Skip to main content

Abortion (Amendment)

Volume 787: debated on Tuesday 15 July 1969

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

3.40 p.m.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to improve the law governing abortion and the status and rights of the medical profession in relation thereto.
The Long Title of the Bill is:
"A Bill to improve the law governing abortion and the status and rights of the medical profession in relation thereto."
Abortion is a controversial and emotional topic and the House needs to discuss it rationally. Emotive or sensational utterances, whatever their source, do not help us. There are widely differing views in the House on the question of abortion. I do not question the good intentions or the sincerity of anyone, least of all the sponsor of the Abortion Act. I ask, in return, that no one should question mine.

It is true that I have strong views on the morality of abortion which derive in part, but only in part, from my religion. I realise, more fully than anyone else, that a Catholic celibate is not the ideal person to be introducing a Bill of this kind. It would be better if I were an agnostic mother of nine, but one has to discharge the duty which falls upon one.

It would be a slander upon the moral sense of the British people if it were thought that only Roman Catholics are concerned about the working of the Abortion Act. I place a very high value upon human life. That is why I am opposed not only to abortion, but also to capital punishment. I believe that all life is worthy of reverence, especially if it is in a defenceless form. I am entitled to give witness to that belief inside and outside this House. What I am not entitled to do is to impose my moral views on this question on other people. Indeed, it would be wrong to attempt to do so.

The law as far as it concerns moral matters should rest on the moral consensus of the community. As I take it on this matter, while the community as a whole does not want a total ban upon abortion neither does it want abortion on demand. What it wants is that abortion should be available where there are serious and genuine needs and that it should be carried out under the best possible medical conditions. That I believe to have been the will of Parliament when it passed the Abortion Act. I do not believe that the Act is achieving those ends. That is the actual situation we have to face today.

"There is no doubt that the way the Act is working, in particular, in the private sector, is giving grave alarm even to those who were keen supporters of it". Those are not my words, but the words of the Secretary of State for Social Services. My concern is not with the National Health Service, but with the private sector. We have all read stories about foreign women coming to Britain for abortions. This is disturbing, but what is important to Britain is the impact which the Act is having on the British people and on the medical profession here.

What is clear, also, is that a minority of doctors are making huge fortunes out of the Act and are not observing the normal standards of medical care. I will give the House one figure which was quoted by Sir John Peel, President of the Royal College of Gynaecologists, which indicates the way the Act is working. During a three-month period, 52 women were treated under the National Health Service and discharged from hospital in 24 hours. During the same period the number of women discharged after 24 hours in the private sector was over 5,000. Sir John Peel characterised that as amounting almost to medical negligence. Under the cover provided by the Section in the Act concerning good faith, rackets are being operated which neither the law nor the profession is able to check.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), shadow Home Secretary, warned the House of this danger during debates on the final stages of the Bill. I believe that he has been proved right. Anyone with the slightest concern for public morality must be concerned about these abuses under the Act. Having held detailed consultations with representatives of the medical profession, I put forward this proposal, which has the support of the Royal College of Gynaecologists, the B.M.A. and the Medical Defence Union. It is the only proposal in my Bill, which is limited to it because I believe it to be vital.

I propose that of two doctors who certify abortion under the law to be legal one should be a consultant gynaecologist holding office under the National Health Service and that the operation should be carried out under his supervision. As there is a limited number of gynaecologists in Britain, and I do not wish to see the Act nullified in certain parts of the country, I further suggest that other doctors of equivalent status be approved by the Minister from panels submitted by professional medical bodies. This simple step would bring to an end the vast majority of racketeering which is going on. The weakness of the Act is that there is no effective check in it. Its sponsor hoped that the place where the abortions have to be carried out having to be approved by the Minister would act as a check, but the Minister has taken the view that, provided certain facilities are available, he has no power in the matter.

The reporting of abortions has not proved to be a check. What we need is a responsible medical person, highly qualified and highly placed, who will effectively check that the provisions of the Act are being followed. It may be objected that this would provide a unique limitation on medical practice. I say two things in answer to that. First, abortion is a unique operation because it involves the lives of two people, not one. It is not the same as having a tooth out, or having a finger or limb amputated. It is in a category of its own. Secondly, the official bodies of the profession approve this course.

