Abolition Of Existing Inferior Courts And Establishment Of District Courts
I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'stipendiary magistrate' and insert 'justice of the peace'.Perhaps I should explain the effect of the amendment before dealing with the principle of the matter. The effect would be to provide that, on and after 16th May 1975, all functions of burgh magistrates not otherwise provided for shall be exercisable by a justice of the peace and not by a stipendiary magistrate only. The office of burgh magistrate disappears with local authority reorganisation, and it is necessary to provide for the undertaking of functions which these magistrates presently perform. Their functions are of three types. First, there are the powers of the burgh magistrate when acting as a court of summary jurisdiction. Clause 3(1) of the Bill transfers these powers to the new district courts. The second is the burgh magistrate's function as an element of civic government. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, all such administrative powers are transferred to the new local authorities. Thus, both of these functions are otherwise provide for, and Clause 1(2) does not therefore apply to them. However, the third function is the power of the single magistrate out of court acting as a judicial officer. There are numerous statutory provisions empowering a magistrate to grant warrants of search, entry, arrest and the like. It is these powers which will be transferred by Clause 1(2). Clause 1(2), as introduced, transferred these powers to the justices of the peace who exercise similar powers at present, but in Committee the clause was amended to permit only stipendiary magistrates to exercise these powers. Irrespective of one's views on the relative merits of lay justices and stipendiary magistrates on the bench, that amendment made no sense whatsoever. Even with a wholly stipendiary magistrate system of summary justice, there simply would not be enough stipendiary magistrates in Scotland to cater for the number of warrants which have to be signed in all parts of the country. The enforcement of the law cannot be delayed while policemen travel 30, 40 or perhaps even 50 miles to get a signature from a stipendiary only to find that he is away on holiday, thus requiring them to go on to the next one, who may be a further 50 miles away.
Have they not learned to use the telephone yet?
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have never known of anyone with the ability to sign a warrant by telephone. Perhaps that applies in his northern part of the country.The situation which I have just described is not one which anyone could reasonably contemplate. Under the provisions of Clause 5(7), stipendiary magistrates will be ex officio justices. The present amendment, therefore, secures that both they and the lay justices will be empowered to carry out the warrant signing duties of the existing burgh magistrates. In view of what I have said about the severe practical problems which would inevitably arise if Clause 1(2) remained in its present form, I trust that the House will accept the amendment.
This amendment, and the one immediately to follow, strike at the very kernel of the disagreement between the two sides of the House on the Bill. The Minister would have us believe that the prime significance of this amendment has to do with the signing of warrants and other technical matters. It may be of interest to those hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee to know that the vital matter which the Minister felt it necessary to inform the House about this evening was not mentioned to the Committee until after the Government had been defeated on this very question, and throughout the course of the debate on the amendment in Committee the hon. Gentleman accepted, as did all his hon. Friends and every member of the Committee, that the point at issue was not a technical matter of warrant signing but was one of general principle whether there should be lay justices in the reformed system of district courts in Scotland.It is perhaps also significant that owing to the convictions of one Labour Member in Committee it was not until the third sitting that the Government managed to win their first vote. It is because of the humiliation that the Government suffered in the first two sittings of the Committee that this pathetic amendment is now brought before the House. The amendment strikes at the whole question of lay justice in Scotland. It is necessary for the Minister to inform the House why the Government have reversed the view of the previous Conservative administration and believe that lay justice is desirable and should be continued in Scotland. He has not yet commented on this vital matter. The matter was commented on in the Second Reading debate by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and was referred to in detail in Committee, but the points made then have not been dealt with by the Minister. We have heard in successive debates that the Government took a different view to the previous Conservative administration because of the advice they had received from certain quarters. The Secretary of State informed us on Second Reading that the only person who had advised that lay justice should be continued so far as he was aware was himself, and he had listened to that advice very carefully. In Committee the Under-Secretary gave additional information.
Surely the amendment we are considering has nothing to do with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he not address himself to the amendment?
