With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.During the past 24 hours there has been a major increase in operational activity in the South Atlantic. On the Falkland Islands themselves, three successive raids were made from the task force on the Port Stanley airfield. These raids were successful and all our aircraft returned safely. As a result of the action of the ships and aircraft of the task force, the blockade of the remaining Argentine garrison on the Falklands remains effective. During last night and during the course of yesterday the loading of heavy supplies into the San Carlos area has continued. Five major supply ships left San Carlos during the night having offloaded their cargoes. The force ashore is fully established with sufficient supplies to carry out its tasks for an extended period, but the build-up will continue, and 5 Brigade is on its way. Two warships, including HMS "Coventry", were based to the north, outside the opening of Falkland Sound, to provide early warning of air attack and to provide an air defence screen for the supply ships unloading in San Carlos water. At approximately 1.30 pm London time an aircraft, probably on a reconnaissance mission, was detected by HMS "Coventry" and was shot down using her Sea Dart missile system. This was followed later in the afternoon by separate attacks by four Argentine Sky Hawks, which were shot down by the Sea Dart of HMS "Coventry" and by Sea Cat and Rapier missiles. This brings the total number of Argentine fixed-wing aircraft destroyed to over 50. At approximately 7.30 London time a further raid of Sky Hawks approached HMS "Coventry". She was hit by several bombs and suffered severe damage. She later capsized. Initial casualty figures are that 20 members of her crew died in the attack, about 20 were injured and the remainder of her crew of some 280 are safe on board other ships of the task force. After this attack on HMS "Coventry", at about 8.30, "Atlantic Conveyor", a Merchant Navy ship protected by escorts and employed in the resupply task, was attacked by two Super Etendard aircraft which fired Exocet missiles. She was hit and set on fire. She was loaded with supplies for British forces on the Falkland Islands. She had no Harriers embarked. In this attack, four of those on board "Atlantic Conveyor" were killed and a small number were injured. The remainder of those 170 who were on board are now safe on other ships. Yesterday's losses were tragic both for the Royal Navy and the Merchant Marine. The House will join with me in expressing our admiration and gratitude for the bravery and dedication of all concerned. Our thoughts are with the families of the men at this tragic time. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to make a general comment on the conduct of operations to recover the Falklands so far. During the past seven weeks the Royal Navy has assembled, organised and despatched over 100 ships, involving over 25,000 men and women, 8,000 miles away to the other end of the world. The task force has recaptured South Georgia and successfully accomplished a hazardous amphibious landing of around 5,000 men without a single fatal land casualty. The morale of our forces is high. By any historical standard, this will be seen to have been one of the most remarkable logistic and military achievements of recent times. In planning this operation substantial attrition of our ships, aircraft and equipment was both anticipated and expected. In spite of the loss of four naval warships, the task force has more escort vessels today than a week ago. Ten more destroyers and frigates have joined the force in the past two days. Attrition of our Harrier force has been much less than we had assessed and it has achieved complete dominance in air combat and land attack. Otherwise, in spite of massive movements of merchant ships in and out of hostile waters, the "Atlantic Conveyor" is the first supply ship that we have lost. When a setback occurs, there is always a danger that it brings in train undue pessimism about the future, just as success sometimes creates needless euphoria. Neither is justified at the present time. Our force on the ground are now poised to begin their thrust upon Port Stanley; behind them are another 3,000 men of 5 Brigade, whilst reinforcements and resupply are virtually denied to the Argentine garrison on the island. Generally the military objective to repossess the Falkland Islands has gone forward exactly as we planned it. We have had losses and there may be more on land and sea, but the people of the Falkland Islands can be assured that our resolve is undiminished. We intend to free them from occupation and to restore their democratic rights.
The loss of HMS "Coventry" and the supply ship "Atlantic Conveyor" comes as grievous and disturbing news, and the Opposition would like to join the Government in sending our deepest condolences to the families of those who have died or been injured in this occurrence.With regard to the questions put to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, we are very glad that he announced, in addition to the existence of the pension rights for the naval personnel, the enhanced levels of compensation for death and injury for those serving in our Merchant Navy. There is only one question that I propose to ask the right hon. Gentleman at this moment, since this is not the time to go into details. The House and the nation want to see this matter concluded at the speediest possible pace, with the fewest possible casualties. Will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government give us their undertaking that every door—military, financial and diplomatic—will remain open to achieve that result?
