HC Deb 23 June 1971 vol 819 cc1521-33

In computing any compensation available to employees of state management, the relevant date after which entitlement should start should be the date of publication of this Bill.—[Mr. Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross

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

It is a simple Clause relating to staff and people employed, and relating to compensation. I hope that I will receive a much more sympathetic answer this time. If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been delegated to do this job, then our hopes rise.

The Clause states: In computing any compensation available to employees of state management, the relevant date after which entitlement should start should be the date of publication of this Bill ". The Bill was originally published in February. The point is that these people, since that time, have been in a position of considerable uncertainty. They were eventually told at a certain meeting what their position was with regard to con-pensation if and when they lost their jobs. The House has certain obligations when dealing with these people because they are civil servants who, by decision of the House, may well lose their jobs.

I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) will show the kind of attention to this problem that he has to the others. He is one of the few who have taken a continuing interest in the problems of the people concerned. Since February they have been uncertain as to what will happen to them, what kind of compensation they will receive and whether anyone will make any effort to see that their jobs continue or, if they do not continue there, whether they are to be transferred to another section of the Civil Service and, if they are, what this will mean in respect of removal, the tenancy of the house and so on.

This is where we are in a dilemma about taking the right amount of time to dispose of the properties and get the price. Certain people want the thing done as quickly as possible, because the longer this goes on the longer the un- certainty remains. When the Under-Secretary said in Committee that the Government expected the whole matter to continue for about another year, that meant about another year of uncertainty.

The Bill has still to complete its stages in the House tomorrow, and will then go to another place, where they have certain things taking up their attention which will continue to do so for some considerable time. But we can take it that it will probably be some time in July before the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That is a fair length of time for people to be left in an uncertain position, knowing that their compensation might be jeopardised if they took any precipitate step, but also knowing that they may let good opportunities of a job slip past them. That would not happen if the date of entitlement to compensation were fixed as the date of publication of the Bill.

This is a simple human problem. I hope that abstruse reasons such as not binding the Government are not advanced. The dilemma arises from what the Government have decided to do and how they have decided to dispose of the assets. They have left themselves little room for manoeuvre. Many of these employees will have had 18 months to two years of uncertainty. In that time, because of the conditions qua compensation and because disposal will start only after the Bill becomes law, their career in State management, which they were entitled to expect would continue for a long time, may well have been destroyed and they may well have lost the possibility of alternative employment.

The hon. Member for Stockport, North said that in the licensed trade a good husband and wife team—manager and manageress—are greatly sought after. Such a team could well desire a move. The move will cost them considerably in removal expenses and new furniture and will cause a complete upset. For the services they have given to the State they are entitled to normal compensation. If they accept a job between the date of publication of the Bill and such time as the premises are disposed of, they will be at a considerable disadvantage. On the other hand, the State can be equally disadvantaged; because who will want to fill a vacancy which may last for only a few months?

This is what the Government have let themselves in for because of the dogmatic decision to act in this way after all these years and sell off these properties. The rights and expectations of the individual must be properly recognised.

It may well be that in my haste in tabling this short Clause I have not selected the right words. If the Government accept the principle, there will be no Division. If they are not satisfied with the wording of the Clause, let them undertake to put it right in another place. If the Government will not accept the principle, I have no alternative but to ask my hon. Friends to support me by speech and by vote.

Mr. Ron Lewis

I support the Clause which has been so ably moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Up to now, we have not been able to extract one concession from the Government which will be of any benefit to employees. The Clause provides the Government with an opportunity to prove that they mean business. [Interruption.] I am sorry that it is necessary for a conference to take place between the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), whose area is affected by the proposal in the Bill. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Dumfries would support the Clause, because some of his constituents will be affected. Indeed, there should be a measure of support on both sides of the House for the Clause. We are dealing here with people, and if the people in his constituency who are employed in the State Management Scheme are not important to him, as they are to me, that will not be a good advertisement for him in Dumfries-shire when he has to give an account of his part in the Government's legislation and in doing his constituents and mine out of a little extra compensation.

