Protected Occupiers in Their Own Right

Orders of the Day — Rent (Agriculture) Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 17th November 1976.

Alert me about debates like this

Lords amendment: No. 78, in page 34, leave out line 47 and insert: 182 out of the last 208 weeks, the last 50 of which have been for the current employer.

Photo of Gavin Strang Gavin Strang , Edinburgh East

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

There have been lengthy and interesting debates both here and in another place on the question of the qualifying period of work in agriculture. In the Lords in Committee two amendments were tabled, one by the Conservative Opposition calling for two years with one employer or four years in the industry, and the other by the Liberals calling for five years in the industry, of which one year must be for the current employer.

At that point, the Conservative Opposition said that they believed that their amendment was better than that set down by the Liberals, particularly in the case of the farm worker who, having worked in the industry for many years, had difficulties with his last employer before completing 50 weeks with him and stood to lose his housing security. This is an important point to which I shall return later.

The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) suggested that perhaps I had not taken sufficient interest in the Lords proceedings on these matters. I assure him that I have been extremely interested. Although I resented the wrecking amendment—Lords Amendment No. 1—I do not mean to imply that there were no interesting debates in the other place on this measure. Indeed, I made a point of witnessing the Lords debate on this issue because it seemed to me that it was likely to arouse further controversy in that place.

One matter which impressed me was the extent to which Lord Collison, a former General Secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, was able to make some impact on a number of Conservative peers. The noble Lord made a number of distinguished and useful contributions to the debates derived from his long experience with the industry and his knowledge of farm workers. The telling point which he made was the position of the old farm worker who had worked for 40 or more years in the industry and who, in his sixties, had to move to another employment. I shall take an exceptional situation where perhaps his employer of long standing went bankrupt, so that the worker had to find another job. If he reached retirement age in less than 50 weeks after moving to a new farm, under the Liberal amendment, which was carried, he would have no protection whatsoever.

The purpose of this amendment is to make it harder for workers to qualify for housing security. The amendment would extend the qualifying period from two years in agriculture generally to four years in agriculture, one year of which must have been with the current employer. This means that a worker who had already fully qualified for housing security would, if he moved to another farm job and another cottage, be deprived of that security until he had completed a further year's service with his new employer. The scope for abuse would be large, since a farmer could always sack a worker just before the qualifying period was completed. The amendment thus deprives workers of that sense of security which the Bill is designed to instil.

It is obviously fair that there should be a qualifying period of service for workers who are to benefit from the security of housing which the Bill's provisions would afford and to ensure that people do not see a brief spell of work in agriculture as a short cut to that security. We have decided on two years, taking account of consultations we have had with both sides of the industry. Two years is a reasonable period in which to prove one's bona fides. Two years is also the period suggested by the Association of District Councils, which is the body intimately concerned with the practicalities of rehousing agricultural workers.

I hope that I have explained the effect of the amendment sufficiently effectively to ensure that hon. Members who might be inclined to vote for it do so in full knowledge of its consequences. I shall not make any party capital out of this, but I know that there has been a difference of opinion—thank goodness for it—on some issues with regard to this measure between the Liberal Party in this place and the Liberal Party in the other place.

I should be very surprised if Liberal Members of this House were able to support this Liberal amendment. Indeed, I should like to think that Conservative Members might have second thoughts about supporting it. particularly as their own leader in the other place was genuinely impressed. I think, by the force of the argument which is based quite simply on the fact that it would make an absolute mockery of this issue if a worker had to have completed one year's service with his current or last employer in order to gain protection.

Therefore, I hope that Opposition Members will not feel inclined to press the amendment.

Photo of Mr Michael Jopling Mr Michael Jopling , Westmorland

One thing that has pleased me so far in this short debate is that we have had a tone and attitude from the Parliamentary Secretary rather different from that which we had in our first debate today. He has adopted a more reasonable attitude, which he had throughout the Committee stage.

