual or legal obligations on the part of the commission. I do not think, given all the difficulties and substantial cost that would be raised by the clause, that the Government can acept A. I hope that the House will vote against it.
§ Mr. Mark HughesGiven that the Government, under the proposals in the Bill, intend to sell off about 1 per cent. of our total forest assets—that is, £10 million worth of forest a year—what we are talking about in the amendment is 1 per cent. of £500,000 worth of liability. We are not talking about vast sums of money. We are talking about £5,000 worth of liability. I am concerned for the peace of mind of small farmers who are affected. I find the Parliamentary Secretary's answer wholly unsatisfactory. I accept that no sensible forester will do other than fence out vermin. That is not what the new clause is about. It is about fencing out stock. Given the very satisfactory way in which the gentleman's agreement has operated in England and Wales over the last 20 years I do not believe that the transfer of this arrangement to Scotland would cause a diminution of facilities to Scottish farmers. I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 274.
176| Division No. 126] | [4.52 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Allen | Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechf'd) |
| Allaun, Frank | Deakins, Eric |
| Alton, David | Dean, Joseph(Leeds West) |
| Anderson, Donald | Dempsey, James |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Dewar, Donald |
| Ashton, Joe | Dixon, Donald |
| Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | Dobson, Frank |
| Bagier, Gordon A.T. | Dormand, Jack |
| Barnett, Guy(Greenwich) | Dubs, Alfred |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Dunn, James A. |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro) | Eastham, Ken |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Edwards, R.(Whampt'n S E) |
| Brown, Hugh D.(Provan) | Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're) |
| Brown, R. C.(N'castle W) | Ellis, Tom(Wrexham) |
| Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith) | English, Michael |
| Brown, Ronald W.(H'ckn'y S) | Ennals, Rt Hon David |
| Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n & P) | Evans, Ioan(Aberdare) |
| Campbell, Ian | Evans, John(Newton) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Field, Frank |
| Cant, R. B. | Flannery, Martin |
| Carmichael, Neil | Fletcher, Ted(Darlington) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S) | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Coleman, Donald | Ford, Ben |
| Cook, Robin F. | Forrester, John |
| Cowans, Harry | Foster, Derek |
| Cox, T.(W'dsw'th, Toot'g) | Foulkes, George |
| Crowther, J. S. | Fraser, J.(Lamb'th, N'w'd) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald |
| Cunningham, G.(Islington S) | Freud, Clement |
| Dalyell, Tam | Garrett, John(Norwich S) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil(L'lli) | George, Bruce |
| Davies, Ifor(Gower) | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Ginsburg, David | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Golding, John | O'Neill, Martin |
| Gourlay, Harry | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Graham, Ted | Parker, John |
| Grant, George(Morpeth) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Grant, John(Islington C) | Pendry, Tom |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Penhaligon, David |
| Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife) | Powell, Raymond(Ogmore) |
| Hardy, Peter | Prescott, John |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Price, C.(Lewisham W) |
| Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith | Rees, Rt Hon M(Leeds S) |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Richardson, Jo |
| Haynes, Frank | Roberts, Albert(Normanton) |
| Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock) |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Robertson, George |
| Hogg, N.(E Dunb't'nshire) | Robinson, G.(Coventry NW) |
| Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Home Robertson, John | Ross, Ernest(Dundee West) |
| Homewood, William | Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight) |
| Hooley, Frank | Rowlands, Ted |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. | Ryman, John |
| Huckfield, Les | Sandelson, Neville |
| Hudson Davies, Gwilym E. | Sever, John |
| Hughes, Mark(Durham) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N) | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Hughes, Roy(Newport) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Short, Mrs Renée |
| Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Deptford) |
| John, Brynmor | Silverman, Julius |
| Johnson, James(Hull West) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Jones, Rt Hon Alec(Rh'dda) | Snape, Peter |
| Jones, Barry(East Flint) | Soley, Clive |
| Jones, Dan(Burnley) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Stallard, A. W. |
| Lamond, James | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Stewart, Rt Hon D.(W Isles) |
| Leighton, Ronald | Stott, Roger |
| Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW) | Strang, Gavin |
| Lewis, Ron(Carlisle) | Straw, Jack |
| Litherland, Robert | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Taylor, Mrs Ann(Bolton W) |
| Lyon, Alexander(York) | Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth) |
| Lyons, Edward(Bradf'd W) | Thomas, Dr H.(Carmarthen) |
| Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Thorne, Stan(Preston South) |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Tilley, John |
| McElhone, Frank | Tinn, James |
| McGuire, Michael(Ince) | Urwin, Rt Hon Tom |
| McKay, Allen(Penistone) | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| McKelvey, William | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
| MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Wainwright, R.(Colne V) |
| Maclennan, Robert | Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster) |
| McNally, Thomas | Watkins, David |
| McNamara, Kevin | Weetch, Ken |
| McTaggart, Robert | Welsh, Michael |
| McWilliam, John | White, Frank R. |
| Magee, Bryan | White, J.(G'gow Pollok) |
| Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole) | Whitlock, William |
| Marshall, Jim(Leicester S) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Martin, M(G'gow S'burn) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W) |
| Maxton, John | Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E) |
| Meacher, Michael | Wilson, William(C'try SE) |
| Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Woodall, Alec |
| Mikardo, Ian | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Young, David(Bolton E) |
| Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen) | |
| Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Morton, George | Mr. Hugh McCartney and Mr. James Hamilton. |
| Moyle, Rt Hon Roland |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Atkins, Robert(Preston N) |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone) |
| Alexander, Richard | Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset) |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Banks, Robert |
