Skip to main content

Amendments Of The Principal Act

Volume 886: debated on Wednesday 12 February 1975

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

11.45 p.m.

I beg to move, Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 45, leave out from 'have' to end of line 47 and insert

'been identified as such by the parties to the agreement or arrangement by reference to any characteristic or circumstance they have in common'.
The amendment relates to the definition of a union membership agreement. It is of considerable importance because in effect it is the definition of a union membership agreement which defines the permissible extent of the closed shop.

Order. Will hon. and right hon. Members who do not wish to participate in the debate please leave the Chamber quietly.

Only if the agreement comes within the definition of a union membership agreement in the Bill does the closed shop have legal effect in the sense that the dismissal of a person covered by it has to be regarded as fair.

Today, in attempting to mitigate the effects of the closed shop, we have followed several routes, all of which have been rejected and voted down by the Government. We have attempted to prevent the closed shop in journalism, and we have attempted to prevent the dismissal of a person who is not a union member from being reckoned as fair. All that has been to no avail.

In Committee the Government accepted that there was a problem, and they sought to remedy it by introducing amendments at a late stage with very little notice. Those amendments were passed in Committee, but we made clear that in view of the haste with which they were put forward it would be necessary to return to the matter on Report. I have moved an amendment to one of the Government's amendments which, on reflection, we think will make it more likely that the effect at which the Government are aiming will be achieved.

One reason for the group of amendments put forward by the Government in Committee was to make clear that it was possible to have a closed shop agreement whereby the parties agreed to exclude from the scope of the agreement certain people or groups of people who might otherwise have been included within its terms. I will not quote from the Committee proceedings, but the Minister of State will remember what he said. The purpose of those amendments was to enable persons and groups of people to be excluded from the scope of union membership agreements.

Attention has so far been given to the situation of journalists in relation to the Bill, but there are other groups concerned about the operation of a union membership agreement in the fullest sense of the word. Among them are professional engineers in local government and water services. They have objections to being included in the scope of the union membership agreement with all the other local government officials. Their first objection is that the principal chief officers of local authorities, including directors of technical services, such as borough engineers and so on, act in a quasi-employer rôle to many of the staff in a local authority and therefore cannot exercise a proper management function if they are forced to belong to a trade union, to whose disciplinary procedures they would be subject in a closed shop situation.

The second matter for concern is that professional officers in local government, particularly chartered engineers, are subject to a code of professional conduct. The code of conduct for engineers provides that they will do nothing to endanger public health or public safety, which is a real protection for the public. But this could create a major conflict for water engineers if they are forced to belong to a trade union which advocated action in direct opposition to their code of professional conduct. Similarly, in the case of chief executives of local authorities, objection arises to their being compelled by union membership agreements to belong to the same union as all other employees.

Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that for many years in the transport industry one union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, of which I happen to be an honorary national officer, has catered for all staff from clerks to senior officers? The way we deal with the situation is that officers and senior management staff have been allowed to have their own individual branch, but they still are members of the same organisation. It presents no problem whatever.

I appreciate that that is the case in that industry and it is one way of dealing with the situation. It may not always be appropriate. As I understand the situation, amendments introduced by the Government in Committee were designed to deal with the situation I have described to make it more possible for there to be a union membership agreement which possibly excludes certain classes.

There are similar objections raised by local authority chief executives and by members of the steel industry's management association who have been pressed by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to belong to a certain union. The matter has also been raised in the councils of engineering institutions.

The question now to be considered is whether those bodies have benefited from the change in legislation. We consider that there is room for doubt whether any further definition is helpful. It is highly arguable that any such further definition makes the position worse. By saying that more informal agreements, with exceptions, can amount to a union membership agreement binding in law, we are making clear that those covered by an agreement can be dismissed with impunity, whereas before the provision was introduced there was doubt whether such looser arrangements were covered by the definition at all. Of course, if they were not covered by the definition, the whole arrangement might not constitute a union membership agreement, and then no one purporting to be covered by it could be dismissed fairly under the provisions of the Act.

Against that must be weighed the argument of the Government that by having a definition of a union membership agreement which permits more flexible arrangements to count as such an agreement, such arrangements are encouraged and a larger group of people in this more flexible type of arrangement will be excluded from the closed shop or permitted to remain members of a minority union. That was the case put forward by the Government in favour of their amendment. It is with that in view that the Government introduced their amendment. In this further amendment, the Opposition suggest that this change is required because we do not believe that the Government's amendment achieves what it sets out to do.

As the Government's amendment appears in the Bill, it reads:
"It is hereby declared that for the purposes of this Act employees are to be treated as belonging to the same class if they have any characteristics in common or can be identified by reference to any circumstances common to them."
The wording is mandatory, and there is a risk that it will have the opposite effect from that intended. It appears to take discretion away from the parties.

The intention of the amendment was supposed to be to allow the parties to exclude certain categories of employees from a closed shop, but here it is provided that persons with any characteristics in common are to be included within the same class. That is bound to encourage pressure to extend the scope of a closed shop agreement to all employees who have any characteristics or circumstances in common. The case of the NUJ and the editors is a good example. The question which would have to be considered in any negotiation is whether editors should be included in a union membership agreement.

