New Clause No. 1 – in the House of Commons at 12:45 am on 12th November 1979.

Alert me about debates like this

'(1) This Act shall continue in force for the period of six months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act and shall then expire unless it is continued in force in accordance with subsection (2) of this section.

(2) Her Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council provide that this Act shall continue in force for a period of one year beyond the date on which it would otherwise expire; but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of Mr Nigel Spearing Mr Nigel Spearing , Newham South 1:45 am, 12th November 1979

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As the debate on the Bill draws to a close, it is appropriate that we should discuss a clause concerning the rights of the House and therefore of the electors of this country. I do not anticipate that we shall divide on the new clause, but if the Government resist it, it could be negatived by voice.

There has been a debate in the House each year on Rhodesia. The Government have been able to give account of their actions and there has been a general review of the situation. The debates have not always been fruitful and, as the Lord Privy Seal has just said, some have been nonsense but they have at least been a help. There has, perhaps, been little movement to report and therefore little progress made. There will, however, be a great deal of movement with the Bill before us—and the Government Front Bench has promised that that movement will be quick. It may be that over the days and months ahead the House will wish to return to this issue.

Under the wide and extensive powers contained in the Bill there will be opportunity to debate how section 3 orders are being used and the purposes to which they are being put. The Bill, however, is essentially transitional. As it tells us in the long title, it is paving the way for another Act which will give fully responsible status to a new republic of Zimbabwe.

We have expressed great anxiety about the Bill's success. The balance of interest is extremely delicate. The last debate but one demonstrated doubt about the security forces being used and the result that that will have. It is possible that we shall be confronted with a procession of section 3 orders. In the Bill the use of that section is not foreseen for a long time.

Section 3 orders will give great powers to the Governor, and it may, unfortunately, be necessary for the Government to govern Rhodesia through a succession of these orders. I presume that the Government do not wish to see section 3 orders used for more than six or seven months at the most. However, if their plans do not have the desired result, the Government will be operating under statute in a framework entirely ill-suited for the purpose. In those circumstances, it would be for the Government to come back with an adjusted Bill, perhaps containing new procedures, so that the House could keep a proper track of what was happening. If the Government accept the new clause, that will be possible, because the Act will have to be renewed every six months.

If the Government resist this new clause I suggest that they will be shown not to have faith in their own solution. In that respect they will be seen to be inconsistent. I hope that, out of prudence, and because of their faith in their preferred solution—which we do not accept but one to which they are yoking the Committee and country—the Government will accept the clause.

Photo of Mr Richard Luce Mr Richard Luce , Shoreham

As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said, the purpose of the new clause is to limit the life of the measure to six months, unless extended for a further year by Order in Council, which would have to be laid in draft. The burden of my argument against the clause is that much of the purpose of this Bill will have been achieved within a six-month period.

The objective of this measure, as we have said on Second Reading and in Committee, is to proceed at a far more rapid pace. We have had plenty of opportunity of debating the pros and cons of proceeding at that speed. Much of what we seek to do will have been achieved within the six-month time scale. The independence constitution will have been made. After independence the Government will cease to have any further power to operate clause 1 or 2, relating to the provisions for the constitution and the interim arrangements. For the same reason, the Government will cease to have power to operate under clause 3(1)(a), which makes provision for the Governor to function during the interim period.

Even after independence it will be necessary to retain as law provisions made under clauses 1 and 3(1)(b) to provide for transitional matters. In some respects these are normal features of the steps leading to independence which have been taken by other countries. Such matters include financial arrangements and the expiry of certain orders. As an example, I cite provisions for the orderly discharge of debt liabilities. There is a number of measures which will need to remain in force after independence.

The necessity for much of this legislation will have disappeared within the period envisaged in the clause. Only a small technical area will remain. I have given an example of this. The Government feel that it would impose an unnecessary burden on Parliament to have to renew the measure every half year to deal with these technical issues. For these reasons I oppose the clause.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Photo of Mr Ian Gilmour Mr Ian Gilmour , Chesham and Amersham 1:55 am, 12th November 1979

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We regret the inconvenience that the House has suffered, but we are most grateful to the Opposition for keeping their promise—not that we expected that they would not.

