Right to Registration by Virtue of United Kingdom Nationality for European Community Purposes.

New Clause 7 – in the House of Commons at 10:15 pm on 2nd June 1981.

Alert me about debates like this

8A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part II of this Act a person who has a right of abode in a British Dependent Territory to which the provisions of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome apply or who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of the operation of Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome shall be entitled, on application, to be registered as a British Citizen.—[Mr. McQuarrie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of Mr Albert McQuarrie Mr Albert McQuarrie , Aberdeenshire East 10:45 pm, 2nd June 1981

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

I have to declare a special interest in the new clauses, because I have a Gibraltarian daughter-in-law and two of my grandchildren were born in Gibraltar. I also spent six and a half years in Gibraltar in a business capacity, erecting hospitals, schools, public buildings and Ministry of Defence and local authority housing. In that time I developed a deep affection for the people of Gibraltar, who were living under such difficult circumstances.

New clause 6 and amendments Nos. 21 and 53 are embodied in new clause 7, and I therefore propose to speak to that new clause and not to move new clause 6, a proposal which has met with the approval of Mr. Speaker.

New clause 7 seeks to grant to the people of Gibraltar the right to registration by virtue of the status that they now enjoy as United Kingdom citizens for European purposes. The acceptance of the new clause is essential if the House is to be seen to be safeguarding the interests of the Gibraltarians. It is accepted that they have the right of abode as Community nationals by virtue of the operation of article 227 (4) of the Treaty of Rome.

No other dependent territory is ever likely to achieve that status. That fully justifies the claim that Gibraltar should be classed with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, the people of which will enjoy full British citizenship under the Bill. None of the other dependent territories will be affected if the new clause is accepted, as the present status of the Gibraltarians was granted when we entered the EEC because, even then, they were considered to be a much closer tie to Britain than were those in the Far East.

It is also accepted that successive British Governments have permitted Gibraltarians to enter and live in Britain and to be considered as equals when applying for employment in Britain. But that is only at the discretion of the Government of the day and can be removed at any time if circumstance in the United Kingdom are such that the continuation of the discretion is difficult or impossible to maintain.

The people of Gibraltar live in constant fear that existing rights will be removed. That fear is genuine when one considers that there is always the possibility of a future British Government withdrawing from the EEC, which would at once remove from the Gibraltarians the right to be United Kingdom citizens for Community purposes under article 227.

That fear has been expressed in Gibraltar by the Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, Mr. Peter Isola, the leader of the official Opposition, Mr. Joe Bossano, an independent Member of the House of Assembly, and all the other Members of the House of Assembly. It has also been expressed by trade unions, the chamber of commerce, the churches and the vast majority of the people of Gibraltar.

It was summed up conclusively by Mr. Sam Benady QC, the leader of the Bar in Gibraltar, who said in his address at the opening of the legal year in Gibraltar last year: We have had many verbal assurances that the Gibraltarians would be afforded special treatment if they wish to enter, or reside, in the United Kingdom. These are mere assurances, but in law they have no right. Great Britain has said time and time again that it will sustain and support us, but I as a loyal British subject say to Britain—from these ancient benches of our Supreme Court—it is no use sustaining the body if you do not sustain the spirit". Mr. Benady said that in 1970, repeated it in 1977 and said it again in 1980, but the cry has gone unheeded by successive Governments. It is for the Government to answer the call. To approve new clause 7 would cause no upset for any other dependent territory or to any independent State.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been made well aware of the deep feelings held by the vast majority of the people in Gibraltar that they should not be classified as citizens of the British dependent territories. Thousands of letters have been sent to my right hon. Friend from ordinary people in Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal has been inundated with representations opposed to the Government's proposals. All have gone unheeded. The Government refuse to bend to meet the rightful request of these beleaguered people.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, in a circular sent to those who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary protesting about the proposals, stated that the Government were aware of the strength of feeling in Gibraltar but felt bound to adhere to the view that connections with Gibraltar should qualify people for citizenship of the British dependent territories and not for British citizenship. Why should it be contrary to the purposes of the Bill to say that for historical or some other reasons people from one territory should be treated differently from the rest? It was a closing of the door completely when the Minister of State, in a letter of 19 February to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), stated that Gibraltar was not the only dependent territory for which people could make a claim for special treatment and that to make an exception would go a long way towards nullifying the whole idea of citizenship for dependent territories.

Even in that letter, the element of fear for the future held by the Gibraltarians was shown up when the Minister of State wrote that the fact that the Gibraltarians would become citizens of the dependent territories would not "materially" affect their existing position in relation to the United Kingdom. Yet he has stated consistently that the Gibraltarians would not be affected by the Bill. How does he, therefore, justify his remark that they will not be "materially" affected?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State concluded his letter by stating that he was convinced that the Government's proposals were on the right track. The proposals have been rejected totally by the people of Gibraltar as a sell-out and a reduction to second-class citizenship with no legal guarantees for the status that the Gibraltarians now enjoy.

It is not my intention to go over all the reasons to explain the depth of feeling that exists among hon. Members on both sides of the House that Gibraltar should be granted special consideration. These views were expressed on Second Reading and in Committee. I am anxious that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible should be able to speak.

These new clauses, especially new clause 7, are not only supported by those whose names appear attached to mine. The clause was also supported when tabled on 20 May by my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and also by the right hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie) and the hon. Members for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).

New clause 7, if accepted by the House, will give the Gibraltarians a right on application to be registered as British citizens. These two words "on application" mean that any person from Gibraltar can opt for British citizenship or retain his Gibraltarian status with the option to apply for Spanish citizenship in due course if that option is offered by the Spanish authorities. It must not be forgotten that for more than 270 years the Gibraltarians have been under British rule. They can never become independent even if they so wish.

There is no need to dwell on the hardships, abuses and difficulties inflicted on the people of Gibraltar since 1954. They are well known in the House and in the country. It is sufficient to say that the patriotism of the people of Gibraltar for their own city and for Britain was aroused to a degree never known before. In the 1967 referendum, 12,138 Gibraltarians voted in a poll of 95·8 per cent. for British sovereignty. Forty-four people voted to be linked with Spain. That position remains as strong today. While the majority of Gibraltarians work in harmony with Spanish people, they do not want Spanish citizenship.