If the hon. Gentleman will get up and speak, I will sit down. I realise that he is a Whip, but if he wishes to break the tradition of silence on an issue like this, I have no objections. No doubt his constituents would like to hear from him whether he supports the Government on this matter. Evidently, however, he does not wish to break tradition and, in remain- ing silent, he is condoning the fact that the Under-Secretary of State will, presumably, reject the new Clause. His constituents will suffer from his acquiescence.

I hope that the new Clause will be accepted because it is vital to people employed in the scheme. I realise that another conference is going on on the Front Bench between the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). If the Under-Secretary of State will listen, I hope that he can give some indication of the number who have already left the employ of the State scheme since the announcement in February. How many vacancies are there? Is there any difficulty in filling the vacancies?

If the Under-Secretary of State claims to be humane—as I believe he is—he will accept the new Clause and will not, I hope, brush it aside again and say that this is just another piece of Labour Party propaganda. We are dealing with people and I want to be sure that, on the demise of the scheme, and if they are not fixed up with other employment, the Government will be prepared to stretch the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act.

Mr. Garrett

I support the new Clause. There is nothing original in the proposal. These sub-committee meetings on the Front Bench opposite are getting monotonous. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), I cannot concentrate on my speech when I am talking to no one.

This is an important new Clause and the Government can establish a good modus operandi in industrial relations by accepting it, especially as they have been castigating the trade unions and some employers for bad industrial relations. Here is their opportunity to set a precedent for good industrial relations. What we seek is already established practice in many industries. For example, large companies like I.C.I. and D.C.L. in the private sector and British Railways and the National Coal Board in the State sector have established their own redundancy schemes, through a system of collective bargaining, which are quite irrespective of the State redundancy scheme. In such schemes, invariably the commencement of redundancy payments or compensation payments for loss of jobs starts on the very day of announcement of the closure of a factory or plant or certain operations. This has become an established part of collective bargaining. The Government would be just about bringing themselves level in what is already part of the normal system of industrial relations.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Golding

Even in normal times the uncertainty created among these workers by the Government would have justified the acceptance of this new Clause. These are not normal times. We have an unemployment figure of 800,000 and economists, journalists and political commentators estimate that there will be over a million unemployed in the winter. If the Government accept this new Clause they would be saying to the State workers, "You need not hang on to face a worsening labour market, you can leave while there is still some slight glimmer of hope of alternative employment." If the Government deny this to these workers they will be saying, "Wait until the unemployment situation is far worse so that you can leave with your 'loss of office' emoluments."

That is an important issue for the workers. For years these workers, as industrial civil servants, have accepted pay lower than they could have obtained elsewhere because of the security offered in their employment. The Government are taking that security away. The least that they can do is to let these people go with compensation at a time when they can find alternative work and not in the winter when there will be no possibility of them starting anew in another job.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)

I was not fortunate enough to sit on the Committee, but I have taken an interest in the Report stage. I have been moved to speak by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and I hope that some other hon. Member opposite will amplify the point that he has made. If I heard him correctly, he was saying that employees of the State in Carlisle have, over the years, been paid at lower rates than people in comparable employment in other parts of the country.

Mr. Golding


Mr. Waddington

I will give way in a moment. So that the hon. Member may follow the whole of my point—if I have misunderstood what he has said, I will gladly take a correction—I thought further that he was saying that they had taken lower basic wages because they had security of employment which was not afforded people employed in other areas.

Mr. Golding

I did not use the word "comparable" in any sense. I was making the point that I have often made as a trade union official in the Post Office, about people in the public sector, particularly those classified as industrial rather than non-industrial civil servants. It has been borne out by a Prices and Incomes Board report that these people have chosen to go into an employment which affords them a high degree of security rather than into different employment in the private sector.

Mr. Waddington

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up that point. It seems to me that the point he was making loses some of its force. If these employees in Carlisle were earning similar wages to those being earned by other people in other parts of the country, it hardly seems a strong point against denationalisation to say that one of the consequences of denationalisation would be that these people who had expected to remain in that employment all their lives are now prevented from doing so.