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) should make that comment because in Committee when the amendment was being considered he made a speech on the matter I am now considering. The Minister may have had a change of heart after the vote in Committee as to what he considered the amendment to be about. It would be quite clear to anyone who examined the proceedings on the amendment in Committee that all the hon. Members there did not refer to the interpretation the Minister now seeks to offer to the House and considered that the matter under discussion was the general principle of lay magistrates in Scotland. I therefore make no apology for concentrating my remarks on that point.The Minister informed us previously that in addition to the Secretary of State's views, the view of local authorities, and of un-named bailie from Greenock and an un-named professor from Dundee University led to the Government changing their mind. The contrary argument is supported not only by the Conservatives, but by the Liberals, the Scottish Nationalists, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and bodies other than those purely of the legal profession. We know that the British Association of Social Workers has made representations to the Government not to persist with this policy. The Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, that well-known repository of reactionary Tory views, has made representations to the Government to accept amendments in Committee and not to stick with the system of lay justice. The reason is simple and straightforward. Irrespective of the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary this evening, it is well-known that the system of lay justice has not proved as desirable and attractive as many hon. Members would have liked. This opportunity to dispense with the system of lay justice and to concentrate on a fully professional system is being sadly missed by the Government. The arguments usually put on this point concentrate on the supposed personal touch that the lay magistrate, the bailie or the other form of justice has in dealing with issues that are before him. It has been suggested that somehow he is better able to understand the issues involved. But, of course, the important and only controversial question before the district court or any magistrates' court is simply that of innocence or guilt. To suggest that a lay person is better qualified to deal with the basic matters of innocence or guilt is as absurd as suggesting that a lay person is somehow more suitable to carry out a surgical operation or something else of equal complexity. I appeal to the Under-Secretary, and particularly to his hon. Friends who have expressed grave reservations about the whole principle of lay justice, to use this opportunity, even at this late stage, to concentrate on whether it is in the interests of justice to pursue the Government's present policy. When a combination of forces as disparate as the Conservative Party, the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, the British Association of Social Workers and the whole legal profession, which has far more experience of these matters than the vast majority of other groups and organisations in our society, are virtually unanimous in believing that the system should not be changed—
Is the hon. Member seriously maintaining that all those bodies have made submissions to him that lay magistrates are not fit to sign documents?
I expect slightly better than that from the Lord Adovate.
That is what the amendment is all about.
Order. Hon. Members should allow the hon. Member to deal with one point at a time. That is the way in which it is usually done in court, I believe.
I understand that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) wishes to support the Lord Advocate. It is a pity that neither was present in the Committee when this subject was being debated. If they would care to read the report of the debate, they would see what the view of the Minister was when these amendments were being considered.
The hon. Member used the words "when these amendments were being considered". Do I take it that this amendment was taken along with others in Committee, whereas tonight it stands on its own? Should we not therefore be directing ourselves to the effect of this amendment?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Had he read the report of the proceedings in Committee, he would not have to ask such questions as that. This amendment was taken together with a series of others. Had there been any crucial difference between it and those others, the Government would have objected to their being taken together, or at least the Minister would have pointed out the differences. What he said was,
including this—"This series of amendments"—
At no time before the vote in Committee was taken did the Under-Secretary make one reference to what he now claims to be the purpose, significance and effect of the amendment. The whole Committee knew, as the House now knows, that what we were debating was the principle of lay magistrates. I urge the Under-Secretary even at this late stage to address himself to the basic issue not simply between the two sides of the House but between Government supporters and the Government. It is not too late for the Government to change their minds."strikes at the very heart of the Bill. I believe that it is important that we should dispose of these amendments in the way I have suggested••".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13th February 1975; c. 20.]
In Committee I accepted some responsibility for the rather sloppy way in which a series of amendments was dealt with. There was a wide-ranging discussion of amendments that were not as closely related as was at first thought.However, tonight the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) has spoken for some time without saying a word about the amendment on the Notice Paper. He has not said a word that is relevant to the Bill or the amendment. It is probably asking too much of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you should have followed all the complications of this issue. The amendment would restore the Bill to its original shape, allowing justices of the peace to sign warrants and other documents. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, the only people who could sign them would be stipendiary magistrates. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman does not want, and what the stipendiary magistrates would not want. The hon. Gentleman gets carried away. He pours forth a flood of words and forgets where to stop. I ask him and other hon. Members to address themselves to the Bill and the amendment and to follow the rules of order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to do what he has just done. The hon. Gentleman, better than most, knows that what I say is true. When dealing with a specific amendment concerning one aspect of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to bring in everything under the sun. If the Bill is not restored to its original form, the Opposition will create a situation that they and every stipendiary magistrate will be sorry about.
