I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 31 after 'magistrate', insert
'or by one or more justices'.
With this Amendment we may take Amendment No. 3, in Clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
The effect of this Amendment is to provide that the jurisdiction and powers of the district court shall be exercisable by a stipendiary magistrate or by one or more justices. The effect of the amendment is to restore a provision which was in the Bill as originally introduced, which was in the Bill as it came to us from another place, and which was in the Bill which received an unopposed Second Reading in this House. The words to be restored were removed during the Committee stage.As the Bill stands at present, no justice of the peace could sit on the bench of the district court. The present amendment provides for the bench of the district court to be constituted by one or more justices but does not remove the provision which empowers a stipendiary magistrate, where appointed, to adjudicate in the district court. Much of the discussion on this Bill has centred on the relative merits of lay judges and professional stipendiaries. I think it is inappropriate to attempt to make a judgment on the value of the contribution which a properly trained and experienced justice can make to the administration of justice in the future courts on the basis of what appears to an onlooker to have happened in a very small number of cases dealt with in the existing courts. Over the last decade the burgh and justice of the peace courts have dealt with over three-quarter of a million cases and I think it is both unjustified and unfair to dismiss the whole concept of lay summary justice simply because a few cases appeared to be wrongly dealt with. To proceed universally on that basis would produce some very odd results. Clearly what is required—and this is what the Government have done—is to examine the structure of the courts and see what improvements can be made to remove the deficiencies and defects. We have made provision for the Lord Advocate to assume responsibility, on a progressive basis, for prosecutions in these courts. He will, as already announced, take responsibility for prosecutions in more than two-thirds of the district courts from 16th May 1975 and in the remaining two-thirds will assume responsibility from 16th May 1976. This will have the result that before a case is brought before the court, careful consideration will be given to whether a prosecution is in the best interests of justice and, if so, to its proper preparation. We have made provision for the bench of the district court to have advice and guidance from a legal assessor, and we have required that assessor to be legally qualified. Legal aid will be made available to accused persons in the district courts. We have made provision for the proper training of those justices who are to sit on the bench. These are the important features which will distinguish the district courts from the courts they will replace. They have been warmly welcomed on all sides. Given these improvements, I simply cannot accept the view that there is no place whatsoever for the layman of Scotland in the administration of justice in a local court which deals with minor infringements of the criminal law. The lay judge has a practical everyday knowledge of the way of life and social conditions in that local community and, when decisions have to be made on how to deal with offenders, that knowledge is as valuable as legal training in securing that justice is done. Acceptable standards of behaviour in a community and the punishment or treatment of those who breach the code are matters of rightful concern not just to one profession but to all members of that community. It seems right, therefore, in principle, that given proper training and access to legal advice, selected laymen, and women for that matter, should be involved in the administration of justice. As it stands, the Bill provides for full-time stipendiary magistrates and only stipendiary magistrates to man the bench in the district court. But, so far as I am aware, no one has carried out a feasibility study of a system of lower courts in Scotland staffed exclusively by stipendiaries and administered by local authorities. Some things are already clear, however. A stipendiary magistrate is able to dispose of a very substantial number of cases per year, of the order of 10,000 to 15,000. Outwith the largest centres of population it would be necessary for one stipendiary to do all the work for five or six districts or islands authority areas if he was to have a worthwhile job. The difficulties are obvious. What is to be done where a custody case has to be dealt with in one area and the stipendiary has a scheduled court sitting in another of his districts, perhaps 100 miles away? What is to be done if a stipendiary magis trate falls ill? Who will do the work of the court the next day or the next week, or perhaps even the next month? lf, as the Bill provides as it stands, it is only