It may be objected that the Minister would not want to take an invidious decision, but the sifting out process would be done by the profession and the final decision only would be the Minister's. I am not wedded dogmatically to this particular proposal. If, during later stages of the Bill, should it get to Committee, an Amendment were moved to meet such objections, I would be most willing to consider it.

One cannot dispose of a complicated subject like this in a 10-minute speech. The House knows as well as I do the purpose of the Ten Minute Rule Bill procedure. The House has here an opportunity to register by its vote the opinion that it shares the anxieties of the majority of people in the country, of the Press and a large number of members of the medical profession, and encourage the Government to take action.

Whatever its decision, it is right that the House of Commons, which is the forum of the nation, should register its vote and its voice on this subject. A social policy which makes abortion easy and family planning difficult cannot be a good policy. It is national scandal that out of more than 200 local health authorities only 34 provide a full family planning service.

I believe that by giving me leave to introduce my Bill today the House would give an impetus towards the introduction of more intelligent and rational policies in these matters and that it would be striking a reasonable balance between the needs of the individual mother, for whom we should certainly have concern and compassion, and the demands of the social, moral and medical strength and reputation of the country, with which we should also be equally concerned.

3.50 p.m.

I do not ask the House to refuse the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) leave to bring in his Bill on the grounds that I regard the Abortion Act as totally perfect or immutable for the future, nor do I do it on the grounds that I am totally satisfied or complacent about the manner in which it is working today. I do it, rather, because I see in the proposed Bill something which would not solve the problems that we are facing in the working of the Act, but which would be a thoroughly regressive Measure.

It is worth reviewing the facts at the end of the first year of operation of the Act. About 40,000 legal abortions were carried out. This is a substantial increase on the previous number, but an increase was to be expected if the Act was to be effective. If there had been no increase, clearly the Act would not be achieving its objective.

The limited evidence we are able to gather—for example, from the London Emergency Bed Centre figures—shows that we are achieving the objective of reducing criminal abortions. The figures given by that centre show that in the first quarter of 1966 there were 1,363 emergency admissions for spontaneous or incomplete abortions, whereas during the first quarter of this year the figure was down to 870. This is a very satisfactory development.

Moreover, it is not true that we have established in Britain a high rate of legal abortion. Britain has approximately five abortions per 100 live births, whereas in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, all of which have abortion laws roughly comparable with our own, the figures are higher, ranging from 6 to 8 per 100 live births. Our figure of 5 per 100 is nowhere near the figure achieved in countries with abortion on demand legislation, such as Czechoslovakia with 43 abortions per 100 live births and Japan with 38. Taking these figures in their context, it is nonsense to claim that London is the abortion capital of the world.

The present problem which the operation of the Act has faced is one which was not mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It is the regional difference within Britain of the practice of abortion under the National Health Service. This was something which was foreseen by the sponsors, and I myself referred to it during the passage of the Bill. I believe that it will take many years before we even out the practice and end the present situation, in which it is twice as easy to get an abortion in Newcastle as it is in Birmingham. This is the type of question which should be the subject of concern in the House rather than the matters referred to by the hon. Gentleman, because I believe that it is the restrictive practices in centres like Birmingham which in themselves stimulate the growth of the private centre of abortion in London.

That growth of the private sector has very little to do with foreigners. The amount of hysteria in the Press in recent weeks about, for example, 30,000 Danish women coming in charter flights to Britain has been shown to be complete nonsense. The Secretary of State for Social Services, having made his inquiries, discovered that, in the period of this hysteria during June and the first week of July, only four Danish women had abortions in the private clinics in London.

Typical of the stories was one in one newspaper, where a taxi driver who was interviewed was recorded as saying that he had, in fact, been bringing foreign girls on an average of one a week to clinics in London; the enterprising journalist multiplied this figure by the number of taxis available at any given time at Heathrow Airport and came to the conclusion that 1,000 foreign girls were invading Britain each week for abortions. These figures are shown to be false by the number of notifications received, unless it is suggested that cases are not being notified, in which case a criminal offence is taking place under the Act and action can be taken.