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. In reply to his only question, I can give him a complete assurance.
We in the Liberal Party wish to join the Government and the official Opposition in expressing our distress at the loss of lives and our profound sympathy with the relatives of those killed in the course of their duty on behalf of this country. We also join in the Secretary of State's mood of congratulation to the task force on its remarkable achievement so far. Were any helicopters lost on the "Atlantic Conveyor"?
I decided that it would be unwise to give details of what was contained in the "Atlantic Conveyor'`. It was full of supplies for the task force, and it would not be in its interests to give details of what she contained. I have announced that there were no Harriers on board.
I propose today to conclude the questions at 4 o'clock by the digital clocks.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the courage shown by the forces' families is an example to hon. Members to keep our nerve and our resolution?
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. We should all follow their example.
Will the Government bear in mind for their encouragement and that of the nation the words of the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo:
Will the right hon. Gentlemen bear in mind that no battle worth fighting is won except at the margin? A pushover is meaningless and leads to no result."Hard pounding this, gentlemen; let's see who will pound longest"?
I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
The whole House will wish to be associated with the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to the men of HMS "Coventry" and the "Atlantic Conveyor", and we extend our sympathy to their families. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been thanks to the exemplary heroism of the men of the Royal Navy and Merchant Marine under fire that we have been able to achieve the remarkable feat of putting 5,000 men ashore without loss of life? Does he further accept that the shooting down of no fewer than 30 Argentine aircraft by Sea Harriers of the Royal Navy without loss in air combat is without parallel?
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The performance of the Sea Harriers has been remarkable. There has not been a single Sea Harrier loss in air combat with the Argentine air force and navy. I agree with my hon. Friend that the heroism of the Royal Navy and its dedication have brought about a remarkable achievement—the landing of 5,000 men without a single casualty in a hostile environment. It has been a major achievement by the Royal Navy, and the whole nation realises what they have achieved.
I wish to associate myself with all the remarks made about our Service men and women who have carried out their duty. Will the Secretary of State say something about HMS "Antelope" and the misleading newspaper reports? We all understand the exemplary bravery of staff sergeant Prescott of the bomb disposal group. One of my constituents was killed on HMS "Antelope", but in the press reports only one death was reported. We all know that two men were killed. If the Secretary of State could put that right, the family in Mansfield would be eternally grateful.
I share the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. We originally announced that there had been one death on HMS "Antelope". There was a statement from other sources to the effect that it was a bomb disposal man and not a member of the Royal Navy. We found subsequently that, in addition to the Royal Navy man, the person who was trying to deal with the unexploded bomb was killed. There were two deaths.
I represent part of the county of Herefordshire, which has close associations with the SAS and HMS "Antelope". Those who have died around the Falkland Islands have in a very real sense died for the Falklands. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only real option that we have now is to press on for the victory that will make their supreme sacrifice worth while?
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Those who have died in the Falkland Islands and around its shores are fighting for the freedom of other British people. They must feel that it is for their own people that they are defending democratic rights and resisting aggression.
Coventry city is as far from the sea as it is possible to be in Great Britain, but over the years there has been keen interest in HMS "Coventry" and her crew. Does the Secretary of State accept that the loss of the ship and those members of the crew who have given their lives will be keenly felt?
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am most grateful to him for what he has said.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this further series of blows has fallen heavily on the country's great naval ports, one of which is in my constituency? Will he consider again the wisdom of giving further protection to our fleet by the destruction of the bases from which the aircraft are making their attacks?
I note my hon. Friend's feelings on the subject.
Note or deny?
I understand his strong feelings, but the task that has been suggested is militarily not feasible.
Although I associate myself with the remarks made about the tragic loss of life and the risks that the merchant service men are taking in the battle in the South Atlantic, will the Secretary of State reaffirm that the Government are prepared to look at any proposals that firmly link a ceasefire with an immediate withdrawal and eventual negotiated settlement? Nothing that has happened over the past few days excludes them from the obligation to search at all times for a negotiated settlement that can be defended in the House and under the terms of United Nations charter.