a stipendiary magistrate who can sit on the bench, then the problems would be so immense that the system would be quite impossible to operate. There must also be doubts whether there would be sufficient people with the right qualities attracted to a career dealing with the types of cases coming before the district court. This matter is important when we are attempting to attract people of quality. But a system of lower courts has to come into operation in less than two months' time when the existing lay courts disappear. The provisions of this Bill were designed and prepared on the basis that the bench of the district court would normally be manned by lay justices, with provision for the employment of stipendiary magistrates where this was considered appropriate. Accordingly the Bill contained and still contains a substantial number of provisions relating to the appointment of justices, to existing magistrates and justices, to ex officiojustices, to the disqualification from sitting on the bench in certain circumstances of certain categories of justices, to the Supplemental List and so on. This amendment restores consistency and completeness to the Bill. The passage of the Bill through the House has served to show that there is no doubt that on this issue of stipendiary magistrates or lay justices we are certainly divided. That is on the record. In considering the present amendment the issue before us, because of the time factor, is totally different. In effect, the issue is that which has been put before us by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson). That is whether on 16th May there will be a workable system of lower courts of any kind to take over the work of the existing courts. Those who may be inclined to reject the amendment must accept that to do so would be to run the risk of a breakdown in the administration of justice in Scotland. This is an issue of principle. It is the heart and kernel of the Bill. This is what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) referred to. This is the issue which has divided us, sometimes very passionately, on Second Reading and certainly in Committee, and will perhaps again tonight—although we have heard the speeches already. This is the issue about which we have been talking since the Bill was introduced in another place. I urge the House to resolve the issue once and for all by accepting the Government amendment and rejecting the Opposition's Amendment No. 3.
The Minister is beginning to sound quite like a lawyer—finding a difficulty for every solution. Whether or not the amendment is carried, I cannot accept that we could not produce a system of justice by the middle of May. It cannot be beyond the wit of the Government to provide an adequate number of stipendiary magistrates by then without any difficulty.The Minister is misleading the House by over-emphasising this matter time and again. As he knows, and has said in the debate, the kernel of our differences in Committee was this matter, and subsequently the automatic appointment of justices. The clause and the issues involved were a complete nightmare for the hon. Gentlemen in Committee. His own side proved to him just what dangerous ground he was on. He lost Division after Division. Tempers flared. Filibusters were organised. I have never known anything like it in Committee, not even when the Secretary of State was accustomed to serve on Standing Committee. Tonight the Under-Secretary put on a brave smile after suffering crushing defeats in four sittings in Standing Committee. He knows that if Part I were to be implemented as it is—that is, as amended by the Committee—it would be the democratic wish of the majority of the members of the Standing Committee. Because Part II is in terms of lay summary justice, the Bill is in technical terms a shambles. It is no credit to the Government that they have brought a Bill from Committee in this state. The Minister is going back to the Government's original policy on which they decided after a lengthy delay between March of last year and when the Bill was introduced into the Lords last November. It still seems to be against the weight of evidence that the Minister brought forward his proposals. He calls in aid the magistrates and the police judges of the cities and burghs. It is very much their wish to perpetuate a system which has been seen to be less efficient than that of the stipendiary magistrate. Before any hon. Member leaps to his feet in horror, let me hasten to make it clear that I am not saying that lay justice is bad.
The hon. Gentleman is saying that.
I am not. That is typical of the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller). He chatters away behind the Government Front Bench for all the world as though he were Lord God Almighty. He does not know what he is talking about. We have made it clear in Committee and now on Report that we are not denigrating what lay summary justice has done in the past. We are saying that stipendiary justice is better.
How does the hon. Gentleman know that?
