§ (1)' Section 136 of the principal Act (mentally disordered persons found in public places) shall be amended as follows.
§ (2) In subsection (2) (period of detention at a place of safety )for the words "seventy-two hours" there shall be substituted the words "twenty-four hours". ' .—[Mr . Terry Davis.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Terry DavisI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Record of detention of mentally disordered persons found in public places.
In section 136 of the principal Act (mentally disordered persons found in public places) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
'(2A) Where any person is detained at a place of safety under this section the constable shall record that fact in writing .' .
§ Mr. DavisThe new clauses deal with two matters that were considered by the Standing Committee. The first clause, which deals with the period during which someone can be detained, was debated at great length in Committee. The subject matter of the second clause came up during our deliberations. It is so important that it merits a new clause being tabled. The new clauses concern section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1959, which states:
If a constable finds in a place to which the public have access a person who appears to him to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons, remove that person to a place of safety".91 The place of safety can be a hospital or it can be, and often is, a police station. That is a very wide powe. It is much wider than the powers given to doctors to detain someone under sections 25, 26, 29 or 30 of the Mental Health Act 1959 or the powers given to nurses under clause 6 of this Bill. The other powers can be exercised only if the doctors or nurses believe that detention is necessary for the protection of other people or for the health or safety of the person. The constable can decide that it is necessary in the interests of the person whom he finds in a public place. That is a lower consideration.8.30 pm
As the law stands and as it will stand when the Bill becomes an Act, a doctor or nurse may decide, as a matter of professional judgment, that it is not right to detain someone and to deprive him of his liberty, but a police constable may take a different view on different criteria—what he considers to be in the interests of the person—and may deprive him of his liberty without redress or protection, except that the person must be examined by a doctor and interviewed by a mental welfare officer within 72 hours. The person deprived of his liberty must be examined by a doctor and interviewed by a mental welfare officer, but section 136 contains no such requirement. It says only that the police constable can detain someone for 72 hours for the purpose of examination by a doctor and interview by a mental welfare officer. The law is not clear about what happens if such an examination and interview do not take place. I shall return to that point when I discuss new clause 10.
I suggested in Committee that the period should be reduced from 72 hours to six hours. The British Medical Association suggested in evidence to the Committee that the period should be only four hours. In reply, the Minister for Health argued that six hours would not be long enough in some cases. He referred to the difficulty of obtaining a doctor in a remote area and also to the time that it may take to arrange for admission to a hospital, especially if a police constable had found someone wandering the streets at midnight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) expressed some reservations about my suggestion of six hours, although that was a longer period than that suggested by the British Medical Association. My right hon. Friend believed that 12 hours would be better. I have gone even further in a spirit of compromise and I have tabled a new amendment that would allow 24 hours for a doctor to examine and a mental welfare officer to interview someone detained by a police constable. That wide and important power should be exercised with discretion but, most importantly, someone who is detained under section 136 should not be kept waiting for 72 hours in a police station in order to be examined by a doctor and interviewed by a mental welfare officer. I wish to instil more urgency into the procedure.
New clause 10 refers to the record that should be kept of the detention of a mentally disordered person found in a public place. I am more worried about the apparent lack of records or comprehensive statistics of what happens to those who are detained under section 136 than about the period for which they are detained. From the inpatient 92 statistics contained in the Mental Health Inquiry for England in 1977, we know that 1,494 people were admitted to hospital under section 136.
We also know that there was a tremendous difference between regions. Inexplicably, admissions in the Wessex region were twice as high as those in the Mersey region, although the populations are similar. East Anglia has a rate of admissions that is four times that of Merseyside. However, I cannot discover comprehensive statistics on the use of section 136. We know how often the section results in people being admitted to hospital but we do not know how often it is used by the police to detain someone for up to 72 hours, with the result that that person is released because he has been examined by a doctor who decides that it is not necessary for him to be admitted to hospital. We do not even know how many people are detained under section 136 during a year, let alone what happens to them.