It is commendable of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to strive for perfection, even in the lower ranks of the legal system. I wish that he would carry that commendable attitude into other spheres of his political activity.I am taking advantage of the fact that the hon. Gentleman widened the issue, and did not confine it to the amendment, which concerns the right of lay justices to sign warrants. The hon. Gentleman widened it into the question whether lay justices were good. The hon. Gentleman made a number of mistakes, if I may be so bold as to say that a legal luminary can make mistakes in legal matters. Such people are just as likely to make mistakes in legal matters as medical men are to make mistakes in medical matters.
Would the hon. Gentleman be happy to be operated on by any unqualified member of the public?
If that were the exact analogy, I should not mind, but I shall not be drawn into the peculiar areas in which the hon. Gentleman often gets involved.There is no perfect system. I served for some time as a lay magistrate. The system of lay justices has worked reasonably well, even if there are faults and blemishes. The lay magistrate is not called upon to make difficult, abstruse legal decisions. He always has a legal assessor with him. I know that we are talking about signing warrants, but the hon. Gentleman widened the discussion, and I am taking advantage of that. The lay magistrate is asked, as an independent person, to make an appraisal of a situation. To a great degree, that appraisal is decided from a legal point of view by the legal assessor. I do not think that it is necessary for anyone to have had up to five years' legal training to make an assessment which is well within the ability of the average person of intelligence and common sense. I therefore commend the action of the Government in bringing forward these amendments to rectify the situation or at least to enable us to return to the situation which existed in Scotland for a long time.
Following the important earlier debate, it is important to note why this amendment stands alone on Report stage. In Committee we debated amendments which were grouped with the agreement of all parties. We voted on that series of amendments. Not one hon. Member doubted that that was the case.The words of the Under-Secretary of State have already been quoted. He need not smile, since this is a matter of principle.
The Secretary of State may regard principle as nonsense, but I am not sure that I do. This is a matter of principle.
Are we dealing with the amendment before the House, which makes one change, or are we dealing with the question of principle?
I think that the point is well taken. Whatever happened in Committee does not concern the Report stage of the Bill. The selection of amendments by Mr. Speaker puts Government Amendment No. 1 on its own. The general principle will be discussed under Government Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I hope that hon. Members will respect the selection of amendments.
I appreciate that we are dealing with one amendment. That is the matter of principle.The Secretary of State may grunt, wriggle and laugh as much as he likes, because he does not like the principle. As hon. Members who were in Committee know, the point of principle is whether we should have lay justice. In the face of probity, honour, civility and sense of law, the Under-Secretary of State pretended that we debated a subject which neither he nor anyone else mentioned. Since that is what he now pretends we were debating, this is not a matter in principle of any less importance. A warrant, whether to search or apprehend or for any other reason, proceeds upon the judgment of the judge who has to grant the warrant. If anything, he has greater difficulty in judging this matter since he has to accept or judge the say-so of those who put the warrant before him. The legend of the warrant demonstrates that he has been satisfied on sufficient evidence that there are just grounds why he should grant this warrant. The Under-Secretary now says that the layman should judge these matters even though there are no witnesses to help him form a judgment. The hon. Gentleman may not know what I am talking about, but when he has a warrant granted against him to search his house or to arrest him without reason he will perhaps discover. What is important is that this is a matter of supreme principle which has not been argued by the Government in Committee. Perhaps the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but this was not considered when the amendment was allegedly being debated. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Under-Secretary of State did not mention the matter at the time? If he can, it will perhaps demonstrate how incompetent a layman is to deal with an issue which he does not understand. It is important that the House should reject the amendment.