I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but it needs two to bring about a peaceful solution. The Argentines are still obdurate and have given no sign that they want a peaceful solution.
My right hon. Friend will be aware from his visit to Southampton when the "QE2" left what an important part the port has played in the conflict and how well known the "Atlantic Conveyor" and her crew are in the area. May I associate myself with his expression of sympathy? I am sure that all the people of Southampton would want to be associated with it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.
May I offer my sympathy to the families of those who have lost their lives? There were Merseyside seamen aboard the "Atlantic Conveyor". I have received a number of letters from merchant seamen on Merseyside and I met a number of them in Liverpool last weekend. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general message from them is that we should call an immediate halt to hostilities to prevent further loss of life?
The whole House wants to see the earliest possible end to hostilities but not on the basis that the Argentines remain on the islands, on British territory, and deny democratic rights to British people.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will have been impressed by the quiet optimism, poignancy and, above all, gravity of what he has said? In the past few weeks the Royal Navy has lost a percentage of its strength equal to that lost in the first year of the Second World War. Has not the time come when an unmistakable signal should be sent to the Argentine Government and people that unlimited attacks on British ships in British territorial waters justify and provoke an unlimited response?
I understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings. I do not believe that such a signal would bring a very ready or helpful response from Argentina.
The families of those who died on HMS "Coventry" have the deepest sympathy of all the citizens of Coventry. We are sure that in performing an extremely vulnerable role all the crew will have exhibited the courage and bravery that characterise the city whose name the ship bore.
I thank the hon. Gentleman.
At a time when it has been demonstrated that the price of freedom, like the cost of defending the rule of law, is a high one and that the British people are, not for the first time, paying more than their share of that cost and price, will my right hon. Friend, in addition to the sympathy that he has sent to the bereaved families, give two assurances: first, that there is available to the fleet the best possible means of dealing with the Etendard-launched Exocets; and, secondly, that there is no way in which the Argentines can succeed by war in getting what they can never get by an election?
I assure my hon. Friend that the Argentines will not win and keep the Falkland Islands by war. Only out of a peaceful settlement can the rights of the Falkland Islanders be protected and ensured.There are defences against modern missiles, but I do not believe that any nation possesses a certain answer to every attack by a missile of this kind. Our ships are well armed with a variety of defences, both active and passive, which have been effective against missiles. We shall review the defences of our ships against sea-skimming missiles when the conflict is over to see whether we can improve them.
Although the Secretary of State said that there were, I think, 26,500 British personnel, naval and civilian, in the task force and 100 ships, and perhaps a comparable number on the Argentine side, and that 500 or more casualties have been sustained, is he aware that no one believes that a military solution for either side could be sustained? As everyone believes that negotiations will have to take place in the end, how many more lives do the Government believe it sensible to lose before they go to the United Nations for a ceasefire to permit negotiation, or do they intend, in pursuing an ultimate military victory, that the awful tragedy that is unfolding should be continued to its bitter end?
I do not believe that it is sensible, to use the right hon. Gentleman's word, to lose one extra life, but in the defence of freedom our forefathers have been prepared to offer their lives. There are British people on the islands who are entitled to be defended by us. Their democratic rights should be upheld, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. There can be no democratic rights for the people of the Falklands while the Argentines remain in possession. It is not a democracy, and rights have been taken away from British people by an invading force. The military aim is to repossess the islands. We may have further losses, but we intend to continue until we achieve that aim. When we are in possession of the islands again and Britain's administration has been restored, we shall want to arrange a long-term future for the islanders to live in peace with their neighbours. That wish at least I share with the right hon. Gentleman.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regrettable but comparatively low loss of life in the Royal Navy ships is a great tribute to discipline and damage control arrangements on the ships? With the loss of "Atlantic Conveyor", what are his views about recommissioning HMS "Bulwark", which could provide much-needed deck and carrying capacity for aircraft to the South Atlantic or elsewhere?
The tremendous discipline on the ships has meant that the loss of life is as low as it is. On lunch-time television I saw an interview with the captain of HMS "Sheffield" in Ascension in which he stressed the vital point that it was the high discipline and calm of the men of "Sheffield" that resulted in the loss of life being so low.We are very active indeed in seeing whether we can get "Bulwark" out of dock and into service should she be needed, but I very much hope that the conflict will he over long before we are in a position to send her to the South Atlantic. But we are making preparations for her to go if necessary.