The new clause will give them the right to choose. It will also remove from them the stigma which was placed on the people of Gibraltar when the Bill was published, when the Spanish newspapers reported that Gibraltar, on the passing of this legislation, would be nothing more than a colony of monkeys.

Shall we allow the Bill to be the final chapter in the long history that has existed between the Gibraltarians and the British people? "Solid as the rock" means more than just a piece of hard stone to the Gibraltarians. It means a steadfast determination never to give in. To the British people it is a symbol that nothing can be broken or disintegrate in their relationship with the people of Gibraltar.

If new clause 7 is not accepted, it will be to our undying shame that we have let down the people who are more British than the British, who served this country in its time of need through two world wars and who now look to this House to grant them the legal right to become British citizens if they so choose. That is what new clause 7 seeks to do.

All in Gibraltar and many hundreds of thousands of supporters of Gibraltar in Britain and overseas look to the Minister to accept this new clause. If he fails to do so, we shall divide the House in an effort to secure success for the desire of the Gibraltarians to remain first-class British citizens with legal rights.

Photo of Mr Julian Amery Mr Julian Amery , Brighton, Pavilion

We are discussing a matter that touches a raw nerve, I think on both sides of the House. Gibraltar has been British longer than it was ever Spanish. It was Spanish during the time between the Moorish evacuation and the British conquest of the fortress, but it has been longer under our rule than it was under that of Spain. Historically, therefore, it is rather a special case.

As my hon Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) said, it is a special case in another sense, namely, that under the Treaty of Utrecht it can never become independent. It is not like other colonies, which have been decolonised. It exists solely by virtue of its connection with Britain.

In World War Two the great majority of the population was evacuated to Britain. We recognised then that kinship with us. I have had some connection with the Rock. As a serving officer in World War Two, I can say—I do not believe that any military historian will disagree—that we could not have won the war without Gibraltar. Without Gibraltar, we could never have had the landings in North Africa, and without those landings we could never have achieved the conquest of Italy and later the liberation of France. That is not unimportant, because the Franco regime, when in power, was benevolent in its so-called neutrality to our enemies.

Today, Gibraltar is part of the European Community. I agree that it has certain privileges, but it is part of that Community, as we are. Spain aspires to become a member.

My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have written to me saying that they will respect the opportunities that the Gibraltarians enjoy today to become full British citizens if they so wish. I believe that at present there is no wish to change the relevant regulations. The Gibraltarians do not want that as a privilege. They want it as a right. They deserve it as a right. What is the argument against? The European Community gave Gibraltarians the right of abode after the Second World War and they staunchly voted for the British connection.

11 pm

I know the arguments that my right hon. Friend will deploy. He will say that it might open the floodgates to countless others. The example of Hong Kong will be thrown in our faces. I have a great regard for Hong Kong and its people. However, Hong Kong is different from Gibraltar. Hong Kong is not a member of the European Community. It is not a fortress which can never become independent. Indeed, we have to talk with the People's Republic of China about the future of Hong Kong, and we do so. The case of Hong Kong is the alibi which my right hon. Friend will probably wave in front of the House.

Anyone who has his ear to the ground in Whitehall knows that that is not the reality. The reality is the desire to appease the Spanish Government. I have always been a friend of Spain, under whatever regime. I love the Spanish people. Few of us would disagree that Spain is not a stable country. It had a dictatorship, which was stable but unfriendly. There is now a democratic experiment. We hope that it will succeed and survive. Things have happened in the Spanish Parliament which I pray to God will never happen in this Chamber. I talked to my friends in the police in the House on the night the Spanish Parliament was raided. They seemed a little amused at what was going on.

The Spanish Government defaulted on the pledge given to the Foreign Secretary about lifting the blockade. The blockade was a remnant of Franco's policies against us. Spain is applying to join the European Community. Its governing party wishes to join NATO. I should welcome Spain to both organisations. However, let us face it—they need us more than we need them.

Spain must accept the reality that in the foreseeable future the people of Gibraltar will want to remain British. It is idle to pretend otherwise. They deserve nationality and citizenship by right. I underline that. It is no use pussyfooting in the hope of achieving good will in Spain. On the contrary, if the House were to reject the new clause the impact on Gibraltar would be catastrophic. Perhaps it would not have mattered if the new clause had never been moved—but it has.

Sir Joshua Hassan and his colleagues have bent over backwards to try to help the Foreign Secretary out of the ridiculous dilemma on the horns of which he and his colleagues have impaled themselves by making it obligatory on the Gibraltarians to register—to take an active step—rather than be given what should have been given by any generous-minded British Government.

This is an occasion for us to recognise our debt to Gibraltar. We must recognise its special status as a European fortress and the right of its inhabitants, who are the basic garrison of the fortress, to be accepted as full British citizens. If they are given the option to register, which is proposed in the new clause, I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that few Gibraltarians will forgo the opportunity to proclaim their allegiance to Britain.

Photo of Mr Russell Johnston Mr Russell Johnston , Inverness

Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall not detain the House for long. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), who has been a most steadfast friend to Gibraltar ever since he entered the House and for a long time before. We must pay tribute to his work for Gibraltar.

It is a great pleasure for me to find myself following the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—as I have done many times before and disagreed with his remarks—and realise that I have no disagreement with anything that he said. As a minority party Member, I want to make one thing quite clear. Whichever party—even if it were my own—introduced this legislation, I should vote against it. As the hon. Gentleman so clearly expressed, it is quite wrong that we in the House, with our long debt to and relationship with Gibraltar, should even contemplate what we are now doing. That must be wrong.

If a Labour Home Secretary had introduced this legislation, what would the Home Secretary be saying about it? I have no doubt that if a Labour Home Secretary introduced the same propositions, the right hon. Gentleman would oppose them passionately, strongly and fervently. I appeal to the sense of justice that I know he has deeply held and ask him to reconsider his position.

