---

Column 958

natural justice survives, we cannot say to ourselves or to the public, "Hurrah--we have broken the boil. We have shown that wrong will be righted." We cannot do that.

From tonight we should have a Register of Members' Interests that is simple and sensible. We should ensure that we have a code of honour that we all understand, so that if we break it, we know that that is what we are doing. Let us not sit as a fatuous jury--some gone, some here--and pretend that we are doing justice in the name of the honour of the House. Let us say, "The man has done wrong. He has admitted that he has done wrong." Let us say, "We all accept that fact," and then, like Burns, let us say,

"The unco' guid should not stand in judgment, lest they be judged."

Tonight's procedure will be foolish if we do not understand that this partial jury should not exercise the concept of punishment. 9.23 pm

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn) : Unlike both the hon. and learned Members for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I do not regard this as a court room. When the Government introduced their anti-trade union legislation, I wish that Conservative Members had been equally worried about the rights of workers on the factory floor who do not have the defence of a lawyer. Although, as a result of that legislation, some of those workers could be sacked on the spot, I did not then hear any pleas on their behalf from those hon. and learned Members.

There has been a breach of discipline ; the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) has been good enough to admit that. Our credibility with the public would be in serious jeopardy if we did not opt for some type of suspension. For that reason, I am prepared to go along the road that the Leader of the House has asked us to follow.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Winchester. His greatest punishment is not the suspension that we might give him but the fact that his business has been discussed from about 5 pm until 10 pm tonight. He has apologised. He has done wrong and he must be accountable, but I have some sympathy for him.

As a family man, I know that our wives and families do not choose that we go into public life. Even in the good times, they often have to put up with the ridicule of neighbours and sometimes so-called friends. I should like to put it on the record that I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's wife and family in view of what they must be going through and must have already been through. I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), but he said that the Register of Members' Interests was full of items declared by both Labour and Conservative Members. He mentioned the fact that we declare our sponsorship by trade unions. I should not like any member of the public or the press to go away with the idea that union sponsorship and business interests are one and the same thing. They are not. I do not gain any financial benefit whatever from being sponsored by Manufacturing Science Finance. There is a great difference between that and hon. Members who take upon themselves jobs which pay £8,000 and sometimes £10,000 per annum into their personal accounts. It would be wrong for anyone to make that comparison.

---

Column 959

The Leader of the House also fell into that trap when he said that the House would be an empty place if we did not have jobs outside. I left school at 15 and went straight into engineering. I had a spell as a trade union officer and a spell as a councillor. I can draw on that experience, and I have done so ever since I came into the House. I defy anyone to say that I am a worse Member of Parliament because I have no other pecuniary interests. That is nonsense.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) cited the example of members of the 1945 Government. He could not have picked a worse example. The 1945 Government consisted of men who spent six years in the forces and knew what life was all about. They had travelled and had had to make decisions on the spot. They brought their experiences into the House and gave the House the best Government that we have ever known in the history of Parliament. I am not a great traveller with Select Committees but I have been on some Select Committee trips. There is an hon. Member in the Chamber tonight who went with me on a Select Committee trip to the far east. I was deeply embarrassed by the behaviour of some hon. Members on that trip. They would walk up to guests and Government representatives and say, "Here is my House of Commons card and here is my business card. I am into this business, that business and the next business." I have witnessed Select Committee Clerks of the House being deeply embarrassed because they knew that hon. Members were seeking information, not for the purpose of their work here in the House, but for the benefit of their outside interests.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Martin : No, I shall not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke for a long time. I shall not be long, but I have been here all day.

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) : Two minutes.

Mr. Martin : My hon. Friend tells me that I have two minutes. I wish that she had said that to other hon. Members who have spoken. Clerks of the House and Officers working in the Library have been deeply embarrassed when they have had to give information to Members knowing full well that it is not for the benefit of the House. I am sorry that we had to have a disciplinary hearing to discuss these matters. I hope that the Leader of the House will return with a motion so that we can talk, not about disciplinary action but about the uses to which hon. Members put the catering, Library and research facilities of the House. If hon. Members are honest, they will say that it is wrong to take money for their own benefit from outside organisations. They know full well that they are damaging the reputation of the House by doing so.

9.29 pm

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wholly spoilt the atmosphere of the debate by his partisan comments.