Reports have suggested that the Etendards came from the south-east after having been refuelled in flight. Has the Secretary of State anything to say about the implications of that if it is true?
I have seen the report, but we have no evidence of that at all.
Will my right hon. Friend send a signal to the task force commander not only offering our humble congratulations and sympathy but the prayers of the Christian community in the country for it in its task? In the final analysis, does he agree that it is defending international law?
I shall bring my hon. Friend's message to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief.
As I, like many others, have already lost constituents in the South Atlantic, may I ask whether the Government are continuing to consider the balance between the substantial diplomatic risk of immobilising air attacks earlier and better and the military risk of the continuing and unabated loss of ships and men?
Yes, Sir. The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to imply that we might have a military means to put the mainland airfields out of action. There is no simple military means of doing that. Our task is to protect our ships and men ashore as best we can. The task force commander is giving all his time to that question.
We meet in a free Parliament where Ministers are accountable and where the news, whether good or bad, is conveyed to the nation. Bearing in mind that Argentina is an authoritarian State with a controlled press, can my right hon. Friend tell us what steps are being taken, or whether any are feasible, to convey by radio or other means to the Argentine people the truth of the situation in the Falklands?
Not only are there the normal overseas broadcasts of the BBC, but my hon. Friend will have read that we are broadcasting ourselves, under my direct responsibility, from Ascension. Our broadcasts to the Falkland Islands, which take place twice each day, bring accurate information to the Argentine garrison on the islands and accurate information to people living in Argentina about the truth of what is happening.
Will the Secretary of State give attention to a sensitive and delicate issue involving the means and expediency by which the results of such tragedies are conveyed to the next of kin? There is a feeling that there was a delay over last night's episode. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that the Merchant Marine has played an important part in the conflict and that in more peaceful circumstances, as a maritime nation, we should not treat it as we have done in the past?
I note the hon. Gentleman's second point.When we hear that a ship is in trouble, it is a difficult judgment in every case whether we should give the ship's name straight away when we have no idea whether it is badly damaged—we receive only a brief signal initially—or whether it is better to hold the information back until we have more news about the number of casualties and the scale of the problem. I have been relying very much on the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chief of the Naval Staff and, through them, the Commander-in-Chief. It is their responsibility to inform the next of kin. It is difficult to get it right. In retrospect, I believe that we should probably have released the name of the "Coventry" earlier last night, but we discussed the question at great length. It was not that we did not consider the matter with very great care. We made the judgment last night that it would be better to learn more about what happened before we gave the name of the ship. In retrospect, it may have been the wrong judgment, but in each case it is difficult to decide the right moment to release the name of the ship.
Would it not be for the national comfort and a salutary warning to the aggressor if it were known that, were it to become necessary and feasible, the commander was authorised to engage military targets in Argentina? Might that not shorten hostilities?
I have explained that I am not at all sure that it would shorten hostilities. That is the key issue. If, militarily, the judgment is that it would not shorten hostilities—and our best judgment at present is that it would not achieve anything, although I made it clear that we do not in the end close any option—I think that the matter is best left there.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Order. I hope that it is a genuine point of order, because I have two applications under Standing Order No. 9.
My point of order is that last Thursday, in his speech, the Foreign Secretary spoke of the efforts being made by the British Government to find a diplomatic as well as a military solution—
Order. Clearly that is not a point on which I can rule.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
I will take the point of order, but may I say that the House is in a very serious mood, and rightly and understandably so. That is why I hope that we shall not get false points of order.
As one of the few Members of this House who has suffered loss of office because of his principled stand on this issue—[Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear the point of order.
I had thought it the parliamentary practice that such a Member was normally given a chance to rise on the—
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that.
Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.
Order. When the whole country has very serious things on its mind, I hope that I shall not have to ask the hon. Gentleman to leave the Chamber. He must restrain himself, as everyone else has to do. He will be called in his turn, like everyone else.
The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. The hon. Gentleman will now leave the Chamber.