The argument against is that editors are doing a significantly different job. They are wholly responsible for bringing out the paper and, therefore, should not be included in the agreement. But, as this provision stands, it would reinforce the contrary militant argument. It appears to say that they should be treated in exactly the same way, because clearly editors have many characteristics and circumstances in common and, according to the Bill, they belong to the same class if they have any characteristics in common or can be identified by reference to any circumstances common to them.

We feel that it is better to make it clear that it should be open to the parties to the agreement to specify the class covered by reference to peculiar characteristics and circumstances. Our amendment would truly have the effect that the Government said they sought in Committee and would make it possible to exclude agreed classes from the operation of the closed shop, to that extent mitigating the effect of the closed shop.

The amendment will not guarantee that militant unions will agree to operate agreements excluding such classes, but it will at least make it possible for them to do so and still retain the advantages and principle that they believe to exist with regard to the closed shop.

12 midnight.

The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has pointed out that this is an amendment to a change made in Committee by a Government amendment. That change sought to make it certain that a class of employees covered by a union membership agreement could be identified by any common characteristics or circumstances.

This amendment aims to make clear that common characteristics or circumstances used to identify a class are those agreed on by the parties to the union membership agreement. This definition or qualification of class can be used for the purpose of identifying a group for exclusion from, or for identifying a group for inclusion within, the provisions of a membership agreement.

The amendment would seek to ensure that a class would not be identified by any characteristics which apply to it in common, irrespective of whether there is a union membership agreement.

I understand that there are fears that a group of employees might be covered although they had little in common with the main group of employees covered by the membership agreement. I also understand the fears the hon. Member expressed, not only on the basis of his submission, but because I have tested it by talking to representatives of small unions or groups which might be affected by it. I understand that the fear is genuine and that there is reasonable doubt about how the change made in Committee might be interpreted.

Because the Government's amendment in Committee sought to create greater flexibility for those negotiating union membership agreements, we shall always be prepared to look at and accept amendments which improve the presentation of the Bill and make more certain that the purpose can be achieved.

Without carping about the way this amendment was presented, we have a certain slight drafting difficulty with it. On reading it, the wording of the amendment is better than our own in the Bill and I am therefore willing, if it will meet the wishes of those who tabled it, to accept it completely in principle. If they are prepared to withdraw it, I am prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government to put down an amendment in another place which will completely cover the point made in this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 4, at end insert 'and after the words "religious belief" there shall be inserted the words "or conscience"'.

We are reaching the end of a long and rather tiring day on a long and rather tiring Bill, coming on top, as it did, of a similar Bill that we dealt with in the summer. The Secretary of State said earlier that the fact that one felt strongly on a subject need not necessarily be reflected in the length of one's speech, a view with which I wish more of his supporters could have concurred. I hope the House will understand that the fact that I intend to speak for only a few moments on this amendment in no way suggests that we do not think it important.

This last amendment is perhaps the last with which we shall have to deal in the passage of the Bill, and that is symbolic in its way, because it is about conscience. Conscience and the position of those who have conscience in dealing with matters of this kind are central to the amendment. We on this side believe—it is a matter of regret and surprise to us that the view is not universally held—that men and women should have the right to conscientious objection to joining trade unions, just as we have always granted the right of conscientious objection to people who did not wish to do military service even in time of war, even when the country's very life was at stake.

We are not in favour of free riders. We are not suggesting that people should be able to derive all the benefits of membership of a trade union without paying their dues. Lest any hon. Member opposite doubts the truth of that statement, I point out that when I was a working journalist on the Financial Times there was not a closed shop; one did not have to join a trade union. I voluntarily joined the National Union of Journalists. I am glad that I did so. I joined that union because I felt that it would be wrong to accept and receive all the benefits which membership of the union conferred upon me without paying my dues. The principle of not being in favour of free riders is absolutely clear. Britain has always respected the principle of freedom of conscience.

Of course, freedom of conscience for most people means religion. For most people when one talks in terms of freedom of conscience one means religion. People who have religions, especially in this modern age, are not the only people who have consciences. Humanists have consciences. Atheists have consciences. Agnostics have consciences.

Tories have consciences, too. The regret is that the Labour Party, judging by the need for the amendment, is lacking in consciences. That is the pity. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) comes from a religious part of the country and no doubt does not appreciate that outside the valleys there are people who have consciences but do not go to his chapels. During the war, when the matter of conscientious objection was far more important perhaps than it is today, there were those people—not very many—who went before tribunals and were granted exemption from military service, after the most rigorous cross-examination by those who conducted these matters. We accept that there would be very few examples today of people, whether with religions or not, who would wish to seek to opt out of trade unions on grounds of conscience.

The way one judges a civilised society is surely by the way in which it treats its minorities. The fact that the hon. Member for Bedwellty, who is usually so charming and gracious in his dealings with the Opposition, finds it a matter of amusement that not wishing to join a trade union should be regarded as a ground for conscience demonstrates the difference between us. He believes that a person who is a member of a trade union is all right and that a person who has a conscience, however strange his beliefs may be, is a matter for laughter and derision. That is the kind of thing which many people find disagreeable.