The amendment brings us back to the original philosophic approach to the Bill, on the question whether there should be a qualifying period at all. It is as well to acknowledge that the Government, to give them credit, have always taken the view that there should be a qualifying period of some sort. That was set out in the consultative document. We certainly welcomed it. What the Parliamentary Secretary has not referred to is the fact that it is this matter of a qualifying period that has caused more disquiet and concern in the farming industry than any other single factor; with the exception of the implications of Clause 30, to which we shall be moving next.

I observe that some groups want a qualifying period of five years. They include organisations such as the National Farmers' Union. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say that that is only to be expected. However, they include organisations such as the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers, which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is a rather less political organisation, and the Milk Marketing Board, which I should have thought was a totally non-political organisation. All those bodies have been saying that there ought to be a five-year qualifying period.

At present the Bill says that the period should be two years. The amendment proposes a good and reasonable compromise of four years. It introduces a new element into the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said—that to qualify, a worker must have done a year's service with one employer. However one drafts the Bill, there will be some hardship somewhere. I think that we all recognise that one has to draw arbitrary lines.

9.45 p.m.

We welcome the introduction of a condition that in order to qualify a worker must have worked for a certain period with his present employer. Otherwise, if a farm worker has completed his qualifying period in agriculture, whether it be two, four or even five years, there will be a temptation for him to move, perhaps to a better house than the one he has and perhaps one close to some work he wants to take up outside agricul- ture. It is that type of attitude which I think, all of us are intent on not assisting.

Therefore, to introduce a condition that there must be a period of service with the existing employer is good. I think that it will tend to cut out the temptation for a farm worker merely to take on a job because the house happens to be a good one and near to some non-agricultural employment which he may wish to take up.

Second, to give a longer period of qualification, increased from two years to four, would give added protection to the farming industry against a certain minority. Before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) leaps to her feet and jumps down my throat-she can do both at the same time—to tell me that there are very few farm workers who take that attitude, let me say that I accept at once that there are few who would abuse the system in the way that I have suggested. At the same time, however, it is right for the industry to ask to be better protected against that minority. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about this amendment and agree to the extension of the qualifying period from two years to four.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Leader of the Opposition in another place was somewhat sympathetic to the point of view put from the Government Benches, but I think I am right in saying that in the end he voted for the amendment.

I turn now, as I have done twice before this evening, to hon. Members on the Liberal Bench. I hope that in our support for this amendment we shall have the pleasure of their company in the Lobby. This was a Liberal amendment, and there were 11 Liberal peers who came to support it. I hope that with the support of the Liberal Members, which I trust we shall have, we shall be able to press the amendment and carry it against the wishes of the Government. But, who knows?—they may have changed their minds in the meantime.

Photo of Mr John MacGregor Mr John MacGregor , South Norfolk

Over a year ago I held many discussions with farming representatives in my constituency, including a day-long seminar. But because of the way in which the Bill was handled, and because I was not on the Standing Committee, as I was then on another Committee considering another Bill, I have not until now been able to express any of the views held by the farming community in Norfolk on the provisions of the Bill.

I confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said about the two issues which are continuing to bother farmers. One is the qualifying period and the other is the need to put a statutory obligation on local authorities. We shall come to the latter in a moment, but I think that the two are closely connected.

One of the worries of local authorities is that if a statutory obligation is placed upon them there may be heavy demands at various times upon their housing accommodation. There is, therefore, the need to remove the non-genuine cases among people who happen to be in farm cottages at the time and to get down to the proper core. That is what the Lords amendment does. Therefore, I believe that the two matters go closely together.

I have read all the debates in the House of Lords, and it seemed to me that, although the leader of the Conservative Opposition there took note of the points made, he still stuck to his guns, regarding the amendment as important to the farming community.