One of the results of the suddenness of the procedure is that not a great deal has happened between Second Reading and Third Reading. Therefore, I imagine that the House will not expect me to give an extended elaboration of the provisions of the Bill.

The Bill could not have been introduced until the Government's proposals for the interim period had been tabled and considered in conference. Thereafter we needed to proceed with despatch, because we must have the powers to implement a settlement quickly. We have made no attempt to conceal that the Bill grants very broad powers. These will be needed if we are to exercise our considerable responsibilities.

I repeat that the Government's aim is a settlement in which all parties will take part. We fully agree that that is the only way to end the war. Of course, we recognise that it will require difficult decisions by the Patriotic Front, but no more difficult, I think, than those that the Salisbury delegation has already taken. We hope deeply, as I am sure the whole House does, that those decisions will be taken very shortly. Thereafter, the Bill will enable the Government to proceed. I therefore commend it to the House.

Photo of Mr Peter Shore Mr Peter Shore , Tower Hamlets Stepney and Poplar 1:57 am, 12th November 1979

On any normal Bill, Third Reading is separated from Second Reading by some period of time, a point that the Lord Privy Seal himself made, by amendments made in Committee, and by the development of thought that arises out of debate. But this is not a normal Bill. Indeed, it is highly abnormal. Between its presentation and publication and Second Reading we had 24 hours. Between Second Reading and Third Reading we have had—after much effort on our part—two parliamentary days and a weekend. Needless to say, not one amendment has been accepted.

I do not believe that in our two-day debate one convincing argument has been advanced as to why the House has been treated in so peremptory a way and why it was thought necessary to get the Bill on to the statute book by 16 November—except, of course, to appease the Conservative Party's own Rhodesia lobby. Even that act of appeasement on sanctions could easily have been separated from the enabling Bill.

The effect outside their own party of what the Government have done has been, as we warned it would be, harmful. It has been damaging to our international reputation and damaging to the achievement of our main objective, which is agreement at Lancaster House. We said on Wednesday that it was bound to raise suspicions, and it has. Our efforts to allay suspicions, by obtaining categorical statements from the Government that without agreement the Bill would not be used, have been foolishly refused and frustrated.

We said that the Bill would drain dry the virtually empty wells of good will among the participants in the conference, and I fear that that is the case. We said that it would put us all, Government and Opposition, in the great difficulty of being forced to discuss the questions still unresolved, and still being debated, at the conference, something that hitherto we had deliberately refrained from doing.

The Government have made a major blunder. It is my profound hope that they can now retrieve the position. But I have no hesitation in calling on my right hon and hon. Friends to vote against giving this misconceived and mischievous Bill a Third Reading now.

2 am

Photo of Mr Arthur Newens Mr Arthur Newens , Harlow

When I first heard last week that the Government were introducing the Bill I considered that it was most untimely. None of the remarks made from the Government Benches has convinced me otherwise. It is obvious that the Bill is intended to prepare the way for presenting the Patriotic Front with an ultimatum. We have seen developments in that direction since the Bill was presented.

Those of us who opposed the idea of forcing the Bill through all its stages last week have not had our initial fears allayed by one argument that has been advanced. The Government have stoutly resisted all the attempts made by the Opposition to reduce the likelihood that the Bill will pave the way for a one-sided agreement with the Muzorewa regime. The Lord Privy Seal did not bother to answer our arguments on the first amendment. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the questions that were put to him. He was not prepared to answer the Committee, and it was clear that the Government were prepared to promulgate the constitution without the full agreement of the other parties.