Because it has worked better. The hon. Gentleman should know that from experience in his own city of Glasgow before he ran off to East Kilbride. He should not keep on chattering from the second bench. He can make a speech later.The Opposition believe strongly that in May a step should be taken towards providing better justice than we have had in the past. Not one atom of evidence was produced by the Under-Secretary in Committee, nor was any produced by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, to indicate that what is about to be perpetuated will be more efficient than a system of stipendiary magistrates as the Opposition propose. The Under-Secretary should tell us when he replies whether he intends on 16th May to introduce stipendiary magistrates in the city of Edinburgh, which will obviously be the second city where they will be required if he uses the option he has in the Bill. Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman carried out a survey to determine the extent of the increased work load in district courts arising from the availability of legal aid? This is important in relation to the number of stipendiaries or justices of the peace who will be needed. We shall divide against the amendment.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I suppose that in a sense I have an interest to declare in that I was trained to be a lawyer. I have now given up practice and I have no specific professional interest. Nevertheless, I think that one of two lessons can be drawn from my experience. I do not wish to become involved in a high-flown and impassioned debate. The purpose of this debate is to determine the best format for obtaining justice in the lower courts for the members of the community brought before them.Had the Minister come before the House and suggested that there may well be room for the presence of lay magistrates during the sentencing process I think that I would have had a lot of sympathy with him. One of the advantages of the lay magistrate is that he probably has deep roots in the community and the ability to weigh local conditions against the offence which a person may have committed. Of course, we are dealing not only with sentencing but with the determination of guilt and innocence. I am sure that the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State would be ready to declare that there is a need for training and a need for experience on the part of lay magistrates if they are to deal with certain judicial functions. In my experience I have found the sifting of evidence and the determining whether somebody is guilty or innocent to be difficult matters. It is easy when prosecuting or defending to take a one-sided view of the guilt or innocence of an accused. A magistrate has to make that difficult decision. I welcome the proposals for the giving of training and for the supplying of legal assessors to help the magistrate in sifting the evidence. I appreciate that the Government have come part of the way towards providing some acceptable solutions. The difficulty is that at the end of the day it is the magistrate himself who has to take a decision. It is not the case that a person who has been trained in law takes a decision on guilt or innocence and then decides on sentence in company with a lay assessor who has been in attendance during the proceedings. It is the layman or amateur—I say that without wishing to cause offence or to place any imputation upon such a person—who has to decide whether somebody has been guilty of an offence and what punishment has to follow. That is one of the most crucially serious matters to decide in any society. There is a safety net given to the ordinary citizen if he comes before someone who has been legally trained. I am not necessarily suggesting that a lawyer is completely right in every decision that he or she might take as a magistrate. Upper courts have overturned decisions by sheriffs on sufficient occasions in tile past to suggest that they are fallible. However, I suggest that a lay magistrate is likely to be more able to make a mistake than someone who has been professionally trained, and particularly when that lay magistrate is commencing his judicial career. I found very good lay magistrates who were the equal of good stipendiaries or sheriffs. I have also seen very bad lay magistrates. On occasions I have also seen some rather poor professionals. When I have seen someone who is new to a judicial office making elementary mistakes I have wondered whether his experience will be gained at the expense of somebody's reputation. At the end of the day that is perhaps where I differ from the Government. I appreciate that an experienced lay magistrate is capable of taking decisions on guilt or innocence, but I fear that the time he or she takes to gain that experience may be at the expense of an innocent member of the community. The expense of appeal, the difficulties of appeal and the limitations of the stated case procedure, which makes appeals difficult, also weigh the balance in favour of the professional magistrates. I also think there have been recent movements towards professionalism. Members of the Scottish National Party have no real vested interest in the continuation of a system of justices of the peace, perhaps because we are a fairly new party and we do not seem to have many. But that is not a factor which should come into this debate. The Minister made the point that by the time we reach 15th or 16th May—the operative date of the measure—there may be some confusion unless the provisions of the amendment are accepted. I am prepared to consider that there may be some confusion, but it is open to the Government to take care of that possibility by putting forward an amendment in the other place—if that is still possible at this stage—to deal with the question. If it is not possible, because the Bill has already been to the Lords, that is not a valid reason for blackmailing the House of Commons into accepting a situation which the Government have created by not having made interim arrangements which could have taken care of the situation beyond 16th May until sufficient magistrates have been appointed on a stipendiary basis. There is still time for them to rush through an uncontested measure providing such interim arrangements, and there is no argument—they having failed to take care of the possibility of confusion —for their now contesting a decision reached by the First Scottish Standing Committee in relation to these matters.