---

Column 960

As a junior Member of the House, I decided to speak because I believe that the media have hounded my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) for a considerable time. I share that experience. Twelve years ago, a national newspaper wrote an article on the Economic League which involved the company in which I worked at that time, and it mentioned me. It was recently regurgitated in the Hogarth press and now by the National Council for Civil Liberties, and so it goes on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) mentioned political wrongdoing. The NCCL does not look into the affairs of the Isle of Wight where the Liberal Democrats deposed school governors because they were Conservative. It does not look into how they hound Freemasons from council chambers.

Bernard Ingham was right to say to the press that today the media will not allow the facts to interfere with a good story. This week The Guardian carried on its front page an article which stated that Conservative councillors on the Isle of Wight would resign. That was wholly without foundation. It was the Liberal Democrats who said that they would resign if they were community charge capped. That is a good example of journalists deciding not to allow facts to interfere with a good story.

I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House said about outside interests, but I do not entirely agree with his remedy. The remedy of not being heard in the Chamber should be used by the House only for those who ignore either your authority, Mr. Speaker, or the rules of debate. To exclude my hon. Friend from the Chamber for breaking a rule of the House is not a proper use of the sanction. That is wrong. The House is the crucible for freedom of speech. If we infringe the rules, it should be a matter of note and investigation, which in this case it has been. Then it is up to the people to make a decision at the ballot box because they send us here. We should use lightly our right of excluding Members from the Chamber. We have the right of freedom of speech and we should deny it only to an hon. Member who disrupts the workings of the Chamber. In my maiden speech I referred to one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, who had to vacate the Chair because of financial misdoings. He represented Isle of Wight. That shows that these matters are hardly new to the House. Unusually, I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said that the House would be much poorer if hon. Members did not have financial interests, although he almost lost me when he started to defend accountants. He is absolutely right in saying that the House is the richer for that. Labour Members may be lecturers or shop stewards ; Tory Members may be lawyers and continue to practise. It rarely occurs to the House that the lifeblood of the nation is business, trade and commerce. That need must be represented properly in this House.

Sometimes the House gets into that sanctimonious mode of the lady in Belgravia who looks straight down her nose and says, "Ew goodness, he's in trade, is he?" Great Britain Ltd. and Great Britain plc must trade at a profit. The House must reflect a trading nation. It is improper to refer to events that occurred eight years ago. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that the people will be the final arbiters in this matter. I shall vote against the motion because I believe that my hon. Friend the Member

---

Column 961

for Winchester, having been sent here by his constituents, should continue to be heard in this House. The man who never made a mistake never made anything.

9.35 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Before asking the Lord President four concise questions, I wish him well when he goes to Brazil next week on our behalf in the hope that he can help them do something about the rain forests.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify the question about the precints of the House? Those of us who have been suspended have been politely, courteously but firmly escorted by the Serjeant at Arms--sword and all--to ensure that we get out of the precincts. The police keep a kindly eye on us to ensure that we do not come back to our rooms by a circuitous route. Would similar actions be taken in regard to what we are discussing today, or is it different if one says certain things about the Prime Minister?

Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member of Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) rightly asked about the Salmon committee. Paragraph 311 of that committee's report states :

"Membership of Parliament is a great honour and carries with it a special duty to maintain the highest standards of probity, and this duty has almost invariably been strictly observed. Nevertheless in view of our report as a whole"--

a considered and serious report--

"and especially in the light of the points set out we recommend that Parliament should consider bringing corruption, bribery and attempted bribery of a Member of Parliament acting in his Parliamentary capacity within the ambit of criminal law. Our recommendation is limited to this single point, and we do not raise any questions about other aspects of Parliamentary privilege and related matters."

Could we have the Government's view on the considered recommendation of the Salmon committee?

My third question arises out of personal experience, because I was reprimanded in distressing circumstances in 1967. Let no one pretend that those who are reprimanded by this House do not carry the scars for a long time. I plead with colleagues, however, to go extremely carefully down that road. When I went before the Select Committee on Privileges, I was asked an amalgam of questions, which were confusing and sometimes irrelevant. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was there, was very nice about it ; he may recollect the occasion. We had better be clear what such parliamentary investigations are about and are sparked off by what they purport to be about.