I know that the basic argument is that if we make an exception for Gibraltar, an exception will have to be made in another case. I do not accept that it is not possible for the House to make a reasonable accommodation for 30,000 people who have shown consistent loyalty to Britain throughout their history. I do not accept that that is not possible.

The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said that Gibraltar was a member of the European Community. Perhaps that is not directly relevant, but it is worth recording that Gibraltar does not benefit greatly from that. An article inThe Guardian on 14 May by Mark Arnold Forster clearly showed that British citizenship within the European Community did not benefit Gibraltarians. They had no opportunity to vote for anyone in the European Parliament—something that the French did not deny their colonies, nor did the Danes deny it to those who live in Greenland. We have already treated Gibraltar badly, and now we are treating it even worse.

Most hon. Members will have received a letter from the House of Assembly in Gibraltar. I apologise to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East for being slightly late for the beginning of his speech. He probably referred to that letter. He is shaking his head. I expect that a number of hon. Members received that letter, dated 28 May, jointly signed by Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the minority party, more or less saying "Please do not do this to us." In other words, the population of Gibraltar, whatever its political attitudes, is united in rejecting what is proposed to be done.

I think that everyone on both sides of the House regards the Home Secretary as a fair-minded and decent person. I say to him that it is clear beyond peradventure that unanimously the people of Gibraltar do not want us to do this to them. I therefore think that the House must not do it. It must accept the clause tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East.

Photo of Bernard Braine Bernard Braine , Essex South East

I join with the plea made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is indeed a fair-minded man. I hope that the debate will cause him to have second thoughts.

If there is one thing that I abhor it is injustice. If there is one thing for which the House stands, apart from exercising vigilance where the actions of Her Majesty's Ministers are concerned, it is redress of grievance. We are concerned here with an injustice.

That is a serious assertion; it deserves to be taken seriously. The position of the Gibraltarians is unique. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) reminded us, the Rock has been British for longer than it was ever under the crown of Spain. Gibraltarians are not Spaniards, although there has been some intermarriage over the centuries. They and their forebears have long been associated with the maritime defence and strategy of the United Kingdom. Many Gibraltarians have fought and some have died for this country in times of difficulty for us and for them. I think of events in the eighteenth century. I think of the senseless blockade by a Fascist dictator. Over the years Gibraltarians have looked to Britain for protection and have received it. They have made their own contribution to our common cause.

The Gibraltrians have not sought independence. They do not aspire to be members of the United Nations. The terms of the Treaty of Utrecht expressly debar them from seeking the goal of political independence. If there is to be any change of sovereignty in Gibraltar, Gibraltar must revert to the crown of Spain. For that reason alone its people are unique among the peoples of the remaining British dependent territories.

When the Gibraltarians have been given the opportunity to express their views about their future, they have done so emphatically and clearly. In 1967 there was the declaration by 12,138 votes to 44 in favour of being British rather than Spanish. Has there ever been such a clear-cut decision in any referendum that any hon. Member can recall?

The Gibraltarians are unique in another sense. It is precisely because of their link with the United Kingdom that they are regarded as an integral element in the European Community. They have a relationship with us which is similar to that of the Channel Islands and rather closer than that of the Isle of Man. One would have expected, therefore, some recognition of this uniqueness by the Government.

11.15 pm

I should like to have been a member of the Standing Committee, but I was not. I read what was said by hon. Members on both sides. The Government spokesman's argument for brushing aside the claims of Gibraltar and refusing any special concession was, I regret to say, about as unconvincing an argument as I have ever read. The argument seemed to be twofold. First, if such a concession were made to the 30,000 Gibraltarians it would cause resentment in the remaining dependent territories. Over 90 per cent. of the population in the remaining territories live in one territory—Hong Kong. That argument was dealt with effectively by my right hon. Friend.

Photo of Bernard Braine Bernard Braine , Essex South East

No doubt my hon. Friend, who has interrupted from a seated position, will have an opportunity of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of convincing us of the counter-argument, which certainly did not convince anyone else in Standing Committee.

Where is the evidence for that counter-argument? Gibraltar already possesses a special status that no other dependent territory enjoys. Its citizens have an unrestricted right of entry to the United Kingdom now. What has happened to the argument that made that concession possible at a time when there were many more dependent territories than today?

The second argument of the Government spokesman was that it would be wrong not to include Gibraltar with other dependencies, and that they must all be treated alike. To do otherwise would be a break with the a major principle. It might be a break with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's love of tidiness and fear of creating a precedent, but it has nothing to do with principle.

Let us consider the extraordinary situation that we have allowed to develop, I prefer to think through a fit of absense of mind, rather than by deliberate intent. Gibraltarians already enjoy all the rights of other EEC citizens, save one. They have no representation in the European Parliament. They are the only EEC citizens without a vote in the elections for the European Parliament. The citizens of French Guiana, of Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Pierre and Miquelon, and Reunion all have the right to exercise a vote for elections in the European Parliament. The citizens of Greenland form a constituency and have a right to elect a member to the European Parliament. Not Gibraltarians—they are in Europe, while French citizens in the Caribbean, in the Indian Ocean and off the St. Lawrence estuary and Greenlanders are not.

Photo of Mrs Elaine Kellett Mrs Elaine Kellett , Lancaster

Is not the situation made more absurd in that the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not members of the European Community, whereas the people of Gibraltar are.

Photo of Bernard Braine Bernard Braine , Essex South East

Yes. As we consider the situation, it becomes stranger as we go along. My hon. Friend is right.

Where is the consistency, logic and morality of the position that we have allowed to develop with regard to the Gibraltarians, who are recognised by our EEC partners as citizens of the Community? We could choose to put the matter right by agreeing tonight to the new clause, advanced so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). But until we do we in the House have no right to talk of principle and to condemn Gibraltarians to remain second-class citizens. We have no right to talk of principle and to reject their natural claim to be United Kingdom citizens. We have no right to ignore their special claims.