On subsequent amendments the Government resisted the attempts to lengthen the period for the election. They resisted the attempts to limit the use of the Salisbury regime's security forces. The Government have refused to retain sanctions. They are using their majority to push the Bill through regardless of all the arguments.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will think carefully. The Bill could produce some unpleasant consequences. It could lead to the continuation of the civil war. It could place Britain in breach of its international agreements. It could do considerable damage to Britain's reputation throughout the world.

The Bill obviously meets with the approval of the Right wing of the Conservative Party. We should remember that UDI met with the approval of many Conservative Members, and we know where that idea took us. Every since the Duke of Wellington opposed the abolition of the rotten borough system the Tory Party has not been short of a regiment of Rip Van Winkles. The profession of many Tories seems to be to sleep through change. Those who are always prepared to come forward with a solution to today's problems that is 20 years out of date may now be offering a solution that will lead to long-term repercussions.

I am sorry to see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) regarding the issue as a joke as I know that the hon. Gentleman is a serious historian. We should recognise that in the past such decisions have led to long-term consequences involving great bloodshed. We should not lightly take a decision this evening. Nothing that has happened today has allayed my fears, nor those of many of my hon. Friends. All who want to see peace achieved in Rhodesia—that includes hon. Members on both sides of the House—must hope that the Bill does not wreck that prospect. Many of us feel that there is a serious possibility that it will. The Bill is entirely premature. It should never have been introduced before agreement had been reached with all the parties. In these circumstances, it is entirely right that Labour Members should vote against the Third Reading.

Photo of Peter Bottomley Peter Bottomley , Greenwich Woolwich West 2:05 am, 12th November 1979

I want to make one point, namely, that the Lancaster House proposals will bring majority rule to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia far earlier than any other proposals put forward at any time since the 1961 constitution. The 1961 proposals would have brought majority rule probably within about 15 years.

The "Tiger" and "Fearless" arrangements would probably have delayed majority rule until the end of this century. The 1971 proposals would probably have delayed it until the thirtieth year of the next century.

It is well worth paying a tribute to all the parties at the Lancaster House conference in that they have reached agreement on a constitution which will bring majority rule to Zimbabwe in all our lifetimes, we hope without the sacrifice of the lives of many others who now live in that country.

Photo of Miss Joan Lestor Miss Joan Lestor , Eton and Slough 2:06 am, 12th November 1979

When the debate began, we were assured by the Conservative Front Bench that the Government were on the eve of an agreement with the Patriotic Front on the question of the interim period. Nothing that has emerged throughout the debate has produced any evidence at all that that agreement is imminent. In fact, what has emerged up until now is that the Government are no nearer an agreement for an interim period than when they first brought the Bill to the House.

When the Lusaka conference took place doubts were expressed about the diffi- culty of getting an agreement on the interim period because of the difficulties that were foreseen. In fact, so much was that the case that when the Lancaster House conference opened—[Interruption.] It is a great pity that members of the Government Front Bench cannot listen to what is being said on a historic occasion which may well spell war in southern Africa. When the discussions opened at Lancaster House, there was so much concern about the interim period that the Patriotic Front wanted to discuss those arrangements prior to discussing the constitution. But it gave way on the argument, and the constitution was discussed first.

The position at which we have arrived is that, despite what Labour Members have tried to do by way of amendment, the Bill will undoubtedly be passed with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in effect saying "Although we cannot say what we will do if agreement on the interim period and other matters is not reached, we hope and trust that we will be able to do the right thing". In other words, they are saying to the Patriotic Front and others "Give us this enabling Bill. Trust us. We shall not let you down". That is a grave responsibility which the Government are taking on. It is a grave responsibility that has emanated from Lancaster House.

All I can say is that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are aware of what they have done in the past two or three days. If there is any departure from the agreement that was drawn up at the Lusaka conference, on their heads be it.

Photo of Mr Michael Brotherton Mr Michael Brotherton , Louth Borough

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to propose sedition in this House?

Photo of Miss Joan Lestor Miss Joan Lestor , Eton and Slough

Did the hon. Gentleman say seduction?