I cannot understand why Opposition Members are all that gloomy. From my limited knowledge of the liquor trade and having heard something this afternoon of the way in which it has apparently been expanding in recent months and years, I should have thought that anybody who had been employed in one of these State pubs in Carlisle and who had made a good job of it, as, according to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), all of them have, would have had no difficulty in finding a situation elsewhere, that he would find scope for his talents in other towns throughout the land, or in the new pubs which, apparently, are to be built in Carlisle.

Mr. Ron Lewis

The hon. Gentleman is talking about scope, but if all the pubs are bought by one brewer and he decides to close a number and to concentrate, many people will be thrown out of work. We are anxious that any such people should get a little extra if that is at all possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position in Carlisle is gloomy.

Mr. Waddington

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that comment, because it has taken me on to my next point. There have been many contradictions in the arguments of Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that he feared that one of the consequences of denationalisation would be that many more licences would be granted in Carlisle. If that happens, there will be more scope for employment for the very people for whose future the hon. Member for Carlisle is concerned. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that one of the consequences of denationalisation will be a free-for-all by the brewers, who will nobble the licensing justices, with the result that many more licences will be granted, and, on the other hand, that all those now employed in State pubs will find themselves suddenly unemployed. There is a plain contradiction there, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite did not see it.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) does not understand that there would be a change in the character of the job of someone now employed in a State pub in Carlisle who found himself employed in a private enterprise pub. Anyone who knows the liquor trade—and, like the hon. Gentleman, I do not often drink in pubs, but I know a little about it, as do most people—knows that the conditions of service in the private enterprise trade and in the Carlisle pubs are vastly different. Those in the former are not covered by the same pension schemes or security of employment as those of the latter. Anyone with any knowledge of the private licensing trade knows of the vast turnover in staff year after year, and should lead anyone who knows anything about management to question certain aspects of the private sector.

One or two important documents are floating around. One is the Code of Industrial Relations Practice. I shall not get involved in that. I simply point out that it is not enough for the Government to preach the basic principles on this piece of paper with the purpose of regulating the conduct of industrial relations and improving human relations. New Clause No. 8 is an acid test of the Government's sincerity in their alleged desire to treat workers properly. I ask him to bear in mind the edict of the Secretary of State for Employment to all employers—and the hon. Gentleman will answer as an employer—that the first regard should be to human relations and the human needs of the people they employ.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

I appreciate that the wish of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and of hon. Members who have spoken to the new Clause is to help those who may become redundant as a result of the Bill. I share with them the natural anxiety of the people involved in and affected by the Bill; I am not out of sympathy with them.

I should like to answer the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) about the number of staff who have left the State Management Scheme in recent months and the difficulties which have been experienced in filling the posts. I have not the exact figures. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, there is always in the State management system, as in the liquor trade and hotel trade generally, a fairly high turnover of staff and difficulties in obtaining staff. But, as far as we are aware, the fact of this Bill has not led to an increase in the turnover of staff or to any difficulty in filling vacancies. I apologise for not being able to be more precise.

The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock wished to be assured that in the interim period between the introduction of the Bill and the sale of the premises in which the people are working, those employed would be able to take up alternative employment without losing their entitlement to redundancy payments and without it affecting their terms of compensation. Despite what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said—and I am sorry that he is not present, although he contributed to the debate only a few minutes ago—about the conditions which he said were developing in other industries, we should be introducing a new principle into the terms of compensation in the Civil Service if we accepted the new Clause.

The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock would argue that the redundancy being caused by a decision of the Government and of the House creates special circumstances, but I do not think that the circumstances are all that different from the situation in the Civil Service when posts are wound up or jobs are cut as a result of other decisions. I see no difference of principle. The fact that this measure affects a fairly large number of civil servants at one time is not in itself cause for a breach of a well-established principle in the Civil Service.

9.0 p.m.

I would remind hon. Gentlemen that other cases like this do arise, and they have arisen, for instance, where defence establishments have been closed down. In some of those defence establishments industrial civil servants have been involved. As in this case, they are given the opportunity to transfer within the Civil Service when it is possible to give them transfers; where it is not, then they are paid compensation accordingly.