In the White Paper issued by the Labour Government in 1978, it was noted that there was no statutory form, equivalent to the forms used for sections 25, 26 and 29, stating the reasons for the use of section 136. The White Paper stated clearly that the DHSS should negotiate with the police and the local authorities to determine the information required. We were also promised that the same monitoring arrangements for compulsory admission would apply. That was four years ago. The Government do not seem to have done anything about the problem and the Opposition have tabled the new clause as a first step.
§ Mr. EnnalsI shall take only a minute or two to support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) because he has deployed the argument well. We considered the matter at length in Standing Committee. It is difficult to understand why the Government have not accepted the principle involved. Perhaps the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford and my less adequate remarks will convince the Government that once again they should show their sense and sensibility and recognise the wisdom of our argument.
None of us doubts the wisdom of giving powers to the police to enable them to detain, for a time, people who by their nature appear to a policeman to be in need of treatment in a safe place. The police must have the power to take such a person to a safe place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford is right to say that to many policemen the safe place is a police station. Whether or not one is mentally disordered, a police station is not a pleasant place. We must not assume that a person so detained is mentally disordered. A policeman cannot determine whether a person is mentally disordered. That is for people with professional experience to decide. That is dealt with in another part of the Bill. However, a policeman is entitled to decide that, by his conduct, a person is mentally disordered and that he should be taken to a safe place for his own protection and the protection of the public.
Why must we decide on 72 hours? I was staggered at the differences in performance described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford. He said that section 136 is used four times as often in East Anglia as it is in Merseyside. It cannot be that the crime rate is higher in East Anglia or that the incidence of mental disorder is higher. I assume that the reason is that East Anglia is rural. That is why there was some disagreement between myself and my hon. Friend when I argued that it might take longer 93 in a rural community to get hold of a doctor or a social worker to interview a person thought to be mentally disordered. Where in the country—except perhaps in the Western Isles—is it not possible to contact a doctor within 72 hours? I cannot believe that it would take so long, even with the present state of the Health Service. Where in the country is it impossible for a doctor or a health worker within that time to take a person out of the hands of a police officer who, professionally, is not qualified to determine whether a person is disordered, let alone what treatment he should have?
My hon. Friend has been modest in saying that the figure of 24 hours should be inserted. One could almost ask where in the United Kingdom is there a place where, within the space of 24 hours, one could not find a doctor and a mental health officer. One could say the same about 12 hours. This is a question, not only of the reality that it must be possible to find a doctor and a mental welfare officer, but of human liberties. It could happen that someone could be held in a police station for 72 hours without having a doctor or a mental welfare officer to see him because a policeman, one policeman only, at one time thought that that person was mentally disordered. Surely the Minister will agree that that is a breach of civil liberties. Therefore, he must agree that the figure of 72 hours must be reduced.
We argued that in Committee but we did not succeed. I cannot understand why we did not succeed because the argument seemed to be absolutely apparent. I hope that the Minister will agree at least to reduce the figure below 72 hours. Whatever figure he decides upon, whether it is 24 or even 36 hours, I hope that he will introduce an amendment in another place which will be accepted.
I should like to support my hon. Friend's amendment very strongly, although I wish the period were shorter. I should also like to support my hon. Friend's second point because a detention of up to 72 hours does not have to be reported. We do not know how many of such cases there are. Almost everything else that a policeman does in terms of detaining someone must be entered on a police report. No one would argue that it would be right and proper for a person to be detained, be he mentally disordered or suspected of a crime, without the matter being reported. We urge the Minister to support our amendments to put that right.
§ Mr. MayhewI am grateful to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) for the way that they have addressed themselves to these important issues. The effect of new clause 9 would be to reduce from 72 hours to 24 hours the period during which a person who appears to a constable to be mentally disordered may be detained in a place of safety under section 136 of the Act.