Photo of Mr Alex Lyon Mr Alex Lyon , City of York 2:09 am, 12th November 1979

Conservative Members have had their fun at our expense on this Third Reading, but I hope that the full enormity of what may be contained in the Bill, and its implications, never comes home to them. It is of the utmost seriousness that the Lord Privy Seal, in a speech which a good many Conservative Members may not have heard, indicated that if the Lancaster House negotiations did not reach agreement the Government might be prepared to use the powers in the Bill to go ahead. That implies that they may try to use those powers to legitimise a Muzorewa Government elected in an election in which the Patriotic Front did not participate. If that were the result of tonight's work it would lead to the direst consequences, not only for southern Africa but for this country's involvement. A civil war has been going on in Rhodesia for over 10 years. We might be brought into the fighting. In that event, perhaps the consequences of the fighting would extend beyond the borders of Rhodesia.

Many Opposition Members doubt the wisdom of the Bill at this stage. They would have preferred to wait for an agreement. Our view was backed by President Kaunda in his statement to the press before he left this country. It was supported by the Security Council committee on sanctions and the Commonwealth Secretariat. I hope that Government supporters are right in their general pleasure that the Bill will be passed, that there will be an agreement and that all our fears are groundless. But if our fears are justified, I suspect that the Government will have to laugh on the other side of their face before many months are spent.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 229.