Having said that, however, I believe—there I share the concern felt by the hon. Member for Chelmsford—that one or two doctors in one or two clinics are not giving the fullest medical attention to their patients and are primarily motivated by financial considerations. I share that concern with the hon. Gentleman, but I say to him that we gave the Secretary of State full power in the Act to introduce new Ministerial regulations. The Act empowers the Secretary of State under the regulations, to demand
"such other information relating to the termination as may be so prescribed".
Therefore, there is still legislative power in the Secretary of State's hands which he has not yet used and which he could use if he were satisfied that the situation demanded it.

Moreover, I believe that the profession itself has a responsibility. The General Medical Council, in its rules of discipline, has as one of its definitions of infamous conduct the
"abuse of financial opportunities offered by medical practice."
I should have thought that it should be the General Medical Council which should take action in cases where abuse is occurring.

I respect, and always have done, the sincerity of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, but he must forgive me if I find it difficult to accept that he has come forward today in the spirit of the man wielding the oilcan just to ensure that the machinery works a little better. The fact is that he has come armed with a spanner to throw into the works, whether it is his intention or not.

I invite the House to consider four points in rejecting the hon. Gentleman's application to bring in a Bill. First, to limit one of the two doctors to a consultant would not check the operation of the private sector. Some part-time consultants in the National Health Service are already operating in the private sector and it would be only a matter of time before one or two consultants had lined up a particular monopoly in this area.

Secondly, and much more seriously, I believe that it would cause delays in patients getting abortions. Whatever one's view about abortion is, both medically and ethically—I have said this before—I believe that if it has to happen it is desirable that it should happen at the earliest possible time. The experience of Sweden has shown that where there is too much red tape and where, as in this country, there are only 600 consultant gynaecologists, it would be disastrous from the point of view of mortality figures and in the effect of driving women again to illegal operations if there were long delays in women obtaining appointments for a legal abortion.

Thirdly, what the country requires is more doctors under the National Health Service willing to operate the Act properly and in a balanced way, not fewer doctors. This proposed Amendment would merely create more Birminghams, instead of more Newcastles. The Amendment which the hon. Gentleman proposes was discussed twice in the House and twice in the other place in one form or another during the passage of the Bill, and I see no reason why w(.; should not stand by our original decision in rejecting this restrictive proposal.

Finally, I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech about emotional language, but I cannot end without referring to what I think was the quite disgraceful speech made last night by the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). It is, I think, a monstrous slur on the medical profession in Britain to suggest that live babies are being burned in incinerators.

Order. If the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) does not give way, the hon. Lady must sit down.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way after referring to the hon. Lady, it is his business.

Order. It is the practice that speeches under the Ten Minute Rule are not interrupted by either debating points or points of order, but I think that there is substance in this one.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not usual that, when an hon. Member has made a direct slighting reference to another hon. Member, the Member referred to has a right to make reply?

Order. The question of right does not come into it. It is still for the hon. Gentleman.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I permitted under the rule to give way? If so, I shall gladly give way. I understood that it was not in order.

I would not prevent the hon. Gentleman from giving way. It is most unusual under the Ten Minute Rule, but the hon. Gentleman has referred critically to another hon Member.

The hon. Member has made a direct reference to a speech which I made last night in which I spoke nothing but the truth. If he does not happily join with me in being appalled at the incident at Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow, where a live baby was put into a boiler, I am very surprised that I do not have his agreement in saying that it is a montrous procedure.

I was about to refer to the tragic and deplorable incident at Stobhill, but I must clarify the facts of the case. A baby was not put into any boiler. What happened was that a mistake was made, by, incidentally, a consultant gynaecologist, and a viable foetus was aborted. It was later found that this foetus was alive, it was brought back, and attempts were made to resuscitate it. The child, unfortunately, died.

But from this deplorable incident, the papers in which are still being examined by the Secretary of State for Scotland, to conclude that 108 babies—the wrong figure in any case—may possibly have been burned alive is to make a montrous suggestion.

Order. The incident is over. We are back to the practice under the Ten Minute Rule, and we are nearly at the end of the time.

I have seen references in the Press and elsewhere to a "pro-abortion lobby". I wish it to be understood that there is no such thing. I hope that we in this House are all anti-abortion, for share the view of the hon. Member for

Division No. 327.]


[4.3 p.m.