I believe that it was Renan who said that a people are what they believe themselves to be. The Gibraltarians chose long ago to be British. They practise a British style of democracy, in quiet contrast to the great country to the north of them. Their education system is linked with our own. Those of us who know the people of the Rock know that their loyalty is to Britain, and that they feel British. Who among us could receive the letter of 28 May from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, Mr. Peter Isola, the Leader of the Opposition, and Mr. Bossano the leader of the third party in the Gibraltar Assembly and not fail to be moved by the sheer logic of its argument, and the strength of feeling and love for Britain that it revealed?

I submit that the House should reject the mean and dispiriting language of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in dealing with the just claims of the people of Gibraltar.

Photo of Mr John Tilley Mr John Tilley , Lambeth Central

As hon. Members said, in Committee the discussion on Gibraltar was part of the wider debate on the whole concept of citizenship of the British dependent territories, which we have not yet discussed on Report. I briefly remind the House that that is a new citizenship being created by the Bill, where the 17 remaining British colonies will share one citizenship. People in Hong Kong, the Pitcairn Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, which could hardly be more different geographically, historically, economically, and in their social and cultural patterns, will have a single citizenship.

It is worth repeating the point made in Committee. Both sides agree with the aim of the legislation to get rid of the ridiculous rag-bag citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies created in 1948, which is totally inappropriate these days. However, there is a serious danger of creating new anomalies and problems with the new rag-bag collective umbrella citizenship of the British dependent territories. We suggested in Committee that because of their different natures now and the likely pattern of different development over the next few years—indeed, over the next generation—there should be a separate citizenship for each colony for whom the Bill is supposed to be providing nationality guidelines.

First, I emphasise that we are not now discussing the question of splitting the citizenships of the dependent territories into individual citizenships. We are discussing the specific situation of Gibraltarians. We are not even discussing Gibraltar as a constitutional entity. New clause 7 does not change that at all. The relationship with Spain—the geo-political realities, to use the old Foreign and Commonwealth phrase—will not be changed by the clause. For that reason, I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

However, we cannot support new clause 6 and the amendment that takes Gibraltar out of the citizenship of the dependent territories altogether and puts it into the British citizenship category, so that all Gibraltarians would be British citizens on day one. The amendment has implications not only for the all-important relationships with Spain, which we do not wish to disrupt, but for the 16 remaining colonies and, most of all and particularly, Hong Kong. We fully recognise the delicate position of Hong Kong. We do not want to make things worse for the people of Hong Kong, but, having considered the matter at length—I am sure the Government would say exhaustively—in Committee, we are convinced that new clause 7 would not affect the position of any other colony.

I repeat briefly the reasons why we believe that there is a case for special consideration for the Gibraltarians as individual people. First, it is geographically by far the nearest of the dependencies to the United Kingdom. Secondly, it is the only dependency for which independence is legally impossible because, under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, if Britain gives up control of Gibraltar it returns automatically to Spain. Thirdly, it is the only dependency that is part of the EEC. The fact that under the Treaty of Accession Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EEC purposes has already been mentioned. That, too, applies only to Gibraltar. Fourthly, Gibraltarians already have rights of entry into this country. We know from the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and earlier today that the Bill is largely about who shall have the right of entry and the right of abode and who shall not. Gibraltarians have those rights not only as EEC nationals but—and this has perhaps not been emphasised enough—by the assurances given by the Labour Government in 1968 by the then Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Those four aspects are unique to Gibraltar.

I repeat that we do not propose to change the constitutional position of Gibraltar. A concession on citizenship is not the thin end of any wedge for full integration with Britain or any other change in the position of Gibraltar. For that reason, it should not upset people in Madrid or people in Hong Kong or any other dependent territory.

Perhaps I may pick up some of the points made by Conservative Members. I was grateful that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) mentioned that this was originally an all-party amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) had put their names to the original amendment. Indeed, although the impetus for this has come from all parts of the House, it seems to have come entirely from various parts of Scotland. The hon. Member referred to Joe Bossano as an independent member of the House of Assembly. He is in fact the leader of the Socialist Labour Party and a full-time officer of the Transport and General Workers Union. I should not wish the record to be wrong on that.

I turn to a point made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I, too, read the article inThe Guardian, although I was not sure that not having an MEP might not in some ways be a blessing in disguise, but I should hate to suggest that that was in any way personal to him or, indeed, to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who also intervened in the debate. Certainly, the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the greatest pressure and expression of opinion was from Gibraltar. As a member of the Standing Committee I can certainly confirm that there were more letters, more concern and more delegations from Gibraltar than from all the other colonies put together and, indeed, in many ways from any other group even in this country.

I conclude by commenting on the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who stressed the importance of Gibraltar in terms of our imperial history. I may not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on all analyses of the role and significance of the British Empire, but I remind Conservative Members that it seems that the old imperial maxim of "divide and rule" is being used today by the Government within this Chamber to set one group of Conservative Members against another. I suspect that the Hong Kong group has been stirred up to protect, as they are told, their interests against the Gibraltar group. I would simply advise all Conservative Members not to let themselves be used in that way. It did not work for long as a technique of imperial rule.

I suggest that hon. Members consider the merits of the issue and I hope that not only my right hon. and hon.

Friends but a majority of the House will support new clause 7, so that Gibraltarians as individuals are given the right, which we believe they have earned because of their unique position, to become British citizens if they so wish, as individuals.

Photo of Mr Paul Bryan Mr Paul Bryan , Howden 11:30 pm, 2nd June 1981

An impressive group of right hon. and hon. Members have put their names to the new clause. The group includes two former Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, one of them is now the distinguished chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I am, therefore, not surprised at their enthusiasm for Gibraltar or their wish to promote its interests.

However, I am surprised that with their Commonwealth background they do not realise the effect that the new clause may have on Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) gave a moving account of the Rock of Gibraltar's role in our history. Like him, I served in the Mediterranean during the war, and I agree that we should not have been there had it not been for Gibraltar.

But let us also look at the slightly less glamorous future and at what Hong Kong provides us with now. A couple of months ago we got the biggest order in the history of British industry from Hong Kong. It will give work to thousands of people in this country for many years to come.

Let me explain the effect of the new clause on relations with Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong did not want the Bill. They did not want any change in their status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, despite its lack of any right of abode. They feared that any change would be for the worse. Indeed, it would have been for the worse had it not been for the important amendments moved in Committee by my right hon. Friend.