What I find frivolous is the comparison between the situation in which people have a conscientious objection to killing people or to participating in that and a conscientious objection to joining a trade union. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a great difference between the degree of seriousness of the two situations.

Of course I recognise the difference. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will widen his horizons. I have no conscience or inhibitions about killing cows. Millions of Hindus do. They may be foolish people. The hon. Gentlemen may think that they are good for a giggle. The fact of the matter is that they have a conscience about it. Others have a conscience about not taking off their turbans when riding motor cycles. Conscience can take many different forms. A sign of the civilised society is that it respects the form which conscience takes.

Will the hon. Gentleman define the difference between a religious objection and a conscientious objection in the context of the examples he has just given?

The difference between a religious objection and one that is not based on a religion is—

The difference between a conscientious objection based on religious grounds and one not based on religious grounds may seem important to people who, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, subscribe to orthodox and accepted religions. But a conscientious objection based on people's humanistic or other beliefs is none the less strong. It is all very well to seek definitions from the precepts of ordinary religion, but we are talking of a small, limited number of people who have objections whether or not they are members of any religion.

It seems a tragedy that the trade union movement, with 10 million or 11 million members, and the Government cannot find it in their hearts to be generous to the small number of cases that would arise in these circumstances.

We recognise that every conceivable safeguard should be taken to ensure that a privilege of the kind that we are suggesting is not abused. We recognise that those who opt out of trade unions on the ground of religious or other conscientious objection should be required to pay money either to charity or in some other way so that they gain no possible financial advantage from doing so.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that where, under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, a tribunal may have to deal with these situations, it will be much easier for it to determine whether someone has a religious objection in the sense that he is a member of and attends a church than to have this rather nebulous concept which has all kinds of Freudian undertones about what is meant by "conscience"?

I should not have thought that it was easier. I do not think that it is a good basis on which to make law to decide whether something is easy. Many things in life are rather difficult. But to say that it would be difficult to define something and, therefore, we should not legislate on it seems a remarkably frivolous way to deal with human rights. Many problems which come before the courts are extremely difficult. But the fact that matters are difficult has never in the past been regarded as a reason for not legislating on them or for the courts not trying to administer justice, difficult as that may be. If the law dealt only with easy problems, it would be a clumsy instrument, and injustice in the world would be increased.

After four or five interruptions in the space of a very few minutes, my speech has lasted longer than I had expected.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why this time round the word being used is "conscience" rather than "any reasonable ground"? What is the reason for this change of heart on the part of the Opposition?

I hesitate to delay the House a moment longer. First, it would not have been in order to put forward the same form of words, and, secondly, we have pressed the point about conscience on the Government several times this year and they have always turned a down. It seemed that if we could find a more appealing form of words, to quote the Secretary of State's phrase, it might find a chink of light in the obduracy with which the Government have confronted this matter.

I will not pursue the point any longer. I appeal to the Government at this late hour at the end of this long and tedious Bill to show some generosity to a small number of people—generosity to a minority. Surely the Government can concede that.

12.15 a.m.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat) that we should bring these matters to a conclusion quickly, but as I was not a member of the Committee I should like to put two or three brief points, the answers to which may make the amendment superfluous.

Like my hon. Friend, I believe that it is infinitely better if everybody joins a union, and it is to be encouraged as much as possible, especially in view of some of the Acts we have passed in the past two or three years.

On page 33 of the 1974 Act there is a provision about an employee's genuine objection to being a member of any union
"on grounds of religious belief … or on any reasonable grounds to being a member of a particular trade union".
I should like to take up the word "particular", and underline why we have used the word "conscience" in our amendment.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we are not trying to have a mass exodus from unions, but I can think of three reasons why an individual may object to belonging to a particular union. Very often there may be no choice in the place of work other than the one union involved there. An individual may feel that in the past the union has not represented him or her properly in a claim against the employer for compensation for personal injury, for example. That may have happened five or 10 years ago, but the person may have felt so aggrieved that he no longer wished to belong to the union in question.

Secondly, a person could object to a union's attitude on certain international matters. With all the great argument about the EEC draft regulations from Brussels, and the general bringing together of trade unions in Western Europe, an individual may genuinely say that he cannot accept the attitude taken by the union to which he should belong.

Thirdly, he may feel that the union is not being vigorous enough in safety matters at his factory. At last we have on the statute book the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which puts many obligations on safety committees, individuals and management. That is another case where the word "particular" in the 1974 Act applies.

My hon. Friend has made a fair point. We are asking only for the slightest of concessions by the Government. I am sure that the feeling for natural justice within the trade union movement will allow people not to belong to unions on conscience grounds, but I hope that the Minister will answer the points I have raised.

I do not accept that the Opposition are raising a conscientious objection. I do not accept that the amendment is conscientious or very small. It is very large. It is a means to open up a large chink in the closed shop principle, and in the main is deliberately moved not for reasons of conscience but out of dislike of the closed shop principle.