As the hon. Member for Stechford rightly reminded us, a place of safety may be a hospital or a police station. It is important, with regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about the application of this power of detention in a police station, to lay emphasis on the words in section 136
if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons.I shall return to that later. I appreciate that it would be more difficult for a police constable to contend that he really considered it to be in the interests of the person concerned that he should be held in a police station for 72 hours than it would be for a doctor in a hospital to contend 94 that he thought it was in the interests of that person to detain him in hospital for 72 hours. I am sure that is why, in the vast majority of cases, someone is detained in a police station under section 136 for a few hours only. If a police constable were to detain someone for 72 hours in a police station, it would be difficult for him to say that it was in the interests of the chap concerned. I am saying in a rather informal way that I do not think that such detention takes place in a police station.8.45 pm
The Butler committee recorded that the National Council for Civil Liberties had suggested a reduction from 72 hours to 24 hours. The hon. Member for Stechford has reminded the House that a much shorter period has also been considered. The Butler committee rejected 24 hours. The consultative document issued by the Labour Government in 1976, to which the right hon. Member for Norwich, North referred in another context, noted that MIND had also suggested such a change. The White Paper records that most commentators agreed that, for practical purposes, the existing periods, both for the police to deal with a case under section 136 and for a magistrate to exercise a similar power under section 155, were, to use its words, "about right".
A reduction to 24 hours was proposed in another place, but, after doubt had been expressed, the proposition was withdrawn. In the Special Standing Committee the hon. Member for Steel-ford proposed to reduce the maximum duration of detention under section 136 to only six hours. He told us what took place, and I acknowledge at once the flexibility that he has shown in proposing 24 hours. There was general agreement in the Special Standing Committee that six hours was too short to enable arrangements for hospital admission to be made. That is the factor on which we should be concentrating. In practice, no police officer wants to have someone in a police station who he thinks is mentally disordered and in trouble by reason of that. He wants to get him to a hospital as soon as possible. That is the reality of the matter.
We should be considering the issue rather more closely from the point of view of someone who is in hospital and in the care of a doctor. What would be the position if the period for which he could be detained were to be reduced to 24 hours from the present 72 hours? From the police point of view, it would not matter very much if the amendment were accepted. It seems, from our information, that seldom do the police detain anyone for longer than a few hours.
§ Mr. EnnalsDoes the Minister know of any cases of people being held in a police station under section 136 for more than 24 hours?
§ Mr. MayhewI do not know of any such cases. I shall turn to the statistics when dealing with new clause 10. The police record the exercise of their powers in every case under section 136, but that information is not collated centrally either in the Home Office or even by chief constables. It is recorded under police procedure, although there is no statutory obligation to do so.
§ Sir Albert Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)One gets the impression from Labour Members that police constables can keep people in police stations for 72 hours without telling anybody about it. Surely no person can be detained in a police station without a record being kept.
§ Mr. MayhewMy hon. Friend is right. The information would appear in the occurrence book if nowhere else. I understand that a special record is made of each occasion on which the police exercise their powers under section 136. It is no more the case that this can happen without any record being made than it is the case that a police officer would want to have a mentally disordered person, who could give trouble, in the police station for a minute longer than necessary. The police officer would try to get that person into a hospital.
When someone is transferred to a hospital after he has been picked up by the police, and perhaps kept in a police station for a few hours until such time as it is possible to get him into a hospital—it is not always an easy thing to do immediately—the doctors have to start from the beginning. If we were to reduce the period to 24 hours, which would run from the time when the police officer first detained the person, there might be the unintended result that the hospital would be led either to discharge the person against its better judgment, when a little more time would be needed to enable the doctors to make a reliable diagnosis, or to make greater use of the formal powers of admission and detention for longer periods provided by other sections of the Act. That is a fear and a danger.