| Ancram, Michael | Beaumont-Dark, Anthony |
| Arnold, Tom | Bell, Sir Ronald |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Bendall, Vivian |
| Benyon, Thomas(A'don) | Grylls, Michael |
| Benyon, W.(Buckingham) | Gummer, John Selwyn |
| Best, Keith | Hamilton, Hon A. |
| Bevan, David Gilrsoy | Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hannam, John |
| Blackburn, John | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Blaker, Peter | Hastings, Stephen |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
| Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W) | Hawkins, Paul |
| Bowden, Andrew | Hawksley, Warren |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Bright, Graham | Heddle, John |
| Brinton, Tim | Henderson, Barry |
| Brotherton, Michael | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) | Hill, James |
| Browne, John(Winchester) | Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Holland, Philip(Carlton) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hooson, Tom |
| Buck, Antony | Hordern, Peter |
| Budgen, Nick | Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd) |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk) |
| Burden, Sir Frederick | Hunt, David(Wirral) |
| Butcher, John | Hunt, John(Ravensbourne) |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Hurd, Hon Douglas |
| Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln) | Irving, Charles(Cheltenham) |
| Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Chapman, Sydney | Jessel, Toby |
| Churchill, W. S. | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Clark, Hon A.(Plym"th, S'n) | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
| Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S) | Kershaw, Anthony |
| Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe) | Kimball, Marcus |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Cockeram, Eric | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Cope, John | Knox, David |
| Cormack, Patrick | Lamont, Norman |
| Corrie, John | Lang, Ian |
| Costain, Sir Albert | Latham, Michael |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Critchley, Julian | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Crouch, David | Lee, John |
| Dean, Paul(North Somerset) | Le Marchant, Spencer |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lester, Jim(Beeston) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Lloyd, Ian(Havant & W'loo) |
| Dover, Denshore | Lloyd, Peter(Fareham) |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Loveridge, John |
| Dunn, Robert(Dartford) | Luce, Richard |
| Durant, Tony | McCrindle, Robert |
| Dykes, Hugh | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | MacGregor, John |
| Eggar, Tim | MacKay, John(Argyll) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury) |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | McNair-Wilson, P.(New F'st) |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Farr, John | Madel, David |
| Fell, Anthony | Major, John |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Marland, Paul |
| Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N) | Marlow, Tony |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles | Marshall, Michael(Arundel) |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Marten, Neil(Banbury) |
| Forman, Nigel | Mates, Michael |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Mather, Carol |
| Fox, Marcus | Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus |
| Fraser, Peter(South Angus) | Mawby, Ray |
| Fry, Peter | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Gardiner, George(Reigate) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Gardner, Edward(S Fylde) | Mayhew, Patrick |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mellor, David |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Goodhart, Philip | Miller, Hal(B'grove) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Mills, Iain(Meriden) |
| Gorst, John | Mills, Peter(West Devon) |
| Gow, Ian | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Grant, Anthony(Harrow C) | Mitchell, David(Basingstoke) |
| Gray, Hamish | Moate, Roger |
| Greenway, Harry | Monro, Hector |
| Grieve, Percy | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N) | Moore, John |
| Grist, Ian | Morgan, Geraint |
| Morris, M.(N'hampton S) | Speed, Keith |
| Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes) | Speller, Tony |
| Morrison, Hon P.(Chester) | Spicer, Jim(West Dorset) |
| Mudd, David | Spicer, Michael(S Worcs) |
| Murphy, Christopher | Sproat, Iain |
| Neale, Gerrard | Squire, Robin |
| Needham, Richard | Stainton, Keith |
| Nelson, Anthony | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Neubert, Michael | Stanley, John |
| Newton, Tony | Steen, Anthony |
| Onslow, Cranley | Stevens, Martin |
| Page, John(Harrow, West) | Stewart, Ian(Hitchin) |
| Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby) | Stewart, k.(E Renfrewshire) |
| Page, Richard(SW Herts) | Stokes, John |
| Parkinson, Cecil | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Parris, Matthew | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Patten, Christopher(Bath) | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Patten, John(Oxford) | Thompson, Donald |
| Pawsey, James | Thorne, Neil(Ilford South) |
| Percival, Sir Ian | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Peyton, Rt Hon John | Townend, John(Bridlington) |
| Pollock, Alexander | Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath) |
| Porter, Barry | Trippier, David |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Trotter, Neville |
| Price, Sir David(Eastleigh) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Prior, Rt Hon James | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Viggers, Peter |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Waddington, David |
| Raison, Timothy | Wakeham, John |
| Rathbone, Tim | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Rees, Peter(Dover and Deal) | Walker, B.(Perth) |
| Rees-Davies, W. R. | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Waller, Gary |
| Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Ward, John |
| Rifkind, Malcolm | Warren, Kenneth |
| Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW) | Watson, John |
| Roberts, Wyn(Conway) | Wells, John(Maidstone) |
| Rost, Peter | Wells, Bowen |
| Royle, Sir Anthony | Wheeler, John |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Whitney, Raymand |
| St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. | Wickenden, Keith |
| Scott, Nicholas | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Shaw, Giles(Pudsey) | Wilkinson, John |
| Shaw, Michael(Scarborough) | Williams, D.(Montgomery) |
| Shelton, William(Streatham) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Shepherd, Colin(Hereford) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Shepherd, Richard | Young, Sir George(Acton) |
| Shersby, Michael | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Silvester, Fred | |
| Sims, Roger | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Peter Brooke. |
| Smith, Dudley |
§ Question accordingly negatived.