From the point of view of the law, which is what we are dealing with, it is a question not of generosity but of definition. All the examples given by the hon. Member for the City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Tugendhat), such as the question of the turban, were of religious objections. The borderline between a religious objection and a conscientious objection is narrow, and extremely difficult to define.

The hon. Gentleman said that the law cannot merely deal with easy matters. That is true. But one does not put in a statute a word so vague as to be almost incapable of definition when there is a clear word there now.

Because I question the motives behind the amendment, its wording, and the results that it would bring about, I urge that in no circumstances should we agree to it.

The amendment would enable a person who is dismissed for not belonging to a closed shop union to receive compensation for unfair dismissal if that person were held to object on grounds of conscience to belonging to any union whatsoever.

I answer first the point raised by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). As the hon. Gentleman correctly stated, the legal position is that under the 1974 legislation there was a provision which would enable anyone who on reasonable grounds objected to being a member of a union to be covered by the statutory unfair dismissal provisions of the First Schedule of the Act. The Bill removes that portion of the 1974 Act. The amendment seeks to put in its place a provision which one might regard as a narrower or wider provision, according to one's view about conscientious objection. Therefore, the objections which the hon. Gentleman suggested might have relating to a union—perhaps to the political policy of the union, or that it was not acting vigorously enough on particular matters—if they related only to one union—would no longer be valid even if the amendment were carried. Certainly they are not valid under the Bill as drafted.

Not only would the amendment be difficult to operate, but it is subject to an objection of principle. Let me deal first with the question of the protection of the individual that it envisages. The amendment does not prevent the person who conscientiously objects to belonging to any union from being dismissed. It does not give him the right to belong. It does not obtain a job for him in the pre-entry shop. It aims to provide him with compensation for being dismissed in particular circumstances.

There is an important distinction to be drawn between the religious objection and the conscientious objection to belonging to a trade union. The religious objection is identifiable. It is based usually on an interpretation of scripture, usually peculiar to a particular sect. Although religious belief is a subjective matter, it can be recognised objectively by non-believers.

Conscientious objection to belonging to a trade union would be a difficult matter for a tribunal to decide. I accept that that in itself is not a reason for rejecting the amendment. However, any criterion, test, principle or code which an individual might use for the purpose of deciding whether it was right or wrong for him as an individual freely to join a trade union could, in my opinion, be fairly held by a tribunal to be a conscientious objection.

That view is based on my consideration of the matter. I have no legal advice on it. But in the true and generally accepted meaning of the word "conscientious" in the English language one is talking about the tests which an individual uses to decide whether it is correct for him to engage in the action. Therefore, if he had a test of his own, if he erected his own criteria for saying whether it was right for him, he could rightly argue before a tribunal that that was a matter for conscience.

Whether one accepts that view or not—and I do not ascribe it to anyone other than myself—there is an objection of principle to the amendment. It cannot be right that the law should allow a closed shop agreement to exist lawfully and at the same time take away from an employer the right, in certain circumstances, to uphold that agreement without having to pay compensation for doing so.

On those grounds, I hope that the House will reject the amendment. However, that is not a complete solution. If we were doing no more than that, I should not be very proud of the legislation we seek to put on the statute book. In the amendments we have already made, and in the amendment moved by the Opposition which we have accepted in principle and will seek to embrace in the Bill, we have given a meaning to "union membership agreement" in our law which will be much more flexible and will allow individuals who negotiate for the purpose of forming closed shops not only to exclude individuals more readily but to tolerate the continuation in employment of someone who is outwith the provisions without, by doing so, rendering the union membership agreement invalid.

The majority of people who take decisions on whether to form a closed shop have very much in mind the difficulty of the individual with the objection. Many decisions of trade unionists against forming a closed shop are based on the knowledge that they have in their workplace people who have objections. To the extent that that is the case we have a partial explanation of why the majority of people in trade union organised establishments do not have a closed shop agreement. We have gone part of the way in the Bill to make provisions for the flexible agreement, for the individual to exist outwith an agreement without making it invalid.

We have gone part of the way to meet the difficulty of the conscientious objector, In rejecting the amendment I hope it will be understood that we are not rejecting the idea that people have conscientious objections. We are recognising that the right collectively to combine in the closed shop must put certain limitations on conscientious objection. For that reason I hope that the amendment will be either withdrawn or rejected.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division No. 92.]

AYES

[12.27 a.m.