That is why I agree with the conclusion of the Butler committee:
the law must make some allowances for exceptional difficulties, such as might arise, for example, in remote areas or at holiday periods. In the absence of any specific evidence of abuse by unnecessarily long detention in a police station or arbitrary admission to hospital we think it would be difficult to justify amending the law.That was a sound conclusion. One must have regard to a case in which it is clearly desirable and in the patient's interest for him to remain in hospital for a little longer. The effect of reducing the period to 24 hours might compel doctors to discharge the patient prematurely or to use section 25, which involves detention for up to 28 days, or section 26, which involves detention for up to six months. It is better that section 136 should continue to confer authority for detention for a period of no longer than 72 hours. After that the patient may have recovered sufficiently to be discharged, he may be willing to remain on a voluntary basis as an informal patient, or it may have become apparent that he should be subject to detention under one of the longer-term powers, but at least the doctors will have had a proper opportunity to look at the patient's case.
§ Mr. Terry DavisWill the Minister explain why the hospitals would use section 25 or section 26 instead of section 29?
§ Mr. MayhewPerhaps hospitals could use section 29. It would be open to a hospital to use any of those sections. It is not in the interests of patients to run that risk merely to reduce from 72 hours to 24 hours the maximum period when no evidence of abuse or arbitrary admission is available.
With regard to new clause 10, I take the point that has been made about the desirability of knowing what use is made of the powers. It is right to say that our information is incomplete. The reason is that, while the police make a record of those matters, it is not done at chief constable level or at police force headquarters level, and certainly not at a central point.
I should like to give an undertaking. I have been reminded by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North 96 of what the Labour Government's White Paper said. I undertake to give careful consideration to the point that has been made about the previous Government's plans to issue guidance about records concerning the use of that power. Those plans related to what would happen after the passage of an amending Act. We now have an amending Bill, and it is fitting that we should consider doing the same thing as the previous Government. We shall consider that matter for the reasons that have been advanced.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why the period should be 72 hours. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the period must be in the interests of the person concerned. I am entitled to state that no one is challenging the principle of a power to detain under section 136. If the principle is not challenged, the question remains: what is the right limit to enable that power sensibly to be exercised? No one on these Benches wants to see anyone detained in anything approaching circumstances that would constitute a breach of fundamental rights and liberties. We wish to see the power limited to its proper exercise in the interests of the person involved or of other people.
I believe that the retention of the present limit is justified, as the Butler committee considered a few years ago. I hope that the hon. Member for Stechford will withdraw his amendment.
§ Mr. Terry DavisI am a little disappointed at much of what the Minister said. No one is questioning the need for section 136 and for police constables to have power to detain people whom they find in public places and who appear to be mentally disordered, with the safeguards that are written into the section. The amendments would not limit or restrict the power. No one suggested that there were abuses or produced examples. But if no records are collated or statistics made available, it is difficult to put cases into perspective. If we produced anecdotal cases the Minister would point out that they were exceptions and to use exceptions as a basis is bad law, we should look at the use of section 136 in its entirety. But we cannot know the way in which it is used, as the information is not available.
I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to look into the matter and to consider what records should be kept. I hope that he will also consider the provision of statistics. We have statistics about the use of other sections of the Mental Health Act. We know how many people are admitted to hospital under each section. We know how many people are admitted to hospital under section 136, but we do not know how many are not, even though they have been detained for up to 72 hours. That is pertinent to civil liberty.
If it is necessary for a police constable to be given the wide power to detain someone who is mentally disordered, who is in immediate need of care and control and who should be detained in his own interests or to protect other people—all in the opinion of the police constable—we should require him to record those facts in writing. We need to monitor what happens so that we know how often police constables are right and how often they are mistaken.
I do not suggest that the power is widely abused, contrary to what the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) said. Academic studies suggest that police constables are good at deciding who is mentally disordered, which may be surprising as they have no 97 training in psychiatric medicine. But there is the question of civil liberties and we do not know how often they make mistakes.
§ Mr. ProctorThe hon. Gentleman is probably referring to my saying in Committee that a survey had shown that the police were better at judging these matters than general practitioners.