Abse, LeoDodds-Parker, DouglasHolland, Philip
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)Doughty, CharlesHowarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)du Cann, Rt. Hn. EdwardHowell, David (Guildford)
Alldritt, WalterDunn, James A.Hunter, Adam
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)Edelman, MauriceHutchison, Michael Clark
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Batsford, BrianElliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Beamish, Col. Sir TuftonEnglish, MichaelJennings, J. C. (Burton)
Bence, CyrilErrington, Sir EricJones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)Ewing, Mrs. WinifredJones, Dan (Burnley)
Berry, Hn. AnthonyFarr, JohnJones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Biffen, JohnFoley, MauriceKelley, Richard
Biggs-Davison, JohnFortescue, TimKerby, Capt. Henry
Bishop, E. S.Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Black, Sir CyrilGalbraith, Hn. T. G.Kershaw, Anthony
Blackburn, F.Galpern, Sir MyerKimball, Marcus
Bossom, Sir CliveGibson-Watt, DavidKing, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. JohnGilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)Kirk, Peter
Braine, BernardGlover, Sir DouglasKitson, Timothy
Brinton, Sir TattonGlyn, Sir RichardKnight, Mrs. Jill
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)Goodhew, VictorLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bullus, Sir EricGower, RaymondLongden, Gilbert
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)Grant, AnthonyMabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)Grieve, PercyMcAdden, Sir Stephen
Chichester-Clark, R.Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)McBride, Neil
Clark, HenryGriffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)Macdonald, A. H.
Cooper-Key, Sir NeillGurden, HaroldMcGuire, Michael
Cordle, JohnHall, John (Wycombe)Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)
Corfield, F. V.Hamilton, James (Bothwell)Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Costain, A. P.Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Maclennan, Robert
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)McMaster, Stanley
Cunningham, Sir KnoxHarris, Reader (Heston)MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Currie, G. B. H.Harrison, Brian (Maldon)Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Dalkeith, Earl ofHarvey, Sir Arthur VereMcMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Dance, JamesHarvie Andersen, MissMcNair-Wilson, Michael
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir HenryHattersley, RoyMcNamara, J. Kevin
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)Hawkins, PaulMaddan, Martin
Delargy, HughHiley, JosephMaginnis, John E.
Dempsey, JamesHirst, GeoffreyMahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Chelmsford that we ought to be much more concerned about the implementation of family planning legislation than about amendments to the Act of this kind. I hope that the House will keep the Abortion Act and its operation firmly under review by the normal processes of questioning Ministers responsible for its operation.

Finally, I invite the House to consider a short quotation from the editorial in the Lancet, which considered the first year of operation of the Act:

"Things were certainly easier for the gynaecologists before the public and Parliament made their wishes known in the Act—but they were much harder for women".

I invite the House to reject the Motion for leave to bring in a Bill which would reverse that process.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 210.

Marten, NeilPrice, David (Eastleigh)Tilney, John
Maude, AngusPrice, Thomas (Westhoughton)Tinn, James
Mawby, RayPym, FrancisTurton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)Ramsden, Rt. Hn, Jamesvan Straubenzee, W, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir PeterWaddington, David
Monro, HectorRees-Davies, W. R.Ward, Dame Irene
Montgomery, FergusRenton, Rt. Hn. Sir DavidWatkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
More, JasperRhys Williams, Sir BrandonWeatherill, Bernard
Morgan-Giles, Roar-Adm.Ridsdale, JulianWells, John (Maidstone)
Morris, Alfred (Wythanshawe)Rippon, Rt. Hn. GeoffreyWells, William (Walsall, N.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir CharlesRossi, Hugh (Hornsey)Wiggin, A. W.
Murton, OscarRussell, Sir RonaldWilkins, W. A.
Oakes, GordonSt. John-Stevas, NormanWilliams, Donald (Dudley)
O'Malley, BrianSandys, Rt. Hn. D.Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Onslow, CranleyScott-Hopkins, JamesWillis, Rt. Hn. George
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.Silvester, FrederickWilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)Small, WilliamWolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Oswald, ThomasSmith, Dudley (W'wick&L'mington)Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)Speed, KeithWoodnutt, Mark
Stainton, KeithWoof, Robert
Page, John (Harrow, W.)Stodart, AnthonyWylie, N. R.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.Younger, Hn. George
Peel, JohnSummeirskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Peyton, JohnSymonds, J. B.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pink, R. BonnerTaylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)Sir Gerald Nabarro and Mr. Robert Cooke.
Pounder, RaftonTaylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. EnochTemple, John M.