The fear experienced by the people of Hong Kong stems from a widely and genuinely held feeling—particularly among the young—that Great Britain is gradually distancing itself from Hong Kong. I explained the reasons for that on Second Reading. However, they have eventually been convinced by the Governor and by the Government that in placing Hong Kong in the new category of citizens of British dependent territories they are being treated exactly on a par with all the other dependent territories. They have received that promise and assurance from the Government. It is not only a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said. A promise has been given, which will be broken if the new clause is passed.

If, at the eleventh hour, the clause is carried, what are we to say to the people of Hong Kong? If such a proposition had been put in the Bill's early stages, the people of Hong Kong would have claimed British citizenship just as the Gibraltarians are doing. If the new clause is accepted, there will be great pressure from the people of Hong Kong for them to be British citizens as well. What are we to say to the people of Hong Kong if the new clause is passed? Are we to say that Gibraltar is a special case? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In the eyes of the people of Hong Kong the opposite is true.

Gibraltar already has many enviable advantages. EEC status gives Gibraltarians easy entry into the United Kingdom, and work permits are available at will. That is denied to the people of Hong Kong. Gibraltarian students are classed as British, while Hong Kong students are treated as foreigners and have to pay much higher fees. I cannot overstress the sour impression that this has caused in Hong Kong, with its long tradition of British education.

If, in addition to those obvious advantages, Gibraltar is singled out from the dependent territories for British citizenship, a promise will have been not only broken but broken without a single mitigating circumstance.

Photo of Mr Gregor Mackenzie Mr Gregor Mackenzie , Rutherglen

I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. Everything has been said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) and by other hon. Members. I have been persuaded partly because representations have been made to me by Sir Joshua Hassan, by Peter Isota and by Joe Bossano, of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Indeed, Mr. Bossano is also leader of the Labour Party in Gibraltar. I have had representations from many people, and I understand their thoughts and views very well.

I make this appeal to the Home Secretary. He must not only consider the attitude of mind and the views of those important people in Gibraltar and of all Gibraltarians. He is also under a serious obligation to consider the views of the people who live in this country. I am not in favour of referendums in general terms and would not seek to persuade him to have a referendum on this issue, but if we were to ask the people of this country what they would like to do, I believe that they would want to give the Gibraltarians the rights that we would propose to give them in new clause 7.

It is not too late for the Home Secretary to listen to the views of Opposition Members and of his hon. Friends. We know that the Home Secretary is a very important member of the Government. He can change the brief. That is something that Under-Secretaries of State cannot do. He has heard the views expressed from both sides of the House appealing to him to change his mind. He is a big enough man, having heard these views, to change his mind and to do so quickly.

Photo of Mr Nigel Fisher Mr Nigel Fisher , Kingston upon Thames Surbiton

I have just returned from a week in Gibraltar, where deep and genuine anxiety about the Bill is not just widespread but universal. Business men, politicians of every party and the proverbial man in the street are all united in their fears and apprehensions.

I do not believe that Gibraltar's interests are in practice prejudiced by the Bill. I tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade all the people that I talked to that their fears are groundless. It is not that they question the good faith of the British Government today. They do not. Their fears are for the future. They know that the Foreign Office, under any Government, would like to establish better relations with Spain. They know that Gibraltar is an obstacle to better relations with Spain, and that at some future date this might become a problem for Britain, with the danger that, to placate Spain, Gibraltar might be sacrificed.

I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who is not in his place tonight, will not think me uncharitable if I say that his recent comments, made publicly in Gibraltar and in Spain, added fuel to the fears of the Gibraltarians. He said: Why should 20,000 Gibraltarians stand in the way of the interests of 36 million Spaniards and 50 million Britons? That remark sent a shiver down every Gibraltarian back, and it was quoted to me in Gibraltar last week again and again.

The Gibraltarians know that our resolve to support and sustain Gibraltar is implemented by Ministers on an administrative basis, and they are genuinely afraid that a future British Government might be tempted to improve its relations with Spain—perphaps through the Lisbon agreement—by abandoning Gibraltar. I tried to allay these fears because I do not believe that any British Government would let Gibraltar down. But the people there would feel much safer and much more secure if there were a statutory guarantee such as is suggested in new clause 7. That could not be interpreted in any other colony as discrimination in favour of Gibraltar, because no other colony has Gibraltar's special—indeed, unique—status under article 227 of the Treaty of Rome, through which Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EEC purposes.

That is the basis of their entitlement to special treatment, and it is unlike the position of any other colony. But apart from the European status, no other dependent territory has ever challenged the favourable treatment that Gibraltar has always enjoyed. It has never been invoked as a precedent by anybody else, so I do not think it could or would be used, for instance, in Hong Kong or even in the Falkland Islands, which I also support.

Nor are British interests affected in any way because there has been no immigration of numerical significance from Gibraltar to Britain at any time nor will there be in the future. In practice, therefore, no problem arises either for Britain or for Gibraltar. The problem in Gibraltar is, quite simply, psychological. All her institutions are British; her system of government, her judicial system, her public services, her educational system, her police force and even her radio and television services are all modelled on ours. Many of her trade unions are branches of trade unions in Britain, and, of course, her imports and tourists are almost entirely from this country.

There is one other point that I should like hon. Members to bear in mind. The people of Gibraltar have been under British rule and British protection for 270 years during which we have built up and used Gibraltar for our defence purposes, despite which the people still like us very much, which is rather warming and unusual in the modern world. It is no longer fashionable to talk of patriotism but people of my generation remember the days when the red on every school atlas and the power of the British Navy made us proud to be British.

Gibraltar remains as a reminder of those days. It has a special place in the hearts of English people, just as Britain has a special place in the hearts of every Gibraltarian, so this debate is really about people and how they feel. I understand very well how the Gibraltarians feel. I know how let down they would feel if their friends in this House did not support them. It is for that reason that I must, for the first time since about 1965, vote against my party in the Lobby tonight.