I believe we all agree that this is a matter of striking the right balance—protecting local authorities from queue-jumping and from people who come into rural areas and perhaps use the clauses of the Bill in order to jump the queue into a council house, while at the same time protecting the farmer against someone coming in with no intention of working on his farm.

The Minister said that the amendment would make an absolute mockery of the Bill. That is putting it too strongly. We are simply trying to get the right balance. On the whole the four-year clause, and particularly the one-year clause, gives a more reasonable protection without in any way hampering or restricting the rights of the genuine cases among farm workers. Indeed, many farmers would like to have seen either a five-year or three-year clause, but I am sure they will be happy to settle for this compromise as being a reasonable one.

Twelve months is not a long time for any person to earn his rights under the Bill. It protects the farmer from the situation where someone comes to his farm not with any intention of working there but because it is an area to which he wishes to go or because it is better accommodation, and he works there only a month to have the protection under the Bill granted to him, while the farmer finds himself in extreme difficulty. Twelve months is not too long to earn the rights under the Bill for full protection to be applied to the farm worker.

The Minister gave one example perhaps to justify his claim that the amendment made an absolute mockery. That was an example of someone who had worked in agriculture all his life and who in the year of his retirement had moved somewhere else. That is no doubt an accurate example, but I believe that it would apply to very few cases. The question that the House must consider is whether on balance one should agree with the Minister and deal with the extreme case of the farm worker who has spent 40 years in the industry and has to move at the last minute, or whether it is right to put in a few extra protections for the farmer to deal with the equally dangerous situation of a farm worker going in with no intention of working for him in order to gain accommodation on which he has set his eye.

It seems to me that the amendment would afford a reasonable balance. It does not in any way affect the objectives or ultimate purpose of the Bill. It gives the protection that the farming community feels is necessary. I am bound to say that the misgivings and fears in the farming community about the two-year protection are still very strong. A great deal of benefit would be gained by the Minister if, even at this late stage, he accepted the amendment which the Lords carried.

Photo of Mr Geraint Howells Mr Geraint Howells , Cardigan

Amendment No. 78 is a Liberal amendment. It gives me great pleasure to support it. The Lords have been constructive in their approach to change the qualifying period. The amendment seeks to change the qualifying period from two years to four years, with the stipulation that the last year must be in the employment of the farmer who owns the house in respect of which the worker seeks security of tenure.

The two-year period at present provided in the Bill is felt by many organisations, including the NFU and the Farmers' Union of Wales, to be too short. Many organisations have argued in favour of a period of five years, others for eight years and others for 10 years.

I am delighted that the Conservative Opposition are agreeing with the Liberals about a change and that they will support us in the Division Lobby. I was delighted to hear the views of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).

In my view, and in the view of many others, a period of two years is too short to prevent the Bill's being used as a short cut to a council house or a stautory tenancy. Many people would be prepared to work for two years in agriculture if it meant that they could be sure of a house at the end of that period. Having established the right to a house, they could then do what they had intended to do—take a job in the nearest town. It seems simpler to have a minimum period for the industry, as the Bill provides. Unfortunately, it is too short. It gives me great pleasure to support the Lords amendment.

Photo of Mr Esmond Bulmer Mr Esmond Bulmer , Kidderminster

I support the argument for the longer qualifying period. Any employer considering two candidates for a job will, if he thinks the qualifying period is too short, seek to minimise the risk by choosing an older man, who is mature, whose character is formed, and whose family is established, in preference to a younger man. We are beginning to see this happening under the Employment Protection Act, which provides a much shorter qualifying period.