Therefore, while the right hon. Gentleman may argue that we are making a number of people redundant all at once, I do not feel that this case justifies a breach of a principle established and accepted within the Civil Service. For that reason, while I acknowledge the anxiety, and accept the good motives from which this new Clause is proposed, I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept it.

There are two other particular points which I would like to make. One was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). He was entirely right in what he said when he pointed to some of the inconsistencies in some of the arguments which we have heard from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. From the way in which they have spoken this afternoon and during the weeks in Committee one might think that we were destroying jobs altogether and that there would be no alternative employment in the liquor trade or in the retail trade in the State management districts. Yet, in the same breath, they have catigated us by saying that private enterprise is rushing in to take over the assets. If private enterprise comes in to take over the assets, that will be creating employment. Therefore, I certainly hope that there will be plenty of alternative employment—or, best of all, continuing employment—for those who have worked in the State management districts. Nevertheless, I feel sympathy with those who feel that they should seek other opportunities as they arise elsewhere.

Finally, I should like to make a point of a more technical nature. I have dealt with the principle of the new Clause, and I should like now to deal with one technical point arising out of it. It is the matter of the assessment of compensation and how it may be related to length of service. The new Clause proposes that it should be assessed from the date of publication of the Bill. That is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks. If someone has remained in the service of a State management district right up to the time when the asset with which he has been working is disposed of, that could be a considerable period after the publication of the Bill, because, despite what was said earlier, and despite what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have alleged, we are going to dispose of the assets in the way we think best, and we express the hope that it may be possible to dispose of them within a year. However, some of these properties, as my hon. and learned Friend argued earlier, could, for one reason or another, take longer than a year to sell. Equally, some people may be working in a State management district right up till the last minute. Purely in terms of service, it might not necessarily, in the extreme case, be a benefit to a person who remains in the service of a district up to the last minute that he should have his compensation assessed from the date of the publication of the Bill.

I do not put that argument forward as a matter of principle. That does not condemn the new Clause. I hope, however, that I have made it clear that both on the principle and in practical terms this new Clause presents difficulties. This being so, I must ask the House not to accept it.

Mr. Ross

I think that one of the worst of all reasons for asking anyone to reject an Amendment or a new Clause is a reason based on technicalities.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I did not.

Mr. Ross

No. The hon. Gentleman just added it and spoke for five minutes on it at the end of his speech, and that is the importance which he places upon it.

The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that every person involved here knows the details of the compensation scheme—I have a copy of it here—and that those people know whether or not by leaving their jobs a week before a certain date they would forfeit a year's compensation under the scheme—but surely, it is a matter for them to decide. The hon. Gentleman is objecting to the principle. He seems to think that this is comparable to the closing down of a defence establishment. A defence establishment is closed down on a particular date and everyone leaves at that time. The closure is usually announced in advance and people know all about it. The position of the people in Carlisle is entirely different. The consequences to the people in the brewery will be entirely different from the consequences to the managers of hotels and public houses. If someone takes over a brewery and closes it down, where will the expert brewery workers be employed? The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the trade Press, or even today's papers, otherwise he would understand how the large breweries work.

Individuals who are employed in licensed premises do not know whether they will be the first or the last to go or, indeed, whether they will go to a place which is not very enticing to a brewery purchaser and so they will linger on. Opportunities for managers of licensed premises are not thick and fast upon the ground. The best licensed premises attract the best people, and the opportunities are rare. To meet the conditions almost of slavery attached to the compensation provisions, these people must hang on until the last minute—or else! If they leave before then, everything goes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he shared our anxieties—

Mr Ron Lewis


Mr. Ross

I would not say that. I think it is just that there is a sacred rule which must not be broken. But this is an exception. This is unique. The people in Carlisle, over a thousand of them, were given no warning and we are under an obligation to them. I regret that it is left to the Under-Secretary of State to be so cruel—although perhaps not intentionally—and I hope that my hon. Friends will take the new Clause to a Division.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 162.