Adley, RobertGray, HamishMudd, David
Aitken, JonathanGrieve, PercyNeave, Alrey
Alison, MichaelGriffiths, EldonNelson, Anthony
Amery, Rt Hon JulianGrist, IanNeubert, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)Grylls, MichaelNewton, Tony
Awdry, DanielHall, Sir JohnNormanton, Tom
Baker, KennethHall-Davis, A. G. F.Nott, John
Banks, RobertHamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Onslow, Cranley
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Hampson Dr KeithOppenheim, Mrs Sally
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)Osborn, John
Benyon, W.Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon MissPage, John (Harrow West)
Berry, Hon AnthonyHastings, StephenPage, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Biffen, JohnHavers, Sir MichaelPardoe, John
Biggs-Davison, JohnHayhoe, BarneyParkinson, Cecil
Blaker, PeterHeseltine, MichaelPattie, Geoffrey
Body, RichardHicks, RobertPenhaligon, David
Boscawen, Hon RobertHiggins, Terence L.Percival, Ian
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)Holland, PhilipPeyton, Rt Hon John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)Hooson, EmlynPink, R. Bonner
Braine, Sir BernardHordern, PeterPrice, David (Eastleigh)
Brittan, LeonHowe, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyPrior, Rt Hon James
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Howell, Ralph(North Norfolk)Raison, Timothy
Bryan, Sir PaulHowells, Geraint (Cardigan)Rathbone, Tim
Buchanan-Smith, AlickHunt, JohnRees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Buck, AntonyHurd, DouglasRees-Davies, W. R.
Budgen, NickHutchison, Michael ClarkRenton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Bulmer, EsmondIrvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Burden, F. A.James, DavidRidley, Hon Nicholas
Carlisle, MarkJessel, TobyRidsdale, Julian
Carr, Rt Hon RobertJohnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)Rifkind, Malcolm
Chalker, Mrs LyndaJones, Arthur (Daventry)Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Channon, PaulJoseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithRoberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Churchill, W. SKellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth. Sutton)Kershaw, AnthonyRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Clark, William (Croydon S)Kimball, MarcusRossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)King, Evelyn (South Dorset)Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Cockcroft, JohnKing, Tom (Bridgwater)Royle, Sir Anthony
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)Kitson, Sir TimothySainsbury, Tim
Cope, JohnLamont, NormanScott, Nicholas
Cordle, John H.Lane, DavidShaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Cormack, PatrickLangford-Holt, Sir JohnShaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Corrie, JohnLatham, Michael (Melton)Shelton, William (Streatham)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)Lawrence, IvanShepherd, Colin
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)Lawson, NigelShersby, Michael
Dodsworth, GeoffreyLester, Jim (Beeston)Silvester, Fred
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Sims, Roger
Drayson, BurnabyLloyd, IanSinclair, Sir George
du Cann, Rt Hon EdwardLoveridge, JohnSkeet, T. H. H.
Durant, TonyLuce, RichardSmith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Dykes, HughMcAdden, Sir StephenSmith, Dudley (Warwick)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir JohnMacfarlane, NeilSpeed, Keith
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)MacGregor, JohnSpence, John
Elliott, Sir WilliamMacmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Emery, PeterMcNair-Wllson, M. (Newbury)Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Eyre, ReginaldMadel, DavidSproat, Iain
Fairbairn, NicholasMarshall, Michael (Arundel)Stainton, Keith
Fairgrieve, RussellMarten, NeilStanbrook, Ivor
Farr, JohnMates, MichaelStanley, John
Finsberg, GeoffreyMather, CarolSteel, David (Roxburgh)
Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesMaude, AngusSteen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Fookes, Miss JanetMaudling, Rt Hon ReginaldStewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)Mawby, RayStokes, John
Fox, MarcusMaxwell-Hyslop, RobinTapsell, Peter
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)Mayhew, PatrickTaylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Fry, PeterMiller, Hal (Bromsgrove)Tebbit, Norman
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.Mills, PeterThatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Gardiner, George (Reigate)Miscampbell, NormanThomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)Townsend, Cyril D.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)Moate, RogerTrotter, Neville
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)Monro, HectorTugendhat, Christopher
Glyn Dr AlanMontgomery, Fergusvan Straubenzee, W. R.
Goodhart, PhilipMoore, John (Croydon C)Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Goodhew, VictorMore, Jasper (Ludlow)Viggers, Peter
Goodlad, AlastairMorgan, GeraintWakeham, John
Gorst, JohnMorgan-Giles, Rear-AdmiralWalder, David (Clitheroe)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)Morris, Michael (Northampton S)Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)Morrison, Charles (Devizes)Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)Morrison, Peter (Chester)Wall, Patrick

The House divided: Ayes 242. Noes 288.

Walters, DennisWiggin, JerryTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Warren, KennethWinterton, NicholasMr. Adam Butler and
Weatherill, BernardWood, Rt Hon RichardMr. Spencer Le Marchant.
Wells, JohnYoung, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