Photo of Mr Tristan Garel-Jones Mr Tristan Garel-Jones , Watford

I am sure every hon. Member will appreciate that the motives behind those who have supported the new clause are none other than the deep affection and loyalty felt by everyone in the House and in the country towards the people of Gibraltar. I was shocked to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) quoting remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I am sure that those remarks will be repudiated by every hon. Member, from whichever side of the House he may come.

Many hon. Members have referred to the importance of the relationship with Spain. The right hon. Meraber for Down, South (Mr. Powell), speaking in Committee, said that if the purpose of the new clause was carried through it would not make a significant difference to any future decision that the people of Gibraltar might take about their status or whether that might even mean a move towards Spain. He was probably right in saying that.

The only small contribution that I can make to this debate is to say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that he frequently protests to us late at night when orders are laid separately for Irish business instead of being included in general legislation.

Photo of Mr Tristan Garel-Jones Mr Tristan Garel-Jones , Watford

I am sorry; I should have said for Northern Irish business. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) immediately corrected me when I said "Irish" rather than "Northern Irish" business. The reason why the right hon. Member for Down, South is so assiduous in doing that, and the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington rightly picks me up on the point, is that that is perceived in Northern Ireland as affecting its position in the United Kingdom. Many of us may think that they are making niggling points. We know that the House is at one in wishing to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland is part of it. They know that a slight slip-up of the kind I have just committed can be perceived in Northern Ireland as undermining the closeness and unity of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom.

I am utterly convinced that the commitments that the Gibraltarians have had from this House as outlined particularly in the Gibraltar Constitution Order 1969 are copper-bottomed, and any acceptance of the clause would be perceived by the Spanish people as a move to thwart the warm and cordial relations now being built up between our two countries. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the clause.

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border 11:45 pm, 2nd June 1981

I have sought to take as little time as I can to give as many of my hon. Friends as possible a chance to speak. I hope, therefore, that I may be given the chance to make what is not a very easy speech, and that my hon. Friends will do me the courtesy of listening carefully to what I have to say, even where they may not wholly accept the position.

The clause was moved with great passion and feeling, which I fully appreciate, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie). As he said, it would not remove Gibraltar from the ambit of British overseas citizenship. Rather, it would entitle a citizen of the British dependent territories from Gibraltar to have British citizenship if he asked for it. The clause does this by enabling those who have the right of abode in a dependent territory to which article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome applies, and those who are United Kingdom nationals for European Community purposes through their links with such a territory, to be entitled to acquire British citizenship on application. Those who would benefit from the amendment would not have to meet any residence requirements and would be free to acquire British citizenship and the right of abode, without ever setting foot here and without, indeed, having any personal ties with this country.

In seeking to make a more coherent and logical system of citizenship, as we explained in the White Paper that we published last year, we were influenced by the argument that the status of the remaining dependencies should be positively recognised in citizenship terms. That is why we have created a separate citizenship of the British dependent territories, which is to be held by those who have ties with the dependencies and will be an accurate reflection of their status. It is not a second-class citizenship. We regard it as a parallel status to British citizenship, held on like terms.

Having created this citizenship, I believe that it would be wholly unacceptable to exempt one dependency from it. That is precisely the sort of anomaly that we sought to erase in the Bill in the first instance. The clause would make an exception for one dependency, which would lead to demands for others, which could scarcely be resisted.

Some of my hon. Friends, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), say that anyone who has his ear to the ground in Whitehall knows that this is all to do with Spain and nothing to do with Hong Kong. I find it surprising, though I suppose I must accept it if my right hon. Friend says so, that I do not have my ear to the ground in Whitehall. At least I have a voice that is heard in Whitehall. I make it heard, and I also hear what is said, because I listen sometimes. I tell my right hon. Friend quite categorically that the attitude that I am taking tonight has nothing whatsoever to do with Spain or with the Spanish position on Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend smiles, but he should recognise that, as Home Secretary, I am interested in the Bill. Of course, I have a collective responsibility with the Foreign Secretary, but this is my Bill and I have taken responsibility for it.

Let me explain why I think that exempting one dependency would be difficult and would raise questions from others. It would be impossible to explain to the Falkland islanders why they were not being made British citizens when the Gibraltarians were acquiring that status. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) said that he had great affection for the Falkland islanders and I have no doubt that it would be difficult to explain the difference in status to them.

It is no good anyone telling me that the people of Hong Kong would not demand similar treatment if we accepted the new clause and would not be deeply resentful if they did not get it. I know that they would, because they have told me so. In that case, I had my ear to the ground and I heard them say it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion will accept that I heard them correctly. It is important to accept that some other dependencies would also be resentful.

If we gave way to other dependencies, we would be back to where we are now, with an unsatisfactory position. Alternatively, we would have a new British citizenship with immigration commitments for the future which, I am sure, nearly every hon. Member would regard as unacceptable. It is important that I say that to the House. That is why I do not believe that we should give way on the amendments.

I accept that my hon. Friends have made an excellent case and I accept their emotional arguments. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that if I were in Opposition listening to a Labour Minister arguing against the new clause I would oppose him passionately. That must be a hypothetical argument, but I doubt whether it is true, because, surprising though it may seem—some people may think that I get very excited from time to time—I am not swayed by emotion on these issues to the extent that some might expect. The argument that if we gave way to one dependency we would be forced to give way to the others—with unacceptable immigration problems—is correct.

I find it hard to accept the argument of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) that new clause 7 would be easier for Hong Kong to accept than would new clause 6. The same problem would arise with either clause.

I have explained the simple and straightforward reasons why I cannot advise the House to accept any of the amendments to give Gibraltar a special position, but I fully understand the views put on behalf of the people of Gibraltar and I find it difficult to take the view that I have expressed. However, I am convinced that I should be wrong and irresponsible in the long run to take any other position.

I should make it clear that the creation of a citizenship of the British dependent territories does not alter our relationship with those territories. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton was fair enough to point out that he does not believe that the fears understandably felt in Gibraltar are full of sound sense. My hon. Friend believes that they are prejudiced in some way and that they are not genuine.

