§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this amendment we may take the following amendments:
No. 86, in page 29, line 25, leave out Clause 38.
No. 87, in page 30, line 13, leave out Clause 39.
§ Mr. PriorThese three amendments seek to leave out certain clauses concerned with maternity payment. We are not against maternity payment as such. We are against the scheme which puts the responsibility for the payment on the employer.
We have just had a very interesting debate in which three hon. Ladies on the Government side took part, and the more one listened to that debate the more one became convinced that it would be a far better scheme to have the maternity payment on the national insurance contribution basis rather than to have the responsibility placed on the individual employer, as it is at the moment.
One of the points made very strongly was that it was very unfair on perhaps the youngest and poorest of women, who were not employed for a period of two years, that they received no maternity payment. I would have a good deal of sympathy with the case made by the hon. Lady if she had gone on to say that 288 therefore it would be much better if the State took over responsibility for this. It would be much fairer if the State were responsible, and if it charged all employers equally for the cost of this benefit.
If that were done it would also not discriminate against the employment of women. There is a real danger, under the scheme as it is now, that women will be discriminated against in terms of employment, and particularly women of child-bearing age. That is another reason for our believing that this would be a better scheme if administered through the State.
With the exception of the Republic of Ireland, all EEC countries now have legislation which guarantees maternity leave and maintenance of income, or compensation for loss of earnings. In most EEC countries the State system provides the insurance, and we believe that that would be a far more satisfactory way of carrying this out than through the employer.
We have all, I have no doubt, had letters from constituents, particularly those who employ large numbers of women, pointing out the position that arises with the pension entitlement for women at 60 and the operation of the Equal Pay Act 1970. As one employer wrote in a letter to me:
The natural result will be that women will become less attractive to recruit by virtue of the maternity benefits proposed in the Bill which put an added burden on the employer.We believe very strongly that, while there is a very good case, and one which should be honoured, for the payment of maternity benefits in this way, as it is carried out by all the countries of the EEC, it is quite wrong to place this burden on the employer. It is wrong from the point of view of women. It is unfair for those employers who employ large numbers of women. It discriminates against the employment of women. It will have an effect which is precisely the opposite to the one the hon. Ladies, who have been arguing so strongly on the last two amendments, wish to see. For all these reasons we have put down the amendments to leave out these three clauses, as a protest against the method that the Government have adopted.The Under-Secretary of State has already given us an indication of the cost. The cost will be heavy for certain 289 employers employing large numbers of women, but it is a cost that the nation us a whole, and employers as a whole, could bear quite reasonably. It is not something that we would wish to press at this stage, but we think that, as the rest of the EEC has this benefit, we ought to have it as well. But we are extremely worried about the way in which the Government are setting about it. We think it will be unfair and discriminatory, and we hope very much that the Government will think again on these clauses, and recognise the strength of the feeling there is that it is a matter for the State to provide, and not for individual employers.
§ Mr. GrimondThe employment of women is a matter of the very greatest importance in my constituency, particularly in Shetland, and therefore, apart from the general considerations, I hope that the House will forgive me if I mention a few particular considerations in relation to this amendment.
I am wholly in favour of women being paid and, indeed, given leave for pregnancy, and I am in favour of all maternity benefits, but I hold the view that this is an obligation on the community and not upon the employer.
In Shetland for generations the women have played a major part in the economy. Traditionally they very largely ran the agriculture of Shetland. They maintained the crops while the men were away at sea. They are the mainstay of the knitwear industry today.
At this time the whole economy of Shetland is under severe strain as a result of the oil development, and the danger is that, when the oil boom is over, we shall find that the oil magnates have gone and that our traditional industries are left depressed, without labour, capital or markets.
I have constantly urged, not only upon this Government but upon their predecessors, that if they seriously talk of planning they ought to look at the economic effects of oil upon a community like Shetland, as well as its effect upon the environment or upon the nation as a whole. Labour is leaving the traditional industries, particularly knitwear, fishing and so on, to go into oil.
The knitwear industry, which employs a very great number of women, is organ- 290 ised in small units. The knitwear industry in Shetland is in for a difficult time, like all textiles. It is run by businesses which have no great capital resources. If, on top of their present difficulties, these businesses are to have the whole responsibility for maternity pay, there is no doubt that this will do additional harm to the industry. It will also reduce the opportunities for the employment of women.