I shall not take very long. This is not a question of guilt or innocence it is a question of staffing the district courts with lay magistrates or stipendiary magistrates, as I read the amendment. Sentencing is a different matter, and does not come within the terms of either amendment.Essentially, the position is that many people are crying "Fire", and nobody here would cry "Fire" where no fire exists. To that degree there has been an upsurge towards having stipendiary magistrates alone, and cutting out lay justices. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and to that degree those sitting in district courts over a scattered community are more likely to have an identity with the nature of the environment and with what is and what is not a crime, in terms of the cases that come before them. I could give many exotic examples of what constitutes a crime. I am all for local knowledge and local thought, and I am not in favour of stipendiary magistrates. I do not want to see a Soviet style duma introduced into our district courts.
I have been waiting here this evening in the hope that the Opposition would give us facts and figures explaining why the office of lay magistrate should be discontinued. Not even the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who is asking why stipendiaries should not be appointed, has made an effort to convince us why the office of lay magistrate should be discontinued. It would be very unwise to take such action unless we can be given some indication of the extent to which lay magistrates have not been a success in the administration of justice. We should be told what is wrong with the present system. Why should it be dispensed with? We have been given no such information.Perhaps I should declare an interest. I have done it before. I am a justice of the peace. I was shocked to hear the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) saying that people such as myself are not even capable of knowing what it is about. If a policeman calls at my home he tells me what it is about and asks me whether I will give him an authority—which I duly do. I do not need an academic degree to decide that sort of thing. I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. What about the fellows with academic degrees? I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman of one of his own kinsmen whom I saw at a football match. During the game, in the excitement, a lad threw a pie at the referee, and then, when the police went to pick the lad up, the one who jumped up and said, "That is the wrong man you are picking up the wrong man", was the sheriff, yet that sheriff fined the same poor blighter on the Monday morning £25 for throwing the pie. I shall be frank about it. I could not imagine a lay magistrate committing an error of that sort. We hear a lot of praise for the fellows with academic qualifications. In all modesty, I must say that I should be willing to take them on in court at any time. I have no academic legal qualifications, but I pride myself on having some jolly good sound common sense, and that is all that is necessary, especially when one is dealing with minor offences. The attitude of lay magistrates can be far more understanding and more humane, and more in keeping with the needs of justice. I remember the ease—I shall not mention the name—of a fellow who had fallen out with his wife and had given her a bit of a hammering. It all happened because he refused to take the wife and kids to Ayr on Fair Monday. Without consulting that fountain of wisdom from Central Ayrshire who sits on the bench behind me here, we decided what to do. We said: "You take the wife and kids to Ayr, and come and report to us tomorrow night that you have been there". We did not expect to hear from him, but, lo and behold, the door bell rang at 10 o'clock and there he was with his wife and three kids, with their spades and pails, as happy as the day is long. Needless to say, that particular charge was dismissed. Is not that common sense? But would a stipendiary do that? What is more, how on earth are we to get at these fellows at the weekend? Who does the sheriff court work on the Saturday?— the laymen. The ordinary sheriffs are not there. I think that they go boating or golfing. That is a matter of fact. Where would one find a stipendiary at the weekend? Would he be available? I am sure that he would not. Only recently, on a Sunday morning as I was coming back from church with my daughter, some CID men chased after me to get me to sign search warrants. I am sure that they would not get a stipendiary magistrate on the Sunday morning—
Or coming back from church.
Or coming back from church. There are, it is said, two persons God never made—one a contented farmer, and the other an honest lawyer. We have been given no evidence to support the discontinuance of lay magistrates. By and large, they do a jolly good job. We have our black sheep—the academic chaps have their black sheep, too—but, on the whole, we do our utmost to administer the law of the land without fear or favour.
The debate has become polarised between those who think that the professionals are the answer to the whole question and those who think that lay magistrates are the answer. I served for 15 years as a magistrate, and, unless the law has been changed, I am an honorary sheriff still. I take great pride in such time as I had on the bench. I never thought that I was the fount of all wisdom, but I certainly can say, with the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), that at least I knew the people and perhaps was able on that account to temper justice with mercy, and so on.But we must confess that it is much better to have professionally trained people in that kind of situation. I would prefer to go to the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) than to a man selling herbs or to a faith healer, but whether that would be a wise decision would remain to be seen. The fact that he is a MB, ChB would give me that extra confidence. I think that the public are entitled to the same confidence in people on the bench.