NOES

Abse, LeoEllis, Tom (Wrexham)Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Allaun, FrankEvans, Ioan (Aberdare)Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Anderson, DonaldEvans John (Newton)Lipton, Marcus
Archer, PeterEwing, Harry (Stirling)Litterick, Tom
Armstrong, ErnestFaulds, AndrewLoyden, Eddie
Ashley, JackFernyhough, Rt Hon E.Luard, Evan
Ashton, JoeFitch, Alan (Wigan)Lyon, Alexander (York)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Atkinson NormanFlannery, MartinMabon, Dr J. Dickson
Bagier, Gordon A. T.Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)McCartney, Hugh
Bain, Mrs MargaretFletcher, Ted (Darlingon)McElhone, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Foot, Rt Hon MichaelMacFarquhar, Roderick
Barnett, Rt Hon JoelFord, BenMcGuire, Michael (Ince)
Bates, AlfForrester, JohnMackenzie, Gregor
Bean, R. E.Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)Mackintosh, John P.
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony WedgwoodFraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Bennett, Andrew(Stockport N)Freeson, ReginaldMcNamara, Kevin
Bidwell, SydneyGarrett, John (Norwich S)Madden, Max
Bishop, E. S.Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)Magee, Bryan
Blenkinsop, ArthurGeorge, BruceMarks, Kenneth
Boardman, H.Gilbert, Dr JohnMarquand, David
Booth, AlbertGinsburg, DavidMarshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Boothroyd, Miss BettyGolding, JohnMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Bottomley, Rt Hon ArthurGould, BryanMason, Rt Hon Roy
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)Gourlay, HarryMeacher, Michael
Bradley, TomGraham, TedMendelson, John
Bray, Dr JeremyGrant John (Islington C)Mikardo, Ian
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Grocott, BruceMillan, Bruce
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)Hamling, WilliamMiller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Buchan, NormanHardy, PeterMitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Buchanan, RichardHarper, JosephMolloy, William
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)Moonman, Eric
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)Hart, Rt Hon JudithMorris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Campbell, IanHatton, FrankMorris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Canavan, DennisHayman, Mrs HeleneMoyle, Roland
Cant, R. B.Healey, Rt Hon DenisMulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Carmichael, NeilHeffer, Eric S.Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Carter, RayHenderson, DouglasNewens, Stanley
Carter-Jones, LewisHooley, FrankNoble, Mike
Cartwright, JohnHoram, JohnOgden, Eric
Clemitson, IvorHowell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)O'Halloran, Michael
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)Hoyle, Douglas (Nelson)O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Cohen, StanleyHuckfield, LesOrbach, Maurice
Coleman, DonaldHughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Concannon, J DHughes, Mark (Durham)Ovenden, John
Conlan, BernardHughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)Owen, Dr David
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)Hughes, Roy (Newport)Padley, Walter
Corbett, RobinHunter, AdamPalmer, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)Park, George
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)Parry, Robert
Crawshaw, RichardJackson, Colin (Brighouse)Pavitt, Laurie
Cronin, JohnJackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)Pendry, Tom
Cryer, BobJanner, GrevillePerry, Ernest
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)Jay, Rt Hon DouglasPhipps, Dr Colin
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)Jeger, Mrs LenaPrescott, John
Dalyell, TamJenkins, Hugh (Putney)Price C. (Lewisham W)
Davidson, ArthurJohn, BrynmorPrice, William (Rugby)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)Johnson, James (Hull West)Radice, Giles
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)Johnson, Walter (Derby S)Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Jones, Alec (Rhondda)Richardson, Miss Jo
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)Jones, Barry (East Flint)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Deakins, EricJones, Dan (Burnley)Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Judd, FrankRobertson, John (Paisley)
Dell, Rt Hon EdmundKaufman, GeraldRoderick, Caerwyn
Dempsey, JamesKelley, RichardRodgers, George (Chorley)
Doig, PeterKerr, RussellRodgers, William (Stockton)
Dormand, J. D.Kilroy-Silk, RobertRooker, J. W.
Douglas-Mann, BruceKinnock, NeilRoper, John
Duffy, A. E. P.Lambie, DavidRose, Paul B.
Dunn, James A.Lamborn, HarryRoss, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)
Dunwoody, Mrs GwynethLamond, JamesRowlands, Ted
Eadie, AlexLatham, Arthur (Paddington)Ryman, John
Edelman, MauriceLeadbitter, TedSandelson, Neville
Edge, GeoffLee, JohnSedgemore, Brian
Selby, Harry
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)White, James (Pollok)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)Thompson, GeorgeWhitehead, Phillip
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)Thorne, Stan (Preston South)Whitlock, William
Sillars, JamesTierney, SydneyWigley, Dafydd
Silverman, JuliusTinn, JamesWilley, Rt Hon Frederick
Skinner, DennisTomlinson, JohnWilliams, Alan (Swansea W)
Small, WilliamTorney, TomWilliams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Snape, PeterUrwin, T. W.Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Spearing, NigelWainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Spriggs, LeslieWalden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Stallard, A. W.Walker, Harold (Doncaster)Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)Walker, Terry (Kingswood)Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)Ward, MichaelWise, Mrs Audrey
Stoddart, DavidWatkins, DavidWoodall, Alec
Stott, RogerWatkinson, JohnWoof, Robert
Strang, GavinWatt, HamishWrigglesworth, Ian
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.Weetch, KenYoung, David (Bolton E)
Summerskill, Hon Dr ShirleyWeitzman, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)Wellbeloved, JamesTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)Welsh, AndrewMr. James Hamilton and
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)White, Frank R. (Bury)Mr. John Ellis.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading):—

Division No. 93.]

AYES

[12.38 a.m.