I do not think that we would be discussing this subject today had it not been for press reference to the matrimonial problems of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and, whatever else we are, we are a jolly bad matrimonial court. Moreover, had he not produced a totally unacceptable private Member's Bill, we would not be debating this matter today.

In my case, it was made clear some years after the matter that it did not involve security, chemical and biological weapons or any formula of that kind, or even about giving Lawrence Marks details of a Select Committee report which had been printed and which the Ministry of Defence knew very well did not contain anything that would damage our country. The late Sir Harry Legge-Bourke rather shamefacedly told me some

---

Column 962

years later that he had been approached by people in the Ministry of Defence who thought that I had been asking inconvenient questions on Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, Aldabra atoll and my Government's east of Suez policy, and they now had a chance to "get me" on a technicality.

We must be sure that we do not set up a system in which hon. Members can be "got at" for whatever reason, irrelevant to what the matter is supposed to be about. Therefore, I go along with those who would have liked the hon. Member for Winchester to be able to cross-question and confront those who were accusing him, as in a court of law. There is no substitute for that. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member never had the opportunity to cross-question his accusers. As every lawyer knows, it does not do merely to say that he could submit written evidence.

Frankly, amendment (d) which stands in my name, is in one sense tongue in cheek but it makes a serious point. If we are to have a six-hour debate on behaviour, let us discuss the behaviour of certain bigger fish in the House. Behaviour extends in all sorts of different ways, and doing that for which I would be suspended for five days were I indelicate enough to mention it, is also a matter of behaviour. We must strike some sort of balance.

9.42 pm

Dr. Cunningham : By leave of the House, I have been asked by a number of hon. Members to clarify what I said earlier. I thought that what I had said was quite clear, but I am more than happy briefly to reiterate my position.

I congratulate the Leader of the House--I omitted to do so earlier--on the wide consultations that he has undertaken before bringing any motion to the House. In principle, I support the proposals of the Leader of the House and I shall vote for the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) to be temporarily suspended from the House. I shall vote for the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and if that amendment is not carried, I shall certainly support the substantive motion in the name of the Leader of the House. I said, absolutely without equivocation, that I thought that motions to dismiss the hon. Member for Winchester from the House would not gain my support. However, it seems abundantly clear--I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has strong feelings about matters of discipline--that there is little point in having a Register of Members' Interests if the House does not move to have that Register's provisions enforced and upheld. The Select Committee unanimously recommended to the House that we should take action on this matter.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) rose

Dr. Cunningham : No, I shall not give way.

I have no difference of opinion with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), but I believe that sponsorship by a trade union in the House--I am sponsored by the GMB and have been as long as I have been a Member--does not bring me significant financial gain. However, it is a considerable material benefit to me and brings considerable financial support to my constituency party, election expenses and other people's salaries. To suggest that that is not a financial

---

Column 963

interest seems wrong. I have always declared it in those terms. In the Register I am said to have financial benefit from it. That is the honest way to describe matters.

I am not suggesting for a moment that financial sponsorship by trade unions enriches Labour Members of Parliament or adds to their bank balances, but there is no denying that it is of major significance.

Mr. Michael J. Martin : There is a big difference between a constituency party receiving £600 to spend as it pleases, and some hon. Members putting the proceeds from six or seven consultancies into their personal bank accounts.

Dr. Cunningham : Of course there is a quantitative difference, but we are discussing issues of principle to do with Members' financial interests, and I cannot deny that sponsorship by a trade union is a financial interest.

I hope that these remarks have clarified my position. I welcome the motion tabled by the Leader of the House. I shall vote for it, but first I shall vote for the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr.

9.47 pm

Sir Geoffrey Howe : With the leave of the House, I want to respond first, lest I forget, to the message transmission asked of me by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I shall try to think of him throughout my time in Brazil.

Turning to more serious issues, I believe that there has been a great deal of common ground in this long debate. On both sides of the House there has been a great understanding of the anguish faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), not excluding the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow--that there is no justice about where the lightning strikes in terms of publicity.

There has been wide admiration for and acknowlegment of my hon. Friend's apology. The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for reminding us of the case for sympathy with my hon. Friend's wife and family.

On the other hand, there has been equally widespread recognition of the importance of upholding the proprieties that we have been discussing throughout the day, graphically expressed in different ways by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Both had a clear insight into the dangers with which we have been concerned. Out of all that, a great deal of common ground has emerged.