The stipendiary might be called from 100 miles away if the amendment is insisted upon. That is the situation at Stornoway sheriff court where the travelling sheriff is shared. In Committee the Under-Secretary did me an injustice—I am sure inadvertently—when he said that I was opposed to the views of the rest of my party on this issue. On Second Reading I interrupted the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to ask whether he thought that there were sufficient trained men to take over if the amendment were passed. However, I prefaced that comment by saying that I went along with his argument and that he had proved his case.
I am tempted to rest the Government case on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) and leave it at that. However, I have a commitment to deal with points that were raised.The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) rehearsed the arguments we have been over so often and I think that he must now accept, as I do, that there are these differences between us, that the Government side believe that we should put lay magistrates into the district courts and the Opposition believe that these should be stipendiary magistrates. We shall have to agree that this difference exists. I am certain that no answer I give tonight will satisfy the hon. Member for Dumfries in believing that the Government are justified in introducing these courts staffed by lay magistrates. He asked a specific question relating to the City of Edinburgh. This is primarily a matter for Edinburgh District Council and to date we have had no request to the Government that we should introduce stipendiary magistrates in Edinburgh. The provision we inserted in the Bill was that the Secretary of State would have this flexibility if a request was submitted for the appointment of a stipendiary, that it would be considered by my right hon. Friend with various other factors to be taken into account, and that a decision would be made against that background. On the question of increased workload, I said in Committee that it was about 5 per cent. of the cases that were granted legal aid. I think that I am right in saying that the financial resources we have made available here are an indication of the number of cases in which we expect application for legal aid. We have no reason to believe that the percentage will be higher in the district courts than is the case for the sheriff courts, and that is about 5 per cent. of the total case load. I turn briefly but not discourteously to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). There are three important features of the new courts. First, for the first time lay magistrates will have training, and that is a vast improvement. Secondly, the Government intend that no inexperienced justice should sit in court on his own. There will always be an experienced justice present and in that way the inexperienced will gain experience and be involved in the work load and the various facets of court work. Thirdly, and probably even more important than that, the Lord Advocate, through the procurator fiscal, will take over the prosecutions in these courts. It is therefore reasonable to assume that cases
Division No. 157.1
|Allaun, Frank||Bray, Dr Jeremy||Conlan, Bernard|
|Anderson, Donald||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)|
|Archer, Peler||Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Corbett, Robin|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Buchan, Norman||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Ashton, Joe||Buchanan, Richard||Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton & P)||Cryer, Bob|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Campbell, Ian||Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)|
|Bates, Alt||Canavan, Dennis||Dalyell, Tam|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Carmlchael, Nail||Davles, Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Cartwrlght, John||Davis, CHnton (Hackney C)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Clemltson, Ivor||de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Dempsey, James|
|Boardman, H.||Cohen, Stanley||Doig, Peter|
|Booth, Albert||Coleman, Donald||Dormand, J. D.|
will be allocated to the proper court in the first place. When in the wisdom of the procurator fiscal it is thought that a case should appropriately be taken in the sheriff court, that is where it will go, and if it is thought that it should go to the district court, that is where it will go. That, too, is a vast improvement and should remove the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.
Our researches show quite clearly that Dundee does not have the work load to justify a stipendiary magistrate, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, East shares with me the hope that it never will.
There is nothing to take the place of the district courts if the Bill is not passed. We should be left without courts at this level and the work load would have to go to the sheriff court, with all the consequences of such an action. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that that would be a serious situation.
If I misrepresented the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), I apologise to him. I understood his remarks to mean that he was supporting lay magistrates, and I know that he has wide experience of this work. If I misrepresented him, I apologise and withdraw.