Abse, LeoCrawshaw, RichardGourlay, Harry
Allaun, FrankCronin, JohnGraham, Ted
Anderson, DonaldCryer, BobGrant John (Islington C)
Archer, PeterCunningham, G. (Islington S)Grocott, Bruce
Armstrong, ErnestCunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ashley, JackDalyell, TamHamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ashton, JoeDavidson, ArthurHamling, William
Atkins, Ronald (Preslon N)Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)Hardy, Peter
Atkinson, NormanDavies, Denzil (Llanelli)Harper, Joseph
Bagier, Gordon A. T.Davies, Ifor (Gower)Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bain, Mrs MargaretDavis, Clinton (Hackney C)Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Deakins, EricHatton, Frank
Barnett, Rt Hon JoelDean, Joseph (Leeds West)Hayman Mrs Helene
Bates, AlfDell, Rt Hon EdmundHealey, Rt Hon Denis
Bean, R. E.Dempsey, JamesHeffer, Eric S.
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony WedgwoodDoig, PeterHenderson, Douglas
Bennett Andrew (Stockport N)Dormand, J. D.Hooley, Frank
Bidwell, SydneyDouglas-Mann, BruceHoram, John
Bishop, E. S.Duffy, A. E. P.Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Blenkinsop, ArthurDunn, James AHoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Boardman, H.Dunwoody, Mrs GwynethHuckfield, Les
Booth, AlbertEadie, AlexHughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Boothroyd, Miss BettyEdelman, MauriceHughes, Mark (Durham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon ArthurEdge, GeoffHughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bradley, TomEllis, John (Brigg & Scun)Hunter, Adam
Bray, Dr JeremyEllis, Tom (Wrexham)Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)Evans John (Newton)Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)Ewing, Harry (Stirling)Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Buchan, NormanEwing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)Janner, Greville
Buchanan, RichardFaulds, AndrewJay, Rt Hon Douglas
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.Jeger, Mrs Lena
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)Fitch, Alan (Wigan)Jenkins, Hugh (Pulney)
Campbell, IanFitt, Gerard (Belfast W)John, Brynmor
Canavan, DennisFlannery, MartinJohnson, James (Hull West)
Cant, R. B.Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Carmichael, NeilFletcher, Ted (Darlingon)Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Carter, RayFoot, Rt Hon MichaelJones, Barry (East Flint)
Carter-Jones, LewisFord, BenJones, Dan (Burnley)
Cartwright, JohnForrester, JohnJudd, Frank
Clemitson, IvorFowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)Kaufman, Gerald
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Cohen, StanleyFreeson, ReginaldKelley, Richard
Coleman, DonaldGarrett, John (Norwich S)Kerr, Russell
Concannon, J. D.Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Conlan, BernardGeorge, BruceKinnock, Neil
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)Gilbert, Dr JohnLambie, David
Corbett, RobinGinsburg, DavidLamborn, Harry
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)Golding, JohnLamond, James
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)Gould, BryanLatham, Arthur (Paddington)

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 250.

Leadbitter, TedOrme, Rt Hon StanleySummerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Lee, JohnOvenden, JohnTaylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)Owen, Dr DavidThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)Padley, WalterThomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)Palmer, ArthurThomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Lipton, MarcusPark, GeorgeThompson, George
Litterick, TomParry, RobertThorne, Stan (Preston South)
Loyden, EddiePendry, TomTierney, Sydney
Luard, EvanPerry, ErnestTinn, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)Phipps, Dr ColinTomlinson, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)Prescott, JohnTorney, Tom
Mabon, Dr J. DicksonPrice C. (Lewisham W)Urwin, T. W.
McCartney, HughPrice, William (Rugby)Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
McElhone, FrankRadice, GilesWalden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
MacFarquhar, RoderickRees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)Richardson, Miss JoWalker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mackenzie, GregorRoberts, Albert (Normanton)Ward, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.Roberts. Gwilym (Cannock)Watkins, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)Robertson, John (Paisley)Watkinson, John
McNamara, KevinRoderick, CaerwynWatt, Hamish
Madden, MaxRodgers, George (Chorley)Weetch, Ken
Magee, BryanRodgers, William (Stockton)Weitzman, David
Marks, KennethRooker, J. W.Wellbeloved, James
Marquand, DavidRoper, JohnWelsh, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Rose, Paul B.White, Frank R. (Bury)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)White, James (Pollok)
Mason, Rt Hon RoyRowlands, TedWhitehead, Phillip
Meacher, MichaelRyman, JohnWhitlock, William
Mendelson, JohnSandelson, NevilleWigley, Dafydd
Mikardo, IanSedgemore, BrianWilley, Rt Hon Frederick
Millan, BruceSelby, HarryWilliams, Alan (Swansea W)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Molloy, WilliamSilkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Moonman, EricSillars, JamesWilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)Silverman, JuliusWilson, William (Coventry SE)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)Skinner, DennisWise, Mrs Audrey
Moyle, RolandSmall, WilliamWoodall, Alec
Mulley, Rt Hon FrederickSnape, PeterWoof, Robert
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald KingSpearing, NigelWrigglesworth, Ian
Newens, StanleySpriggs, LeslieYoung, David (Bolton E)
Noble, MikeStallard, A. W.
Ogden, EricStewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
O'Halloran, MichaelStott, RogerMr. David Stoddart and
O'Malley, Rt Hon BrianStrang, GavinMr. Laurie Pavitt.
Orbach, MauriceStrauss, Rt Hon G. R.