In the countryside we need more young people who will create families and add to the community. Many rural areas in

Division No. 414.]AYES[9.59 p.m.
Abse, LeoBenn, Rt Hon Anthony WedgwoodBuchan, Norman
Allaun, FrankBennett, Andrew (Stockport N)Buchanan, Richard
Anderson, DonaldBidwell, SydneyButler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Archer, PeterBishop, E. S.Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Armstrong, ErnestBlenkinsop, ArthurCallaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Ashley, JackBoardman, H.Campbell, Ian
Ashton, JoeBooth, Rt Hon AlbertCanavan, Dennis
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)Bottomley, Rt Hon ArthurCant, R. B.
Atkinson, NormanBoyden, James (Bish Auck)Carmichael, Neil
Bagler, Gordon A. T.Bradley, TomCarter, Ray
Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)Bray, Dr JeremyCarter-Jones, Lewis
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Bates, AlfBrown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)Clemitson, Ivor
Bean, R. E.Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

my part of the world are depopulated. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind.

Photo of Miss Joan Maynard Miss Joan Maynard , Sheffield, Brightside

I do not know whether Conservative Members really believe that just to get a house anyone would work for two years in an industry which pays the kind of wages that agriculture does. It is ludicrous to say so. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) that we need more young people. I said earlier that there is an aging labour force in agriculture. The way to get more young people is to pay them a decent rate, since they are among the most skilled workers in the country. The answer is not a qualifying period of four years.

Photo of Mr Francis Pym Mr Francis Pym , Cambridgeshire

I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) will accept, as a consequence of that statement, that it is about time this Government made sure, first, that farmers had adequate margins for their products and, second, that the taxation system enabled them to retain enough of those margins. Where on earth else does she think that money will come from?

I hope that the Minister will remember what he said about the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) half an hour ago. He said then the hon. Gentleman was marvellous—he was so sensible and practical, he came straight from the farm. The hon. Gentleman is the same man, with the same practical experience, and he thinks that a period of four years is preferable to a period of two. The Minister should therefore agree with him a second time.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 262.