I shall not reply in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) save to say that I understand that there is now only one person who attends the Albion Rovers' matches, so there should be no difficulty in picking out a person who threw a pie. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 132.
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lamborn, Harry||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lamond, James||Rooker, J. W.|
|Dunn, James A.||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Hoper, John|
|Dunnett, Jack||Loyden, Eddie||Rose, Paul B.|
|Eadie, Alex||Luard, Evan||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||McElhone, Frank||Rowlands, Ted|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Ryman, John|
|Ennals, David||Mackenzie, Gregor||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Evans, loan (Aberdare)||Maclennan, Robert||Selby, Harry|
|Evans, John (Newton)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Ewlng, Harry (Stirllng)||Madden, Max||Sillars, James|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Mahon, Simon||Silverman, Julius|
|Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)||Marks, Kenneth||Skinner, Dennis|
|Flannery, Martin||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Small, William|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Meacher, Michael||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mikardo, lan||Snape, Peter|
|George, Bruce||Mlllan, Bruce||Spearing, Nigel|
|Gilbert, Dr John||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Golding, John||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Molloy, William||Stoddart, David|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Stott, Roger|
|Grocott, Bruce||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Strang, Gavin|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Hardy, Peter||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Newens, Stanley||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Noble, Mike||Tinn, James|
|Hatton, Frank||Oakes, Gordon||Urwin, T. W.|
|Horam, John||Ogden, Eric||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||O'Halloran, Michael||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Ovenden, John||Ward, Michael|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Owen, Dr David||Watkinson, John|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Palmer, Arthur||Weetch, Ken|
|Hunter, Adam||Park, George||Wellbeloved, James|
|Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Parker, John||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Parry, Robert||White, James (Pollok)|
|Janner, Greville||Pendry, Tom||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'rb)|
|John, Brynmor||Phlpps, Dr Colin||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Prescott, John||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Price, William (Rugby)||Woodall, Alec|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Radice, Giles||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Judd, Frank||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Kerr, Russell||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Mr. Joseph Harper and|
|Kinnock, Neil||Roderick, Caerwyn||Mr. Laurie Pavitt.|
|Lambie, David||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Alison, Michael||Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Arnold, Tom||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Mlscampbell, Norman|
|Baker, Kenneth||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Banks, Robert||Gray, Hamish||Monro, Hector|
|Beith, A. J.||Grist, Ian||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Benyon, W.||Grylls, Michael||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Bitten, John||Hall, Sir John||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mudd, David|
|Blaker, Peter||Hannam,John||Neave, Alrey|
|Body, Richard||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Nelson, Anthony|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hawkins, Paul||Neubert, Michael|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Heseltine, Michael||Normanton, Tom|
|Brittan, Leon||Hicks, Robert||Nolt, John|
|Brotherton, Michael||Hooson, Emlyn||Onslow, Cranley|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Hunt, John||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Burden, F. A.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Penhaligon, David|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Kershaw, Anthony||Raison, Timothy|
|Churchill, W. S.||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Rees, Peter (Dover S Deal)|
|Cockcroft, John||Kirk, Peter||Reld, George|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Knox, David||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Cope john.||Lamont, Norman||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Corrle, John||Lawson, Nigel||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Costam, A. P.||Letter, Jim (Beeston)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Crawford, Douglas||Luce, Richard.||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Macfariane, Nell||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Durant, Tony||MacGregor, John||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Eden Rt Hon Sir John||Macmllian, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Edwards Nicholas (Pembroke)||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Shepherd, Colin|
|Eyre, Reginald||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Silvester, Fred|
|Falrbairn, Nicholas||Mather, Carol||Sims, Roger|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Freud, Clement||Mayhew, Patrick||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Temple-Morris, Peter||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Speed, Keith||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret||Welsh, Andrew|
|Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Thompson, George||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Steel, David (Roxburgh)||Townsend, Cyril D.||Younger, Hon George|
|Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Stradllng Thomas, J.||Viggers, Peter|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)||Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and|
|Tebbit, Norman||Watt, Hamish||Mr. Anthony Berry.|
Question accordingly agreed to.