First, there has been real concern about the need to be above reproach, as far as we can be, in relation to conflicts of interest. Secondly, there is recognition of the formidable difficulties of definition and judgment to which the Select Committee was invited to address itself. Thirdly, and perhaps most strikingly, on both sides of the House there has been real anxiety about the procedural problems of trying to reconcile the best efforts of my hon. Friend the Member Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his Committee with the requirements of natural justice--including the issue of limitation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire,

---

Column 964

North (Mr. Biffen) have identified the need to try to refine and improve the procedures for investigation of matters of this kind. In response, I say only that no one should underestimate the immense difficulties of designing an alternative procedure which will comply to the full extent required with the rules of natural justice. We must take great care not to have too high expectations in that respect.

The House will be glad that the Select Committee is ready to study both subjects referred to it by my second motion. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden recognised the need, as did the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, to pay special attention to the problem of lobbyists, but not in the direction of any relaxation of our guard in that respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham emphasised that there was a considerable job of policing to be done.

When the Committee addresses itself to that, I hope that it will take account of the warning uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) against inclining too much in the direction of too much law. Those of us who heard the speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) were not surprised to hear him utter what was, in effect, a reductio ad adsurdum of the legal position with a touching but terrifying faith in the capability of the legal process.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) : My right hon. and learned Friend has just referred to the significant speech by our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Did he hear him recommend that the apology by our hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) should be taken as enough? Given the revision of the rules that my right hon. and learned Friend recommends, would it not be advisable to leave aside the question of more precise penalties and follow the advice of our right hon. Friend and leave this matter to the electors of Winchester?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : It was because I heard clearly the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that I intend to deal with that matter at the appropriate time in my speech. Perhaps I may conclude my observations on the second motion. The House will welcome the fact that the Select Committee intends to address itself to these matters.

The first motion raises the question of what penalty, if any, would be appropriate in this case. Effectively, there is a choice between the recommendation in my motion of a suspension of 20 days and the recommendation in the motion standing in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) which suggests that there should be no suspension at all.

The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow--I should like to have the hon. Gentleman's attention--is that Members ordered to withdraw from the House under Standing Order No. 42 or suspended under Standing Order No. 43 must withdraw forthwith from the precincts of the House. A Member suspended from the service of the House on a motion not made pursuant to that Standing Order is not excluded from the precincts of the House unless the order for suspension expressly provides for that. That is the

---

Column 965

distinction. Remuneration is not withdrawn except in consequence of a special order of the kind that I propose here.

The choice lies between two alternatives. I emphasise that the choice should be made upon the basis of the candid acceptance by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester of the finding of the Select Committee. The House was impressed by that acceptance, and that is an important point of knowledge because it overcomes the anxieties of hon. Members about the procedures. Those procedures are far from ideal. They are to be examined but, as some hon. Members have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has nevertheless candidly acknowledged the shortcomings that were alleged against him. That is the basis upon which we have to decide what to do.

What are we addressing? Are we addressing ourselves to a matter of criminal law? The answer is most certainly not. Are we addressing ourselves to a matter of political judgment? Again the answer is most certainly no. That distinction was clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. We are addressing a question of impropriety in a professional respect in relation to the standards that the House seeks to set for hon. Members of all parties. That is a perfectly familiar concept which should not be dismissed because it does not fall into any of the other categories.

In my days at the Bar--now long ago--I spent many weeks appearing before the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council and other professional bodies. Professionals were invited, in proceedings short of an ordinary law court but nevertheless operating under the rules of natural justice to pass judgment on their peers. That is what we are expected to do in this case and there is nothing intrinsically wrong in that.

How are we to choose between the two penalties that I have identified? It is argued that a suspension of one month is insubstantial and, according to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), no more than a slap on the wrist. The same point was made rather sanctimoniously by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

On the other hand, it is said--this point was made strongly by a number of my hon. Friends, and certainly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup--that the very fact of conviction, the exposure and anguish of the months that have gone by, and the jeopardy to a wider career represent sufficient punishment already for my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. We have been urged and invited--quite properly--by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside to take account, in every respect, of the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester.

Mr. Donald Thompson : Before the Leader of the House mentions my name, which is one of those in which the amendment stands, may I say that I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) said. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, our most important task is to represent our constituents. We are elected by our constituents, and we are called honourable. I did not think that my hon.