§ Mr. DavisAnd I pointed out that we were talking about different samples. A large number of the people wandering the streets in the early hours of the morning may well be mentally disordered. Doctors consider people admitted from their homes in varying circumstances. We are not comparing like with like. It is important to compare apples with apples and not apples with pears. I am not prepared to state that police constables are better at diagnosing mental disorders than doctors are, although there is some evidence to suggest that they are generally quite good at doing so. However, we do not know how often they make mistakes, and that is the purpose of the new clauses. It is an important matter of civil liberty. Police constables may be right 100 per cent. of the time, but it is important that Parliament is sure that they are, and that it is not a lower percentage.
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. Christopher PriceWill not my hon. Friend consider the slightly ambivalent attitude of the Home Office? In its regulations about confessions to police officers, it insists that they cannot possibly determine whether the individual making the confession is mentally disordered, and that it is unreasonable to expect them to have such expertise. That point may arise when the House discusses the proposed police Bill next year. Yet the Home Office considers that police constables can determine mental disorder when detaining people and that they do not need to make a report to justify their decision.
§ Mr. DavisMy hon. Friend has told me something that I did not know. I am impressed by the information, which supports my case. We should ensure that a proper return is made by each police force to the Home Office of the use of section 136. We should require the Home Office to publish those statistics in the public interest. I am not sure whether the Minister went that far in his undertaking. I hope that he did, and will arrange for the statistics to be collated. If he does, I shall willingly withdraw new clause 10 as that will give us everything that we have requested. I have no wish to press clauses that have no purpose.
The new clause requires that police officers should record facts in writing. We understood that that was not current practice. However, the Minister said that the facts are recorded in writing, but not subsequently reviewed by a senior officer and that the statistics are not collated. We wish to provide in statute law that it is necessary for a police constable to record the facts in writing. We expect any Home Secretary to issue regulations, guidance or whatever he wishes to call it—perhaps a Home Office code of practice—to ensure that policemen record the facts on a standard form, and that the statistics are then collated. The vehicle for such monitoring is the requirement for a police officer to record the facts in writing.
I turn to new clause 9. The Minister said that he did not think that someone would be detained for 72 hours in a police station. He fairly said that the overwhelming view in Committee was that six hours would be too short a time. 98 I recognise that. I suggested six hours in Committee, and almost everyone who spoke said that it was an unreasonably short time. I listened, and have now tabled new clause 9 to make the period 24 hours. I hope that the Minister will also listen to the views expressed. I do not think that the Government have listened to the debate and recognised the important point that 72 hours is definitely too long. There was no general agreement in Committee that 72 hours was the right period, only that six hours was too short.
The Minister said that a shorter period would not matter to the police, but that it would create difficulties for hospitals. I am impressed that a Minister from the Home Office said that, and not a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security. The Minister appeared to ignore the effect of section 29. He spoke of sections 25 and 26 and said that if provision of section 136 were reduced to 24 hours, doctors in hospitals would use sections 25 and 26 to detain people for longer periods than 72 hours. I beg to disagree with that. I am quite sure that if there was a problem because section 136 was reduced to 24 hours, doctors in hospitals would use section 29.
The limit under that section is 72 hours. However, many safeguards are attached to section 29, and in the Special Standing Committee we spent many hours debating them. We spent hours discussing the relationship between the two doctors who might sign an application for an emergency admission for up to 72 hours. Under section 29 we say that there must be independent medical opinions before someone can be detained for 72 hours, yet at the same time we are saying that a newly qualified police constable on his own judgment can detain someone for up to 72 hours in a police station rather than in a hospital. That is going much too far.
We spent much time discussing the safeguards under section 29. For example, we made sure that psychiatrists must obtain second opinions before detaining someone for 72 hours. Apparently the Minister is happy to leave it to a police constable to decide to detain someone for 72 hours without a second opinion from someone qualified in the treatment of mental. disorder. I believe that the Minister has got it wrong. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it would not matter from a police point of view. Let a Minister from the DHSS tell us that it matters from the hospitals' point of view.