I had no intention of intervening, until I heard the debate, because I was unlucky enough not to be a member of the Committee. If I had been there in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) we probably should not have been having this trouble this evening.I have almost become convinced by the arguments advanced by the Opposition. They are not arguing the principle whether there should be a lay magistrate. They are arguing about the ability of a layman, as opposed to the superior ability of a stipendiary magistrate drawn from the legal profession, to sign a form. Thinking back on my experience, I can recall some of the railwaymen who have done a hard shift, gone to bed at 2 a.m. and then been knocked up by the police to sign a warrant. It is difficult for a man after a hard shift on the railways to bring his mind to bear on a problem laid before him by a sergeant of police, or perhaps a constable. The same could be said of a fireman, or someone from a stamp works. He may spend the day operating a heavy hammer, and, having had two or three pints of beer and a whisky or two, he might not feel like signing a warrant at midnight. I am three-quarters of the way towards being convinced by the arguments of the Opposition, but I shall listen to what the Minister says. I think that we should leave this important and onerous task to the full-time professional people. This does not mean that I want to rule out the lay justice in the lower courts. One can accept the amendment and later vote for a continuation of lay participation in district courts. If the House accepts the amendment, it does not preclude us from debate the other point of view in principle. It means only that the legal wizards whom the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) was promoting several minutes ago will have the discretion on their shoulders and on no one else's. I am three-quarters of the way towards being convinced that we should concede the amendment to the Opposition.
I have no intention of conceding the amendment to the Opposition. I always understood it as one of the principles of law that to reopen a case one had to submit fresh evidence. If I may say so, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), his speech tonight, which was made not the first, second or third time but for probably the fourth time, was no better for having been taken out of a pigeon hole, dusted down and delivered on Report because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) said, nothing that he said was related in any remote way to the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman says that to reopen a case one has to submit fresh evidence. Given that the Minister was defeated on the amendment in Committee, can he say, what fresh evidence he wishes to bring before the House to justify his reopening the case?
The fresh evidence of the people of Scotland. As I explained in Committee, if Conservative Members ever find themselves in one of the district courts and treat them with the contempt with which they treat the House of Commons they will find themselves in serious trouble.
The hon. and learned Gentleman should sit down, because I have no intention of giving way to him. I am being as friendly as possible. I do not want the hon. Members for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) or Edinburgh, Pent-lands to find themselves in serious trouble when they appear in the district courts. I plead with them not to treat the courts with the same contempt as they treat the House of Commons.The evidence that we have is from the people of Scotland. They do not feel like travelling 50, 60 or 70 miles every time they want passport photographs signed. I am sure that no political candidate, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, if he stands at the next election and asks for his election expenses or any other official election document to be signed by a justice of the peace, will feel like sending his election agent 50, 60 or 70 miles to have those documents signed. We must have a sense of realism in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) talked about legal
Division No. 156.1
|Allaun, Frank||Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Buchanan, Richard|
|Anderson, Donald||Bishop, E. S.||Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)|
|Archer, Peter||Blenkinsop, Arthut||Campbell, Ian|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Boardman, H.||Canavan, Dennis|
|Ashton, Joe||Booth, Albert||Carmichael, Neil|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Cartwright, John|
|Bagler, Gordon A. T.||Bray, Dr Jeremy||Clemitson, Ivor|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood'||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)|
|Bates, Alf||Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Cohen, Stanley|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Buchan, Norman||Coleman, Donald|
luminaries making legal mistakes. The fact is that only legal luminaries are qualified to make legal mistakes, so my hon. Friend should not be surprised at that.
No one on the Opposition benches has spoken to the amendment.
I have been looking at the proceedings of the first sitting of the Scottish Standing Committee seeking to establish whether Amendment No. 1 was considered then or in subsequent proceedings in order to judge the arguments being made by the Minister for the amendment. I believe that the crucial amendment is No. 2, relating to whether stipendiary magistrates or lay justices should officiate at district courts, not Amendment No. I which relates to the signing of certain documents. Am I correct?
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is perfectly correct. Government Amendment No. 2 deals with the principle concerning stipendiary magistrates or lay justices. The point is that none of the speeches that have been made by Opposition Members has related to Government Amendment No. 1.At the second sitting of the Committee upstairs I went out of my way to explain that the amendment on which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands rightly said we were defeated did not in any shape or form alter the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is whether lay justices or stipendiary magistrates should preside in the district courts. This amendment does not deal with that principle. Therefore, I urge the House to accept the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made: —
The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 140.