NOES

Adley, RobertChurchill, W. S.Fry, Peter
Aitken, JonathanClark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Alison, MichaelClark, William (Croydon S)Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Amery, Rt Hon JulianClarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)Cockcroft, JohnGilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Awdry, DanielCooke, Robert (Bristol W)Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Baker, KennethCope, JohnGlyn Dr Alan
Banks, RobertCardle, John H.Goodhart, Philip
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Cormack, PatrickGoodhew, Victor
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)Corrie, JohnGoodlad, Alastair
Benyon, W.Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)Gorst, John
Berry, Hon AnthonyDavies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Biffen, JohnDean, Paul (N Somerset)Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Biggs-Davison, JohnDodsworth, GeoffreyGower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Blaker, PeterDouglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesGrant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Body, RichardDrayson, BurnabyGray, Hamish
Boscawen, Hon Robertdu Cann, Rt Hon EdwardGrieve, Percy
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)Durant, TonyGriffiths, Eldon
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)Dykes, HughGrist, Ian
Bradford, Rev RobertEden, Rt Hon Sir JohnGrylls, Michael
Braine, Sir BernardEdwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)Hall, Sir John
Brittan, LeonElliott, Sir WilliamHall-Davis, A. G. F.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Emery, PeterHamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Bryan, Sir PaulEyre, ReginaldHampson, Dr Keith
Buchanan-Smith, AlickFairbairn, NicholasHarrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Buck, AntonyFairgrieve, RussellHarvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Budgen, NickFarr, JohnHastings, Stephen
Bulmer, EsmondFinsberg, GeoffreyHavers, Sir Michael
Burden, F. A.Fisher, Sir NigelHayhoe, Barney
Carlisle, MarkFletcher-Cooke, CharlesHeselllne, Michael
Carr, Rt Hon RobertFookes, Miss JanetHicks, Robert
Carson, JohnFowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)Higgins, Terence L.
Chalker, Mrs LyndaFox, MarcusHolland, Philip
Channon, PaulFraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)Hooson, Emlyn

Hordern, PeterMonro, HectorShaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyMontgomery, FergusShaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Howell, Ralph(North Norfolk)Moore, John (Croydon C)Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hunt, JohnMore, Jasper (Ludlow)Shepherd, Colin
Hurd DouglasMorgan, GeraintShersby, Michael
Hutchison, Michael ClarkMorgan-Giles, Rear-AdmiralSilvester, Fred
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)Morris, Michael (Northampton S)Sims, Roger
James, DavidMorrison, Charles (Devizes)Sinclair, Sir George
Jessel, TobyMorrison, Peter (Chester)Skeet, T. H. H.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)Mudd, DavidSmith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)Neave, AireySmith, Dudley (Warwick)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithNelson, AnthonySpeed, Keith
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineNeubert, MichaelSpence, John
Kershaw, AnthonyNewton, TonySpicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Kimball, MarcusNormanton, TomSpicer, Michael (S Worcester)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)Nott, JohnSproat, Iain
King, Tom (Bridgwater)Onslow, CranleyStainton, Keith
Kitson, Sir TimothyOppenheim, Mrs SallyStanbrook, Ivor
Lamont, NormanOsborn, JohnStanley, John
Lane, DavidPage, John (Harrow West)Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Langford-Holt, Sir JohnPage, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Latham, Michael (Melton)Pardoe, JohnStewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Lawrence, IvanParkinson, CecilStokes, John
Lawson, NigelPattie, GeoffreyTapsell, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)Penhaligon, DavidTaylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Percival, IanTebbit, Norman
Lloyd, IanPeyton, Rt Hon JohnThatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Loveridge, JohnPink, R. BonnerThomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Luce, RichardPowell, Rt Hon J. EnochTownsend, Cyril D.
McAdden, Sir StephenPrice, David (Eastleigh)Trotter, Neville
McCusker, H.Prior, Rt Hon JamesTugendhat, Christopher
Macfarlane, NeilRaison, Timothyvan Straubenzee, W. R.
MacGregor, JohnRathboneVaughan, Dr Gerard
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)Viggers, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)Rees-Davies, W. R.Wakeham, John
Madel, DavidRenton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Marten, NeilRhys Williams, Sir BrandonWalker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mates, MichaelRidley, Hon NicholasWall, Patrick
Mather, CarolRidsdale, JulianWalters, Dennis
Maude, AngusRifkind, MalcolmWarren, Kenneth
Maudling, Rt Hon ReginaldRippon, Rt Hon GeoffreyWeatherill, Bernard
Mawby, RayRoberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)Wells, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinRodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)Wiggin, Jerry
Mayhew, PatrickRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)Winterton, Nicholas
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)Ross, William (Londonderry)Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mills, PeterRossi, Hugh (Hornsey)Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Miscampbell, NormanRost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)Royle, Sir AnthonyTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Moate, RogerSainsbury, TimMr. Adam Butler and
Molyneaux, JamesScott, NicholasMr. Spencer Le Marchant.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.