§ Mr. MayhewI hope that we shall avoid any possible misunderstanding. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that section 29 might not always be available to a hospital under these circumstances. The additional safeguards in the Bill require, for example, that only the nearest relative may apply under section 29. That may not be possible within the time limit imposed by the Bill-24 hours of medical examination. That is why I said, I believe accurately, that, although the hospital might be able to use section 29, it did not always follow that it could.
§ Mr. DavisAs T have said, let a Minister from the DHSS explain the situation. After all, a police constable will not take someone whom he believes to be mentally disordered to a general hospital. He will take such a person to a hospital where a psychiatrist is available. If the Minister were to say that hospitals cannot deal with these problems within 24 hours, I would be impressed, but I am not impressed by his assertion that it is necessary to allow a policeman 72 hours to detain someone in a hospital. That is too wide a power.
99 It should be possible to decide within 24 hours whether or not someone should be kept in hospital. It should be possible for that person to be examined by a medical practitioner and to be interviewed by a mental welfare officer. That, after all, is the purpose of section 136. It is not the purpose of that section, as the Minister seemed to suggest, to allow time for someone to cool down, to stop simmering, to be cured or to relax. The object of allowing a policeman to detain someone for up to 72 hours is to enable that person to be examined by a medical practitioner and to be interviewed by a mental welfare officer. I believe that can be done within 24 hours, and we shall therefore press that new clause to a Division.
I again ask the Minister for an undertaking that the statistics about the use of section 136 will be collated by the Home Office and made available to the public so that we can all know what use is made of that section. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) is sure, but I hope that there will be no abuses whatever. We shall all be pleased if that is the case, but we should at least have the facts in the open.
§ Sir Albert CostainThe hon. Gentleman talks as if a newly qualified police constable has a private police station to which he can march a person and lock him up for 72 hours. It is too stupid to contemplate. There must be some other police constable at the police station.
§ Mr. DavisThe hon. Gentleman is obviously surprised, but it is a fact that as a result of section 136 a police constable takes a decision which does not need to be confirmed by anyone else; nor by his sergeant, an inspector, a superintendent or any other police officer. It is the police constable who makes the decision which can result in someone being detained in a police station for up to 72 hours for an examination by a medical practitioner and an interview by a mental welfare officer.
I accept that police constables should have that power. I only want to establish how often it is used and with what success. Labour Members are not criticising the police; we simply want to establish the facts about the use of section 136. We are not satisfied that it should be left in the present unknown state. Therefore, unless the Minister can give us an assurance that he will ensure that statistics are collated, we shall have no alternative but to press new clause 9 to a Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided:Ayes 100, Noes 147.
101| Division No. 303] | [9.12 pm |
| AYES | |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Dean, Joseph(Leeds West) |
| Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | Dixon, Donald |
| Bagier, Gordon A.T. | Dobson, Frank |
| Beith, A. J. | Dormand, Jack |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Douglas, Dick |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Dunnett, Jack |
| Canavan, Dennis | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S) | Eadie, Alex |
| Cowans, Harry | Eastham, Ken |
| Craigen, J. M.(G'gow, M'hill) | Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're) |
| Crowther, Stan | Ennals, Rt Hon David |
| Cryer, Bob | Evans, loan(Aberdare) |
| Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n) | Evans, John(Newton) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Ewing, Harry |
| Davidson, Arthur | Forrester, John |
| Davis, Clinton(Hackney C) | Foster, Derek |
| Davis, Terry(B'ham, Stechf'd) | Foulkes, George |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Powell, Raymond(Ogmore) |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Ross, Ernest(Dundee West) |
| Hamilton, James(Bothwell) | Sever, John |
| Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife) | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich) |
| Hardy, Peter | Skinner, Dennis |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Soley, Clive |
| Haynes, Frank | Spearing, Nigel |
| Homewood, William | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Hooley, Frank | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Howells, Geraint | Stoddart, David |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Stott, Roger |
| Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N) | Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth) |
| Johnston, Russell(Inverness) | Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E) |
| Jones, Barry(East Flint) | Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen) |
| Lamond, James | Thorne, Stan(Preston South) |
| Leighton, Ronald | Tinn, James |
| Lewis, Ron(Carlisle) | Torney, Tom |
| Litherland, Robert | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Wainwright, R.(Colne V) |
| McCartney, Hugh | Watkins, David |
| McKay, Allen(Penistone) | Weetch, Ken |
| McNamara, Kevin | Welsh, Michael |
| McWilliam, John | White, Frank R. |
| Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Whitlock, William |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Meacher, Michael | Winnick, David |
| Milian, Rt Hon Bruce | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe) | Wright, Sheila |
| Morris, Rt Hon C.(O'shaw) | Young, David(Bolton E) |
| Palmer, Arthur | |
| Pavitt, Laurie | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Penhaligon, David | Dr. Edmund Marshall and |
| Pitt, William Henry | Mr. George Morton. |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Goodhew, Sir Victor |
| Ancram, Michael | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Grant, Anthony(Harrow C) |
| Atkinson, David(B'm'th,E) | Grieve, Percy |
| Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset) | Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Grist, Ian |
| Benyon, Thomas(A'don) | Grylls, Michael |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury) |
| Best, Keith | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Hannam, John |
| Blackburn, John | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Heddle, John |
| Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W) | Henderson, Barry |
| Bright, Graham | Hill, James |
| Brinton, Tim | Holland, Philip(Carlton) |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Hooson, Tom |
| Brown, Michael(Brigg Sc'n) | Irvine, Bryant Godman |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Buck, Antony | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Budgen, Nick | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Kershaw, Sir Anthony |
| Carlisle, John(Luton West) | Knight, Mrs Jill |
| Chapman, Sydney | Lang, Ian |
| Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe) | Lester, Jim(Beeston) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Lloyd, Peter(Fare ham) |
| Cope, John | Loveridge, John |
| Cormack, Patrick | Luce, Richard |
| Costain, Sir Albert | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Cranborne, Viscount | McCrindle, Robert |
| Crouch, David | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | MacKay, John(Argyll) |
| Dover, Denshore | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Dunn, Robert(Dartford) | McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury) |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Madel, David |
| Fairgrieve, Sir Russell | Major, John |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | Marlow, Antony |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Mather, Carol |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus |
| Forman, Nigel | Mawby, Ray |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Gardiner, George(Reigate) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mayhew, Patrick |
| Mellor, David | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield) |
| Mills, lain(Meriden) | Speed, Keith |
| Moate, Roger | Speller, Tony |
| Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes) | Spicer, Jim(West Dorset) |
| Murphy, Christopher | Spicer, Michael(S Worcs) |
| Neale, Gerrard | Squire, Robin |
| Needham, Richard | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Neubert, Michael | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Newton, Tony | Taylor, Teddy(S'end E) |
| Osborn, John | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Page. John(Harrow, West) | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Page, Richard(SW Herts) | Thompson, Donald |
| Parris, Matthew | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Pattie, Geoffrey | Townend, John(Bridlington) |
| Percival, Sir Ian | Trippier, David |
| Pollock, Alexander | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Price, Sir David(Eastleigh) | Viggers, Peter |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Waddington, David |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Waller, Gary |
| Renton, Tim | Ward, John |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Watson, John |
| Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Wells, Bowen |
| Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW) | Wells, John(Maidstone) |
| Rossi, Hugh | Wheeler, John |
| Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. | Wickenden, Keith |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Wolfson, Mark |
| St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. | |
| Shaw, Giles(Pudsey) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb') | Mr. Archie Hamilton and |
| Shepherd, Colin(Hereford) | Mr. David Hunt. |
| Sims, Roger |
§ Question accordingly negatived.