|Conlan, Bernard||John, Brynmor||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Radice, Giles|
|Corbett, Robin||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Judd, Frank||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Cryer, Bob||Ketley, Richard||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Kerr, Russell||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Daiyell, Tam||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Davidson, Arthur||Kinnock, Neil||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Davies, Denzil (Lianeill)||Lambie, David||Rooker, J. W.|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Lamborn, Harry||Roper, John|
|de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Lamond, James||Rose, Paul B.|
|Dempsey, James||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Doig, Peter||Lipton, Marcus||Rowlands, Ted|
|Dormand, J. D.||Litterick, Tom||Ryman, John|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Loyden, Eddie||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Luard, Evan||Selby, Harry|
|Dunn, James A.||McElhone, Frank||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne]|
|Dunnett, Jack||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Eadie, Alex||Mackenzie, Gregor||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)||Maclennan, Robert||Sillars, James|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Silverman, Julius|
|Ennals, David||McNamara, Kevin||Skinner, Dennis|
|Evans, loan (Aberdare)||Madden, Max||Small, William|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Mahon, Simon||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Marks, Kenneth||Snape, Peter|
|Faulds, Andrew||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Fernyhouoh Rt Hon E||Meacher, Michael||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Fitch Alan (Wigan)||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Stewart, Rt Hon M (Fulham)|
|Flannery, Martin||Mikardo, Ian||Stott, Roger|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Millan, Bruce||Strang, Gavin|
|Ford, Ben||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Molloy, William||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|George, Bruce||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Thinn, James|
|Gilbert, Dr John||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Urwin, T, w.|
|Golding, John||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Moyle, Roland||Waiden, Brian (B'ham, L dyw d)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Ward, Michael|
|Grocott, Bruce||Newens, Stanley||Watkinson, Jonn|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Noble, Mike||Weetch, Ken|
|Hardy, Peter||Oakes, Gordon||Wellbeloved, James|
|Harper, Joseph||Ogden, Eric||White, James (Pollok)|
|Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)||O'Halloran, Michael||Whitahead Phillip|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Ovenden, John||Williams Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Hatton, Frank||Owen, Dr David||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Palmer, Arthur||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Horam, John||Park, George||Wise Mrs Audrey|
|Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Parker, John||Woodall Alec|
|Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Parry, Robert||Woof Robert|
|Huckfield, Les||Peart, Laurie||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Peart, Rt Hon Fred|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Pendry, Tom|
|Hunter, Adam||Phipps, Dr Colin|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Prescott, John||Mr. David Stoddart and|
|Janner, Greville||Miss Margaret Jackson.|
|Alison, Michael||Cockcrott, John||Hall, Sir John|
|Arnold, Tom||Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)||Cope, John||Hannam, John|
|Awdry, Daniel||Corrle, John||Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Baker, Kenneth||Costain, A. P.||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss|
|Banks, Robert||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Hawkins, Paul|
|Beith, A. J.||Durant, Tony||Heseltine, Michael|
|Benyon, W.||Dykes, Hugh||Hicks, Robert|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Biffen, John||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hordern, Peter|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Elliott, Sir William||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)|
|Blaker, Peter||Eyre, Reginald||Hunt, John|
|Body, Richard||Fairbalrn, Nicholas||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fairgrieve, Russell||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Britten, Leon||Fox, Marcus||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)|
|Brotherton, Michael||Freud, Clement||King, Tom (Sridgwater)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Kirk, Peter|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Knight, Mrs Jill|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Goodhew, Victor||Knox, David|
|Burden, F. A.||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Lamont, Norman|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Churchill, W. S.||Gray, Hamish||Lawson, Nigel|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Grist, Ian||Le Merchant, Spencer|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Nott, John||Sims, Roger|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Onslow, Cranley||Sinclair, Sir George|
|MacGregor, John||Page, John (Harrow West)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Speed, Keith|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Parkinson, Cecil||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Madel, David||Penhaligon, David||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Percival, Ian||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Mather, Carol||Pink, R. Bonner||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Maxwell.Hyslop, Robin||Raison, Timothy||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Mayhew, Patrick||Rathbone, Tim||Tebbit, Norman|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Monro, Hector||Rifkind, Malcolm||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)||Viggers, Peter|
|Morgan, Geraint||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Mudd, David||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Younger, Hon George|
|Neave, Airey||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Nelson, Anthony||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|Neubert, Michael||Shepherd, Colin||Mr. Adam Butler and|
|Normanton, Tom||Silvester, Fred||Mr. Richard Luce|
Question accordingly agreed to.