Division No. 104AYES[2.12 am
Adley, RobertBanks, RobertBiggs-Davison, John
Aitken, JonathanBeaumont-Dark, AnthonyBlackburn, John
Alexander, RichardBell, RonaldBlaker, Peter
Alison, MichaelBendall, VivianBody, Richard
Ancram, MichaelBennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Arnold, TomBenyon, Thomas (Abingdon)Boscawen, Hon Robert
Aspinwall, JackBenyon, W. (Buckingham)Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)Best, KeithBowden, Andrew
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)Bevan, David GilroyBoyson, Dr Rhodes
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)Biffen, Rt Hon JohnBraine, Sir Bernard
Bright, GrahamHaselhurst, AlanNelson, Anthony
Brinton, TimHastings, StephenNeubert, Michael
Brittan, LeonHavers, Rt Hon Sir MichaelNewton, Tony
Brocklebank-Fowler, ChristopherHawkins, PaulNott, Rt Hon John
Brooke, Hon PeterHawksley, WarrenOnslow, Cranley
Brotherton, MichaelHayhoe, BarneyOppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe)Heddle, JohnOsborn, John
Browne, John (Winchester)Henderson, BarryPage, John (Harrow, West)
Bruce-Gardyne, JohnHeseltine, Rt Hon MichaelPage, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Bryan, Sir PaulHicks, RobertPaisley, Rev Ian
Buck, AntonyHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.Parkinson, Cecil
Budgen, NickHill, JamesParris, Matthew
Bulmer, EsmondHolland, Philip (Carlton)Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Burden, F. A.Hooson, TomPatten, John (Oxford)
Butcher, JohnHowell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)Pattle, Geoffrey
Butler, Hon AdamHowell, Ralph (North Norfolk)Pawsey, James
Cadbury, JocelynHunt, David (Wirral)Percival, Sir Ian
Carlisle, John (Luton West)Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)Pink, R. Bonner
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Hurd, Hon DouglasPollock, Alexander
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)Porter, George
Chalker, Mrs. LyndaJenkin, Rt Hon PatrickPrice, David (Eastleigh)
Channon, PaulJessel, TobyPrior, Rt Hon James
Chapman, SydneyJohnson Smith, GeoffreyProctor, K. Harvey
Churchill, W. S.Jopling, Rt Hon MichaelRaison, Timothy
Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithRathbone, Tim
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Kaberry, Sir DonaldRees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Cockeram, EricKellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRees-Davies, W. R.
Colvin, MichaelKing, Rt Hon TomRhodes James, Robert
Cope, JohnKitson, Sir TimothyRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Cormack, PatrickKnox, DavidRidley, Hon Nicholas
Corrie, JohnLamont, NormanRifkind, Malcolm
Costain, A. P.Lang, IanRippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Cranborne, ViscountLangford-Holt, Sir JohnRoberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Critchley, JulianLatham, MichaelRoberts, Wyn (Conway)
Crouch, DavidLawrence, IvanRobinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Dickens, GeoffreyLawson, NigelRost, Peter
Dorrell, StephenLee, JohnRoyle, Sir Anthony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesLester, Jim (Beeston)Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Dover, DenshoreLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
du Cann, Rt Hon EdwardLloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)Scott, Nicholas
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Durant, TonyLoveridge, JohnShelton, William (Strealham)
Dykes, HughLuce, RichardShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir JohnLyell, NicholasShepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)McAdden, Sir StephenShersby, Michael
Eggar, TimothyMcCrindle, RobertSilvester, Fred
Elliott, Sir WilliamMacfarlane, NeilSims, Roger
Emery, PeterMacGregor, JohnSkeet, T. H. H.
Eyre, ReginaldMacKay, John (Argyll)Speed, Keith
Fairbairn, NicholasMcNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)Speller, Tony
Faith, Mrs SheilaMcNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)Spence, John
Farr, JohnMcQuarrie, AlbertSpicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Fell, AnthonyMadel, DavidSproat, Iain
Fenner, Mrs PeggyMajor, JohnSquire, Robin
Finsberg, GeoffreyMarland, PaulStainton, Keith
Fisher, Sir NigelMarlow, TonyStanbrook, Ivor
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Stanley, John
Fookes, Miss JanetMates, MichaelSteen, Anthony
Forman, NigelMather, CarolStevens, Martin
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)Maude, Rt Hon AngusStewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)Mawby, RayStewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Fry, PeterMawhinney, Dr BrianStokes, John
Gardiner, George (Relgate)Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinStradling Thomas, J.
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)Mayhew, PatrickTapsell, Peter
Garel-Jones, TristanMellor, DavidTaylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir IanMeyer, Sir AnthonyTebbit, Norman
Goodhart, PhilipMiller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)Temple-Morris, Peter
Goodhew, VictorMills, Iain (Meriden)Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Goodlad, AlastairMills, Peter (West Devon)Thompson, Donald
Gow, IanMiscampbell, NormanThorne, Nell (Ilford South)
Gower, Sir RaymondMitchell, David (Basingstoke)Thornton, Malcolm
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)Moate, RogerTownend, John (Brldlington)
Gray, HamishMonro, HectorTownsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Greenway, HarryMontgomery, FergusTrippier, David
Grieve, PercyMoore, JohnTrotter, Neville
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)Morgan, Geraintvan Straubenzee, W. R.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Grist, IanMorrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)Viggers, Peter
Grylls, MichaelMorrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)Waddington, David
Gumrner, John SelwynMudd, DavidWakeham, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)Murphy, ChristopherWaldegrave, Hon William
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Myles, DavidWall, Patrick