You are purposely trying to silence the opposition to this senseless operation. You will not accept Members who are opposed to this lunatic operation.
I name the hon. Member for Warley, East. Will the Leader of the House move the proper motion?
I beg to move, That Mr. Andrew Faulds be suspended from the service of the House.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Order. There can be no point of order until I have put the Question.
Order. I have not proposed the Question yet. The Question is, That Mr. Andrew Faulds be suspended from the service of the House.
It is not debatable.
The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 27.
|Adley, Robert||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Alton, David||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Dover, Denshore|
|Ancram, Michael||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Arnold, Tom||Dunn, James A.|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Durant, Tony|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Atkins, Robert (Preston N)||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)||Eggar, Tim|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||English, Michael|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)||Fairgrieve, Sir Russell|
|Benyon, Thomas (A'don)||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Best, Keith||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Blackburn, John||Ford, Ben|
|Blaker, Peter||Forman, Nigel|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Fox, Marcus|
|Bowden, Andrew||Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh|
|Bradley, Tom||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Freud, Clement|
|Brinton, Tim||Fry, Peter|
|Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Brotherton, Michael||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Goodhart, Sir Philip|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.||Goodhew, Sir Victor|
|Buck, Antony||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Budgen, Nick||Gorst, John|
|Burden, Sir Frederick||Gow, Ian|
|Butcher, John||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Gray, Hamish|
|Chapman, Sydney||Greenway, Harry|
|Churchill, W. S.||Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)||Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Grimond, Rt Hon J.|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Grist, Ian|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Grylls, Michael|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Colvin, Michael||Hamilton, Hon A.|
|Cope, John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Costain, Sir Albert||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Crouch, David||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Heath, Rt Hon Edward|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Henderson, Barry|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Dean, Paul (North Somerset)||Hicks, Robert|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Needham, Richard|
|Hill, James||Nelson, Anthony|
|Holland, Philip (Carlton)||Neubert, Michael|
|Horam, John||Nott, Rt Hon John|
|Hordern, Peter||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Onslow, Cranley|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|Howells, Geraint||Page, Richard (SW Herts)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Parker, John|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Pawsey, James|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Pitt, William Henry|
|Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)||Pollock, Alexander|
|John, Brynmor||Porter, Barry|
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Rathbone, Tim|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Renton, Tim|
|Kilfedder, James A.||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Kimball, Sir Marcus||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)|
|Knox, David||Rodgers, Rt Hon William|
|Lamont, Norman||Rost, Peter|
|Lang, Ian||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Latham, Michael||Sandelson, Neville|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel||Sheerman, Barry|
|Lee, John||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Shepherd, Richard|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)||Sims, Roger|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Speed, Keith|
|Loveridge, John||Spence, John|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson||Squire, Robin|
|McCrindle, Robert||Stainton, Keith|
|McCusker, H.||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|MacGregor, John||Stanley, John|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Steen, Anthony|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|McNally, Thomas||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Madel, David||Tapsell, Peter|
|Major, John||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Marland, Paul||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Marlow, Antony||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Thompson, Donald|
|Marten, Rt Hon Neil||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)|
|Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Mawby, Ray||Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Trippier, David|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Mellor, David||Viggers, Peter|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Wainwright, R. (Colne V)|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Wakeham, John|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Mills, Peter (West Devon)||Waller, Gary|
|Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)||Walters, Dennis|
|Moate, Roger||Warren, Kenneth|
|Molyneaux, James||Watson, John|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Wellbeloved, James|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton S)||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Whitney, Raymond|
|Mudd, David||Wickenden, Keith|
|Murphy, Christopher||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Myles, David||Wilkinson, John|
|Neale, Gerrard||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)|
|Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)||Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Anthony Berry.|
|Young, SirGeorge (Acton)|
|Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)||McKelvey, William|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||McTaggart, Robert|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS)|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh,Leith)||Parry, Robert|
|Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&P)||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Richardson, Jo|
|Dalyell, Tam||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Dixon, Donald||Skinner, Dennis|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Ellis, B. (NE D'bysh're)||Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)|
|Flannery, Martin||Winnick, David|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Homewood, William||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Huckfield, Les||Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Canavan.|
Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,That Mr. Andrew Faulds be suspended from the service of the House.