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border

I am sorry; I shall not give way. I am trying to finish my speech before 12 o'clock. I do not see why I should show any preference to the hon. Gentleman in giving way.

The Government have given specific assurances to Gibraltar. There is no question of the administrative concession that enables Gibraltarians to enter the United Kingdom freely being withdrawn as a result of the Bill. That concession is not affected by the Bill. Gibraltar has been give that assurance. We have made it clear that we intend to ensure that rights now enjoyed by the people of Gibraltar as part of the European Community should continue. Even if the circumstances that led to the administrative concession for Gibraltarians to enter the United Kingdom were to alter, we have made it clear that we do not foresee that Gibraltarians would normally face any difficulty in entering the United Kingdom as they wish.

I believe that these are important assurances. It is right that I should give them. Having made those points, I give way to the hon. Member for Inverness.

Photo of Mr Russell Johnston Mr Russell Johnston , Inverness

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he founds the whole of his case on the problem of the large population of Hong Kong. That is an inadequate response to the argument made on behalf of smaller dependencies.

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border

In my time in public life I have heard a great many arguments that a special case can be made which is not really a special case and that it will have no effect on the principle or associated problems. I do not accept that a special case can be made for Gibraltar without the consequences in relation to Hong Kong that I have outlined. That is why I oppose making a special case.

Photo of Mr Julian Amery Mr Julian Amery , Brighton, Pavilion

Will my right hon. Friend take the debate seriously? Two points that have been raised are that Gibraltar is part of the European Community and that as a fortress it can never become independent. Will my right hon. Friend address himself to those matters?

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border

I hope that my right hon. Friend is not suggesting that I do not take the debate seriously. I do, most certainly. I have made it clear why I do not believe that I could conceivably allow the House to accept the new clause, with the consequences that I believe would ensue.

I understand the arguments put by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members for making Gibraltar a special case. I do not believe, however, in the context of the Bill, that a special case can be conceded without consequences for Hong Kong that I cannot recommend the House to accept. That is the burden of my case. On that basis, I must ask the House to reject the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 273.