Hampson, Dr KeithNeale, GerrardWaller, Gary
Hannam, JohnNeedham, RichardWard, John
Warren, KennethWickenden, KeithYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Watson, JohnWiggin, JerryYounger, Rt Hon George
Wells, John (Maldstone)Wilkinson, John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Wheeler, JohnWinterton, NicholasMr. Spencer Le Marchant an[...]
Whitney, RaymondWolfson, MarkMr. Anthony Berry
Adams, AllenFlannery, MartinMikardo, Ian
Allaun, FrankFletcher, Ted (Darlington)Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Anderson, DonaldFord, BenMiller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Archer, Rt Hon PeterForrester, JohnMitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Armstrong, Rt Hon ErnestFoster, DerekMorris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Ashley, Rt Hon JackFraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Ashton, JoeFreeson, Rt Hon ReginaldMoyle, Rt Hon Roland
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)Freud, ClementMulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Garrett, John (Norwich S)Newens, Stanley
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)Oakes. Rt Hon Gordon
Belth, A. J.George, BruceO'Halloran, Michael
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony WedgwoodGilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnO'Neill, Martin
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)Golding, JohnOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
Bidwell, SydneyGraham, TedOwen, Rt Hon Dr David
Booth, Rt Hon AlbertGrant, George (Morpeth)Palmer, Arthur
Boolhroyd, Miss BettyGrant, John (Islington C)Park, George
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)Hamilton, James (Bothwell)Parry, Robert
Bradley, TomHardy, PeterPendry, Tom
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Harrison, Rt Hon WalterPenhaligon, David
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)Hart, Rt Hon Dame JudithPowell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyPowell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Buchan, NormanHaynes, FrankPrescott, John
Callaghan, Rt Hon. J. (Cardiff SE)Healey, Rt Hon DenisPrice, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)Heffer, Eric S.Race, Reg
Campbell, IanHogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds [...])
Campbell-Savours, DaleHolland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)Richardson, Miss Jo
Canavan, DennisHome Robertson, JohnRoberts, Allan (Bootle)
Cant, R. B.Homewood, WilliamRoberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Carmlchael, NellHooley, FrankRoberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Cartwright, JohnHowoll, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)Robertson, George
Clark, David (South Shields)Howells, GeraintRobinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)Huckfield, LesRooker, J. W.
Cohen, StanleyHughes, Roy (Newport)Roper, John
Coleman, DonaldJanner, Hon GrevilleRoss, Ernest (Dundee West)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.John, BrynmorRoss, Wm. (Londonderry)
Conlan, BernardJohnson, James (Hull West)Rowlands, Ted
Cook, Robin F.Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)Ryman, John
Cowans, HarryJones, Barry (East Flint)Sever, John
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)Jones, Dan (Burnley)Sheerman, Barry
Crowther, J. S.Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldSheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Cryer, BobKerr, RussellShore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Cunliffe, LawrenceKilroy-Silk, RobertSilkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)Kinnock, NeilSilkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)Lamble, DavidSilverman, Julius
Dalyell, TamLamborn, HarrySkinner, Dennis
Davidson, ArthurLamond, JamesSoley, Clive
Davies, Rt Hon Denzll (Lianelli)Leadbitter, TedSpearing, Nigel
Davies, E. Hudson (Caerphilly)Leighton, RonaldSpriggs, Leslie
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)Stallard, A. W.
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)Steel, Rt Hon David
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)Litherland, RobertStoddart, David
Deakins, EricLofthouse, GeoffreyStott, Roger
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Lyon, Alexander (York)Strang, Gavin
Dempsey, JamesMcCartney, HughStraw, Jack
Dewar, DonaldMcDonald, Dr OonaghSummerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dixon, DonaldMcGuire, Michael (Ince)Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Dobson, FrankMcKay, Allen (Penistone)Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Dormand, JackMcKelvey, WilliamThomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Douglas, DickMacKenzie, Rt Hon GregorThomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Douglas-Mann, BruceMaclennan, RobertThorne, Stan (Preston South)
Dubs, AllredMcMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)Tilley, John
Duffy, A. E. P.McNally, ThomasTinn, James
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)McNamara, KevinTorney, Tom
Dunnett, JackMcWilliam, JohnVarley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Dunwoody, Mrs. GwynethMagee, BryanWainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Eadie, AlexMarks, KennethWalker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Eastham, KenMarshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)Weetch, Ken
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Wellbeloved, James
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)Welsh, Michael
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)
English, MichaelMason, Rt Hon RoyWhite, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)Maxton, JohnWhitlock, William
Evans, John (Newton)Maynard, Miss JoanWilley, Rt Hon Frederick
Field, FrankMeacher, MichaelWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)Wrigglesworth, IanTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)Wright, SheilaMr. Austin Mitchell and
Winnick, DavidYoung, David (Bolton East)Mr. George Morton
Woolmer, Kenneth

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.