Cohen, StanleyIrvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)Phipps, Dr Colin
Coletnan, DonaldIrving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Colquhoun, Ms MaureenJackson, Colin (Brighouse)Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Conlan, BernardJackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)Price, William (Rugby)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)Janner, GrevilleRadice, Giles
Corbett, RobinJay, Rt Hon DouglasRees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Cowans, HarryJenkins, Hugh (Putney)Richardson, Miss Jo
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Crawshaw, RichardJohn, BrynmorRoberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Cronin, JohnJohnson, James (Hull West)Robinson, Geoffrey
Crosland, Rt Hon AnthonyJohnson, Walter (Derby S)Roderick, Caerwyn
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)Jones, Alec (Rhondda)Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Cryer, BobJones, Barry (East Flint)Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)Jones, Dan (Burnley)Rooker, J. W.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)Kaufman, GeraldRoper, John
Davidson, ArthurKelley, RichardRose, Paul B.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)Kilroy-Silk, RobertRoss, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)Kinnock, NeilRowlands, Ted
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Lambie, DavidRymati, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)Lamborn, HarrySandelson, Neville
Deakins, EricLamond, JamesSedgemore, Brian
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Latham, Arthur (Paddington)Selby, Harry
Dell, Rt Hon EdmundLeadbitter, TedShaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Dempsey, JamesLee, JohnSheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyrts)
Doig, PeterLestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Dormand, J. D.Lipton, MarcusShort, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Douglas-Mann, BruceLitterick, TomStrkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Duffy, A. E. P.Lomas, KennethSilkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Dunn, James A.Loyden, EddieSilverman, Julius
Dunnett, JackLuard, EvanSkinner, Dennis
Eadie, AlexLyon, Alexander (York)Small, William
Edge, GeoffLyons, Edward (Bradford W)Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)Mabon, Dr J DicksonSnape, Peter
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)McCartney, HughSpearing, Nigel
English, MichaelMcDonald, Dr OonaghSpriggs, Leslie
Ennals, DavidMcElhone, FrankStoddart, David
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)McGuire, Michael (Ince)Stott, Roger
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)MacKenzie, GregorStrang, Gavin
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)Mackintosh, John P.Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)Maclennan, RobertSummerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Faulds, AndrewMcMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)Swain, Thomas
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.McNamara, KevinTaylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)Madden, MaxThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Flannery, MartinMagee, BryanThomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelMahon, SimonThomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Ford, BenMallalieu, J. P. W.Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Forrester, JohnMarks, KennethThorne, Slan (Preston South)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)Marquand, DavidTierney, Sydney
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Tinn, James
Freeson, ReginaldMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)Tomlinson, John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)Mason, Rt Hon RoyTorney, Tom
Garrelt, W. E. (Wallsend)Maynard, Miss JoanUrwin, T. W.
George, BruceMeacher, MichaelVarley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Gilbert, Dr JohnMellish, Rt Hon RobertWalden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Ginsburg, DavidMendelson, JohnWalker, Harold (Doncaster)
Golding, JohnMikardo, IanWalker, Terry (Kingswood)
Gould, BryanMillan, Rt Hon BruceWatkins, David
Gourlay, HarryMiller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)Watkinson, John
Graham, TedMiller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)Weetch, Ken
Grant, George (Morpeth)Moonman, EricWeilzman, David
Grant, John (Islington C)Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)Wellbeloved, James
Grocott, BruceMorris, Charles R. (Openshaw)White, James (Pollok)
Hamilton, James (Sothwell)Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)Whitehead, Phillip
Hardy, PeterMoyle, RolandWhitlock, William
Harper, JosephNewens, StanleyWigley, Dafydd
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)Noble, MikeWilley, Rt Hon Frederick
Hart, Rt Hon JudithOakes, GordonWilliams, Alan (Swansea W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyOgden, EricWilliams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Hatton, FrankO'Halloran, MichaelWilliams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Hayman, Mrs HeleneOrbach, MauriceWilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Healey, Rt Hon DenisOrme, Rt Hon StanleyWilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Heffer, Eric S.Ovenden, JohnWilson, William (Coventry SE)
Hooley, FrankOwen, Rt Hon Dr DavidWise, Mrs Audrey
Horam, JohnPadley, WalterWoodall, Alec
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)Palmer, ArthurWoof, Robert
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)Park, GeorgeWrigglesworth, Ian
Huckfield, LesParker, JohnYoung, David (Bolton E)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)Parry, RobertTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Pavitt, LaurieMr. Thomas Cox and
Hughes, Roy (Newport)Pendry, TomMr. Frank R. White.
Hunter, ArlamPerry, Ernest
Adley, RobertGoodlad, AlastairMontgomery, Fergus
Aitken, JonathanGorst, JohnMoore, John (Croydon C)