Division No. 197][11.57 pm
AYES
Abse, LeoDavis, Clinton(Hackney C)
Adams, AllenDavis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Allaun, FrankDeakins, Eric
Amery, Rt Hon JulianDean, Joseph(Leeds West)
Anderson, DonaldDempsey, James
Archer, Rt Hon PeterDewar, Donald
Ashley, Rt Hon JackDixon, Donald
Ashton, JoeDobson, Frank
Bagier, Gordon A.T.Dormand, Jack
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Douglas, Dick
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Beith, A. J.Dubs, Alfred
Benn, Rt Hon A. WedgwoodDuffy, A. E. P.
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)Dunlop, John
Bidwell, SydneyDunn, James A.
Booth, Rt Hon AlbertDunnett, Jack
Braine, Sir BernardDunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Bray, Dr JeremyEadie, Alex
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.Eastham, Ken
Brotherton, MichaelEllis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)English, Michael
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)Ennals, Rt Hon David
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Buchan, NormanEvans, John (Newton)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.Ewing, Harry
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)Farr, John
Campbell, IanFaulds, Andrew
Campbell-Savours, DaleField, Frank
Canavan, DennisFisher, Sir Nigel
Cant, R. B.Flannery, Martin
Carlisle, John (Luton West)Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Carmichael, NeilFoot, Rt Hon Michael
Carter-Jones, LewisFord, Ben
Churchill, W. S.Forrester, John
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)Foster, Derek
Conlan, BernardFoulkes, George
Cook, Robin F.Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Cowans, HarryFreeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Craigen, J. M.Freud, Clement
Crawshaw, RichardFry, Peter
Crouch, DavidGarrett, John(Norwich S)
Crowther, J. S.George, Bruce
Cryer, BobGilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Cunliffe, LawrenceGinsburg, David
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)Gourlay, Harry
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)Graham, Ted
Dalyell, TamGrant, George (Morpeth)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)Grant, John (Islington C)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)Parker, John
Harrison, Rt Hon WalterParry, Robert
Hart, Rt Hon Dame JudithPenhaligon, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyPowell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Haynes, FrankPowell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Healey, Rt Hon DenisPrescott, John
Heffer, Eric S.Race, Reg
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)Radice, Giles
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Home Robertson, JohnRees-Davies, W. R.
Hooley, FrankRichardson, Jo
Horam, JohnRoberts, Albert (Normanton)
Howell, Rt Hon D.Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Howells, GeraintRoberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Huckfield, LesRoberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)Rooker, J. W.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Janner, Hon GrevilleRoss, Wm. (Londonderry)
Jay, Rt Hon DouglasRowlands, Ted
Johnson, James (Hull West)Ryman, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)Sever, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)Sheerman, Barry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldShort, Mrs Renée
Kerr, RussellSilkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Kilroy-Silk, RobertSkinner, Dennis
Kinnock, NeilSmith, Cyril (Rochdaln)
Lambie, DavidSmith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Latham, MichaelSoley, Clive
Leadbitter, TedSpearing, Nigel
Leighton, RonaldSpriggs, Leslie
Lestor, Miss JoanStallard, A. W.
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)Stanbrook, Ivor
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)Steel, Rt Hon David
Litherland, RobertStoddart, David
Lofthouse, GeoffreyStraw, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. DicksonTaylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
McCartney, HughTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
McDonald, Dr OonaghThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
McElhone, FrankThomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
McKelvey, WilliamTilley, John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon GregorTinn, James
McNally, ThomasTorney, Tom
McNamara, KevinVarley, Rt Hon Eric G.
McTaggart, RobertWainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Magee, BryanWainwright, H. (Colne V)
Marks, KennethWalker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Marlow, TonyWalker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)Wall, Patrick
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Watkins, David
Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)Weetch, Ken
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)Welsh, Michael
Maxton, JohnWhite, Frank R.
Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinWhite, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Maynard, Miss JoanWhitehead, Phillip
Meacher, MichaelWhitlock, William
Mikardo, IanWigley, Dafydd
Millan, Rt Hon BruceWilley, Rt Hon Frederick
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Molyneaux, JamesWilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)
Morgan, GeraintWilson, William (C'try SE)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)Winnick, David
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)Winterton, Nicholas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)Wolfson, Mark
Morton, GeorgeWoodall, Alec
Moyle, Rt Hon RolandWoolmer, Kenneth
Oakes, Rt Hon GordonYoung, David(Bolton E)
O'Halloran, Michael
O'Neill, MartinTellers for the Ayes:
Orme, Rt Hon StanleyMr. Albeit McQuarrie
Palmer, Arthurand Mr. Neville Sandelson
NOES
Adley, RobertFox, Marcus
Aitken, JonathanFraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Alexander, RichardFraser, Peter (South Angus)
Ancram, MichaelGardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Arnold, TomGarel-Jones, Tristan
Atkins, Robert (Preston N)Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Baker, Kenneth (St M'bone)Glyn, Dr Alan
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Goodhart, Philip
Banks, RobertGoodhew, Victor
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyGoodlad, Alastair
Bendall, VivianGorst, John
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)Gow, Ian
Best, KeithGower, Sir Raymond
Bevan, David GilroyGray, Hamish
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnGriffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Blackburn, JohnGriffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Blaker, PeterGrist, Ian
Body, RichardGrylls, Michael
Bonsor, Sir NicholasGummer, John Selwyn
Boscawen, Hon RobertHamilton, Hon A.
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Boyson, Dr RhodesHampson, Dr Keith
Bright, GrahamHannam, John
Brittan, LeonHaselhurst, Alan
Brooke, Hon PeterHastings, Stephen
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)Hawkins, Paul
Bruce-Gardyne, JohnHawksley, Warren
Bryan, Sir PaulHayhoe, Barney
Buck, AntonyHeddle, John
Budgen, NickHenderson, Barry
Bulmer, EsmondHeseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Burden, Sir FrederickHicks, Robert
Butcher, JohnHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butler, Hon AdamHill, James
Cadbury, JocelynHogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)Hooson, Tom
Chalker, Mrs. LyndaHordern, Peter
Channon, Rt. Hon. PaulHowe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Chapman, SydneyHowell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)Hunt, David (Wirral)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Clegg, Sir WalterIrving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Cockeram, EricJenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Colvin, MichaelJohnson Smith, Geoffrey
Cope, JohnJopling, Rt Hon Michael
Corrie, JohnKaberry, Sir Donald
Costain, Sir AlbertKellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Cranborne, ViscountKershaw, Anthony
Critchley, JulianKimball, Marcus
Dickens, GeoffreyKing, Rt Hon Tom
Dorrell, StephenKitson, Sir Timothy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.Knox, David
Dover, DenshoreLamont, Norman
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)Lang, Ian
Durant, TonyLangford-Holt, Sir John
Dykes, HughLawrence, Ivan
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Eggar, TimLee, John
Elliott, Sir WilliamLennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Emery, PeterLester, Jim (Beeston)
Eyre, ReginaldLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Fairbairn, NicholasLloyd, lan (Havant & W'loo)
Fairgrieve, RussellLloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Faith, Mrs SheilaLoveridge, John
Fell, AnthonyLuce, Richard
Fenner, Mrs PeggyLyell, Nicholas
Finsberg, GeoffreyMcCrindle, Robert
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)MacGregor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir CharlesMacKay, John (Argyll)
Forman, NigelMacmillan, Rt Hon M.
Fowler, Rt Hon NormanMcNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)Rost, Peter
Madel, DavidRoyle, Sir Anthony
Major, JohnSainsbury, Hon Timothy
Marland, PaulSt. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Scott, Nicholas
Marten, Neil (Banbury)Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mates, MichaelShaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Mather, CarolShelton, William (Streatham)
Maude, Rt Hon Sir AngusShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mawby, RayShepherd, Richard
Mawhinney, Dr BrianShersby, Michael
Mayhew, PatrickSilvester, Fred
Mellor, DavidSims, Roger
Meyer, Sir AnthonySkeet, T. H. H.
Miller, Hal (B'grove)Speed, Keith
Mills, Iain (Meriden)Speller, Tony
Miscampbell, NormanSpence, John
Moate, RogerSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Monro, HectorSproat, Iain
Montgomery, FergusSquire, Robin
Moore, JohnStainton, Keith
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)Stanley, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)Steen, Anthony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)Stevens, Martin
Mudd, DavidStewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Murphy, ChristopherStewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Myles, DavidStokes, John
Neale, GerrardStradling Thomas, J.
Needham, RichardTapsell, Peter
Nelson, AnthonyTaylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Neubert, MichaelTebbit, Norman
Newton, TonyTemple-Morris, Peter
Onslow, CranleyThatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)Thompson, Donald
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)Thornton, Malcolm
Parkinson, CecilTownend, John (Bridlington)
Parris, MatthewTownsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)Trippier, David
Patten, John (Oxford)van Straubenzee, W. R.
Pattie, GeoffreyVaughan, Dr Gerard
Pawsey, JamesViggers, Peter
Percival, Sir IanWaddington, David
Peyton, Rt Hon JohnWakeham, John
Pink, R. BonnerWaldegrave, Hon William
Pollock, AlexanderWalker, B. (Perth)
Porter, BarryWaller, Gary
Prentice, Rt Hon RegWalters, Dennis
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)Ward, John
Prior, Rt Hon JamesWarren, Kenneth
Proctor, K. HarveyWells, John (Maidstone)
Pym, Rt Hon FrancisWells, Bowen
Raison, TimothyWheeler, John
Rathbone, TimWhitelaw, Rt Hon William
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)Whitney, Raymond
Renton, TimWickenden, Keith
Rhodes James, RobertWiggin, Jerry
Rhys Williams, Sir BrandonWilliams, D. (Montgomery)
Ridley, Hon NicholasYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Ridsdale, Sir JulianYounger, Rt Hon George
Rifkind, Malcolm
Rippon, Rt Hon GeoffreyTellers for the Noes:
Roberts, Wyn(Conway)Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Roper, JohnMr. Anthony Berry.
Rossi, Hugh

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Twelve o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned pursuant to Order 129 April].

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.