---

Column 966

Friend for Winchester, whose apology was otherwise admirable, considered his constituents. Therefore, I shall not support my own amendment tonight.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his position clear in that respect. Nevertheless, I think that I should address myself, as I was doing, to the argument that has been supported by his co- sponsor.

I was dealing with the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, which was criticised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in regarding that as quite unjustified. It is perfectly proper for this House to take account of the record of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, but the question remains--to what judgment are we to come? The dilemma was identified most correctly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, and I shall close my remarks by returning to that question. I put the question before the House not in any sense as a prosecutor-- [Interruption.] I should like to have the attention of the House while I try to focus on exactly what that question is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North asked what was the motive which led my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester to act as he did. Was it an inadvertent oversight, or was it a conscious and acknowledged misjudgment? That is one way of putting it. My right hon. Friend complained that that had not been precisely found by the Select Committee.

That may be the position, but the question was also rightly put from a different point of view by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), when he asked what judgment on that question is consistent with our duty of ascertaining the seriousness of our view about the importance that we should attach to the rules that we formulate. That is one approach that we have to have in our minds as we try to answer the questions posed by my right hon. Friend. The best that I can do, in inviting the House to look at that matter, is simply to remind hon. Members of the terms in which the Select Committee dealt with the two allegations that it upheld. Those terms are to some extent enlightening. In paragraph 65 of its report the Committee says :

"We consider that Mr. Browne should have declared both the client relationship and the foreign payment. A substantial payment from a foreign Government to a Member, or to a company controlled by a Member, is precisely the kind of interest for which the rule was framed. Such a payment is at least as likely to influence a Member's conduct as a sponsored visit. If such payments are excluded, it is difficult to see what benefits (other than an occasional Gold Watch given to a member of a Parliamentary delegation) category 7 would cover. We therefore uphold the complaint."

Those are the terms in which the Committee deals with that matter. In respect of the second matter it says :

"We believe that Mr. Browne's assistance in approaching contractors and in writing to Ministers appreciably enhanced Mr. Chidiac's chances in playing a role in arranging contracts any of which would have given him a substantial commission. In our view it is beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Browne had in effect a client' relationship with Mr. Charles Chidiac, founded on the Selco East retainer of £2,400 per annum (although, in fact, only £1,600 appears to have been paid) which influenced his parliamentary actions and conduct and which should have been declared on the Register. We uphold this part of the complaint."

It is entirely a question for the House to decide as to what insight that offers into these conjoined questions--the scale and nature of the misconduct acknowledged by

---

Column 967

my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, and the conclusion at which we should arrive in determining what judgment is proper in asserting the importance that we attach to the rules that have been commended by Members on both sides of the House. For my part, I stand by the terms of the motion, but I am content to leave the matter to the House.

Amendment proposed : (a), to leave out from Winchester' to end of the Question.-- [Mr. Colvin.]

Question put, That the amendment be made :--

The House divided : Ayes 67, Noes 237.

Division No. 107] [10 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Ashby, David

Batiste, Spencer

Bendall, Vivian

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Buck, Sir Antony

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Cash, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Colvin, Michael

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Critchley, Julian

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Dover, Den

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Gardiner, George

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Gorst, John

Hague, William

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Hawkins, Christopher

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Janman, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Knapman, Roger

Knowles, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Madel, David

Miller, Sir Hal

Mills, Iain

Mitchell, Sir David

Moate, Roger

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Monro, Sir Hector

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Pawsey, James

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Powell, William (Corby)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shelton, Sir William

Shersby, Michael

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Tracey, Richard

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Wolfson, Mark

Tellers for the Ayes :

Miss Ann Widdecombe and

Mr. Patrick Cormack.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Adley, Robert

Allen, Graham

Alton, David

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Ashton, Joe

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkinson, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Beckett, Margaret

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Benyon, W.

Blair, Tony

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Bowis, John

Boyes, Roland

Brazier, Julian

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Buchan, Norman

Buckley, George J.

Burns, Simon

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Canavan, Dennis

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Cartwright, John

Chapman, Sydney

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cran, James

Crowther, Stan

Cryer, Bob

Cunningham, Dr John

Dalyell, Tam

Day, Stephen

Devlin, Tim

---