Alison, MichaelGow, Ian (Eastbourne)More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Amery, Rt Hon JulianGower, Sir Raymond (Barry)Morgan, Geraint
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Awdry, DanielGray, HamishMorrison, Charles (Devizes)
Baker, KennethGrieve, PercyMorrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Banks, RobertGrimond, Rt Hon J.Mudd, David
Bell, RonaldGrist, IanNeave, Airey
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Grylls, MichaelNelson, Anthony
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)Hall, Sir JohnNeubert, Michael
Benyon, W.Hall-Davis, A. G. F.Newton, Tony
Berry, Hon AnthonyHamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Nott, John
Biffen, JohnHampson, Dr KeithOnslow, Cranley
Biggs-Davison, JohnHannam,JohnOppenheim, Mrs Sally
Blaker, PeterHarvie Anderson, Rt Hon MissPage, John (Harrow West)
Body, RichardHastings, StephenPage, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Boscawen, Hon RobertHavers, Sir MichaelPage, Richard (Workington)
Bottomley, PeterHawkins, PaulPaisley, Rev Ian
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)Hayhoe, BarneyPardoe, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)Heath, Rt Hon EdwardParkinson, Cecil
Bradford, Rev RobertHeseltine, MichaelPattie, Geoffrey
Braine, Sir BernardHicks, RobertPenhaligon, David
Brittan, LeonHiggins, Terence L.Percival, Ian
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.Hodgson, RobinPeyton, Rt Hon John
Brotherton, MichaelHolland, PhilipPink, R. Bonner
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Hordern, PeterPowell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Bryan, Sir PaulHowe, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyPrice, David (Eastleigh)
Buchanan-Smith, AlickHowell, David (Guildford)Prior, Rt Hon James
Buck, AntonyHunt, David (Wirral)Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Budgen, NickHunt, John (Bromley)Raison, Timothy
Bulmer, EsmondHurd, DouglasRathbone, Tim
Burden, F. A.Hutchison, Michael ClarkRees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)Rees-Davies, W. R.
Carlisle, MarkJames, DavidRenton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Carson, JohnJenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)Ridsdale, Julian
Chalker, Mrs LyndaJessel, TobyRifkind, Malcolm
Channon, PaulJohnson Smith, G. (E Grinslead)Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Churchill, W. S.Jones, Arthur (Daventry)Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)Jopling, MichaelRoberts, Wyn (Conway)
Clark, William (Croydon S)Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithRodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Kaberry, Sir DonaldRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Clegg, WalterKershaw, AnthonyRoss, William (Londonderry)
Cockcroft, JohnKilfedder, JamesRossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)Kimball, MarcusRost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Cope, JohnKing, Evelyn (South Dorset)Royle, Sir Anthony
Cordle, John H.King, Tom (Bridgwater)Sainsbury, Tim
Cormack, PatrickKitson, Sir TimothySt. John-Stevas, Norman
Corrie, JohnKnox, DavidScott, Nicholas
Costain, A. P.Lamont, NormanShaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Critchley, JulianLangford-Holt, Sir JohnShelton, William (Streatham)
Crowder, F. P.Latham, Michael (Melton)Shepherd, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)Lawrence, IvanShersby, Michael
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)Lawson, NigelSilvester, Fred
Dodsworth, GeoffreyLe Marcham, SpencerSims, Roger
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesLester, Jim (Beeston)Sinclair, Sir George
Drayson, BurnabyLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Skeet, T. H. H.
du Cann, Rt Hon EdwardLloyd, IanSmith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Dunlop, JohnLoveridge, JohnSmith, Dudley (Warwick)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir JohnMcAdden, Sir StephenSpeed, Keith
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)McCusker, H. ,Spence, John
Elliott, Sir WilliamMacfarlane, NeilSpicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Emery, PeterMacGregor, JohnSproat, Iain
Eyre, ReginaldMacmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)Stanbrook, Ivor
Fairbairn, NicholasMcNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)Stanley, John
Fairgrieve, RussellMcNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Farr, JohnMadel, DavidSteen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Fell, AnthonyMarten, NeilStewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Finsberg, GeoffreyMates, MichaelStokes, John
Fisher, Sir NigelMather, CarolTapsell, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesMaude, AngusTaylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Fookes, Miss JanetMaudling, Rt Hon ReginaldTaylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Forman, NigelMawby, RayTebbit, Norman
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)Maxwell-Hyslon, RobinTemple-Morris, Peter
Fox, MarcusMayhew, PatrickThatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)Meyer, Sir AnthonyThomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Fry, PeterMiller, Hal (Bromsgrove)Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.Mills, PeterTownsend, Cyril D.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)Miscampbell, NormanTrotter, Neville
Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)Tugendhat, Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)Moate, Rogervan Straubenzee, W. R.
Glyn, Dr AlanMolyneaux, JamesVaughan, Dr Gerard
Godber, Rt Hon JosephMonro, Hector
Viggers, PeterWarren, KennethYoung, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)Weatherill, BernardYounger, Hon George
Wakeham, JohnWells, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)Whitelaw, Rt Hon WilliamTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)Winterton, NicholasMr. Alan Beith and
Walters, DennisWood, Rt Hon RichardMr. Geraint Howells.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further proceedings stood adjourned.