Albu, AustenDobson, RayHoughton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)Doig, PeterHowarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Allen, ScholefieidDriberg, TomHowie, W.
Armstrong, ErnestDunnett, JackHoy, Rt. Hn. James
Ashley, JackDunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn(Anglesey)
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Astor, JohnEadie, AlexHunt, John
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)Edwards, Robert (Bilston)Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Hpb'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)Edwards, William (Merioneth)Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Awdry, DanielEllis, JohnJenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. AliceEmery, PeterJohnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Barnett, JoelEnnals, DavidJones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Baxter, WilliamEnsor, DavidJudd, Frank
Beaney, AlanEvans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Bessell, PeterEvans, Fred (Caerphilly)Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Bidwell, SydneyEvans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)Lane, David
Binns, JohnFaulds, AndrewLee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Booth, AlbertFernyhough, E.Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. ArthurFisher, NigelLewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir EdwardFletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)Lipton, Marcus
Bradley, TomFletcher, Ted (Darlington)Luard, Evan
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)Lubbock, Eric
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'buryForrester, JohnMackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.Foster, Sir JohnMackintosh, John P.
Buchan, NormanFowler, GerryMallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)Fraser, John (Norwood)Manuel, Archie
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)Freeson, ReginaldMarquand, David
Cant, R. B.Garrett, W. E.Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Carmichael, NeilGilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Castle, Rt. Hn. BarbaraGinsburg, DavidMendelson, John
Channon, H. P. G.Goodhart, PhilipMikardo, Ian
Chapman, DonaldGordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.Millan, Bruce
Chataway, ChristopherGray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)Miller, Dr. M. S.
Clegg, WalterGregory, ArnoldMilne, Edward (Blyth)
Concannon, J. D,Grey, Charles (Durham)Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Conlan, BernardGriffiths, David (Rother Valley)Molloy, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Griffiths, Will (Exchange)Moonman, Eric
Crawshaw, RichardGrimond, Rt. Hn. J.Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. AnthonyHamilton, William (Fife, W.)Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Crouch, DavidHamling, WilliamMurray, Albert
Dalyell, TamHannan, WilliamNeave, Airey
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)Harper, JosephNewens, Stan
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)Hart, Rt. Hn. JudithOgden, Eric
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)Haseldine, NormanOram, Albert E.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)Hazell, BertOrbach, Maurice
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)Healey, Rt. Hn. DenisOrme, Stanley
Dewar, DonaldHeffer, Eric S.Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. JohnHenig, StanleyOwen, Will (Morpeth)
Dickens, JamesHooley, FrankPage, Derek (King's Lynn)
Digby, Simon WingfieldHordern, PeterPalmer, Arthur
Hornby, RichardPannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Pardoe, JohnRogers, George (Kensington, N.)Vickers, Dame Joan
Park, TrevorRoyle, AnthonyWainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)Scott, NicholasWainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)Sharples, RichardWalden, Brian (All Saints)
Pavitt, LaurenceShaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)Wallace, George
Peart, Rt. Hn. FredSheldon, RobertWatkins, David (Consett)
Pentland, NormanShore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)Weitzman, David
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)Whitaker, Ben
Prentice, Rt. Hn. RegSilverman, JuliusWilliams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)Snow, JulianWilliams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Randall, HarrySpriggs, LeslieWilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Rankin, JohnSteel, David (Roxburgh)Winnick, David
Rees, MerlynStorehouse, Rt. Hn. JohnWinstanley, Dr. M. P.
Richard, IvorStrauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.Worsley, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. NicholasTapsell, PeterWyatt, Woodrow
Roberts, Rt. Hn. GoronwyTaverne, Dick
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)Thatcher, Mrs. MargaretTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)Thornton, ErnestMr. Peter M. Jackson and Sir George Sinclair.
Robson Brown, Sir WilliamTuck, Raphael
Roebuck, RoyVarley, Eric G.