Division No. 391.] AYES [9.8 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Ellis, Tom Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Armstrong, Ernest Evans, Fred Kaufman, Gerald
Ashton, Joe Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Kelley, Richard
Beaney, Alan Ford, Ben Lamond, James
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Freeson, Reginald Latham, Arthur
Bidwell, Sydney Galpern, Sir Myer Lawson, George
Blenkinsop, Arthur Gilbert, Dr. John Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Ginsburg, David Leonard, Dick
Booth, Albert Gourlay, Harry Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Grant, George (Morpeth) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Bradley, Tom Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Loughlin, Charles
Buchan, Norman Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hamling, William McBride, Neil
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Hardy, Peter McCann, John
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Harper, Joseph Mackenzie, Gregor
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Maclennan, Robert
Concannon, J. D. Heffer, Eric S. McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hooson, Emlyn McNamara, J. Kevin
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Horam, John Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Marks, Kenneth
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Huckfield, Leslie Marsden, F.
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hughes, Mark (Durham) Meacher, Michael
Dormand, J. D. Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Mendelson, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Hughes, Roy (Newport) Millan, Bruce
Driberg, Tom Hunter, Adam Miller, Dr. M. S.
Duffy, A. E. P. lrvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Ogden, Eric
Dunn, James A. Janner, Greville O'Halloran, Michael
Eadie, Alex Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) O'Malley, Brian
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Orme, Stanley
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Sillars, James Weitzman, David
Pendry, Tom Silverman, Julius Wellbeloved, James
Pentland, Norman Skinner, Dennis Whitlock, William
Perry, Ernest G. Spriggs, Leslie Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Stallard, A. W. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Price, William (Rugby) Stoddart, David (Swindon) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Rankin, John Taverne, Dick Woof, Robert
Rees, Melyn (Leeds, S.) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Robrtson, John (Paisley) Tinn, James Mr. Alan Fitch and
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Torney, Tom Mr. John Golding.
Sandelson, Neville Varley, Eric G.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gibson-Watt, David Montgomery, Fergus
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Glyn, Dr. Alan More, Jasper
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Gower, Raymond Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Astor, John Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Atkins, Humphrey Gray, Hamish Mudd, David
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Green, Alan Murton, Oscar
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Grieve, Percy Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Bell, Ronald Grylls, Michael Neave, Airey
Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay) Gurden, Harold Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Benyon, W. Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Normanton, Tom
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Nott, John
Biffen, John Hannam, John (Exeter) Onslow, Cranley
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Body, Richard Haselhurst, Alan Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Boscawen, Robert Hawkins, Paul Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bowden, Andrew Hayhoe, Barney Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Peel, John
Bray, Ronald Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Brewis, John Holland, Philip Proudfoot, Wilfred
Brinton, Sir Tatton Holt, Miss Mary Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Hornby, Richard Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bryan, Paul Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Raison, Timothy
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Redmond, Robert
Buck, Antony Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bullus, Sir Eric James, David Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Carlisle, Mark Kaberry, Sir Donald Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Chapman, Sydney Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Rost, Peter
Churchill, W. S. Kilfedder, James Russell, Sir Ronald
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) King, Tom (Bridgwater) Shelton, William (Clapham)
Clegg, Walter Kinsey, J. R. Simeons, Charles
Cooke, Robert Knight, Mrs. Jill Skeet, T. H. H.
Cormack, Patrick Knox, David Speed, Keith
Costain, A. P. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Spence, John
Critchley, Julian Le Marchant, Spencer Sproat, Iain
Crouch, David Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stanbrook, Ivor
Curran, Charles Loveridge, John Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry McCrindle, R. A. Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James McLaren, Martin Tebbit, Norman
Dean, Paul Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. McMaster, Stanley Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) McNair-Wilson, Michael Tugendhat, Christopher
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Emery, Peter Mather, Carol Waddington, David
Eyre, Reginald Mawby, Ray Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fell, Anthony Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. White, Roger (Gravesend)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Meyer, Sir Anthony Wilkinson, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fookes, Miss Janet Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Fortescue, Tim Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fowler, Norman Moate, Roger Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Fox, Marcus Molyneaux, James Mr. Hector Monro.
Fry, Peter Money, Ernle
Gardner, Edward Monks, Mrs. Connie
Forward to