Let us be in no doubt about it. This will do immense damage to women in Shetland and, I suspect, in other parts of the country as well. I do not see why this maternity benefit is not regarded as a national or community responsibility.
Similar obligations are taken on by the State on behalf of the people. If the knitwear industry in Shetland, and I suspect in other parts of Scotland, is to be saddled with unknown and possibly large obligations in addition to the current difficulties, it will be chary of taking on girls, as will other industries. It will be left to the big companies, which admittedly will be able to support this charge, to give such employment as is available. There is not much employment open to girls. The men in Scotland are offered large wages in the oil-related industries, but high wages have not yet percolated to women. Therefore I ask the Government to think again about this matter.
It may be said that employers underpay women or that husbands underpay wives for working their crofts. Until recently no one in Shetland was paid much. Its economy was poor. The trade unions have not been in the forefront of offering equal pay to women. On the contrary, they have maintained restrictive practices, have kept women out of jobs and have shown no enthusiasm for paying women the full rate. I agree that this obligation exists, but to put it on the small employer instead of the State will harm the economy and the chances of employment for the women and girls about whom we are concerned.
§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)A higher proportion of women are employed in Leicester than anywhere else in the country.
These matters are of concern, although we must not exaggerate the effects of maternity benefit. I have discussed this matter with employers in Leicester and elsewhere. I have not found that employers fear the effects of this provision. 291 With few exceptions employers will be able and willing to meet this payment. The benefit will apply only to people who have been employed for two years, and is not likely to occur on many occasions in a person's working life.
Sometimes women do jobs as well as men and occasionally, where skilled fingers and dexterity are required, better than men. I do not believe that this clause will affect women's chances of employment or unduly overload the economy. There is anxiety about the textile industry in Shetland and other centres, and the employers in Leicester do not want to undertake any additional burdens if that can be avoided. On the other hand, to say that the State should pay the whole amount is not the correct approach. Women bear children once or twice in their working life. The occasional expense of maternity benefit can be borne by employers.
I refer to Clause 43 and the question of dismissals. We must consider each clause in isolation—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Although we are proceeding at a good speed, the hon. and learned Member is moving even faster.
§ Mr. JannerYou are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, with respect, it is difficult to deal with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman in total isolation. To understand the effect of the clause, we must look at it as a whole and in the light of other legislation. I believe that the Opposition have mounted their artillery against the wrong target. This provision should remain unaltered.
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerThe Opposition put the case succinctly. I shall be brief, but I hope that they will accept that I recognise the importance of their argument.
I welcome the attitude of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) towards these provisions, which they both welcomed. They quarrel about the way in which these provisions are to be financed. We see these provisions as part of the employer's social obligations to his employee. They are reasonable costs for him to bear as part of his responsibility as an employer.
292 Hon. Members will have heard the blast directed at me by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). That shows that there are strong views the other way, although they were not expressed in this short debate from all parts of the House.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has not fully studied these provisions for financing. He said that the employer was being asked to bear the full cost. The employer is being asked to supplement the State maternity allowance so that employees' earnings can be maintained during a period, for them, of heavy expenditure and when the loss of earnings, especially for a single-parent family, could have serious implications. The suggestion that earnings should be maintained by means of the State paying 100 per cent. of the earnings would put maternity allowances out of line with all other social security benefits.
The social security system is based on a flat-rate benefit plus an earnings-related supplement. However, the total benefit ceiling is 85 per cent. of employees' average weekly earnings. We think that it will be unacceptable for maternity allowances to be put out of line with the rest of the system.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft referred to the practice in the EEC countries. I recall that we discussed this in Committee. I drew a parallel with West Germany, which I think is a fair analogy. In many ways West Germany reflects the United Kingdom. It has a comparable population, working population and industrial pattern. Although Germany is perhaps the exception rather than the rule, we have almost entirely adopted the German pattern of maternity benefits. In Germany there is a topping up by the employer, who makes up the difference in excess of 25 deutschemarks per day. We have that kind of provision in the Bill. In the last resort it is a matter for the judgment of the Government about which way to go. We have decided that the way proposed in the Bill is right.
§ Mr. PriorI am disappointed at the reply of the Minister, especially his reference to the fact that making an additional payment out of the National Insurance Fund would put the benefit out of line with other social security benefits. I do 293 not think that that is a strong reason for not doing so now.
I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that this will bear extremely hard on women's employers. It will have the effect of making the employment of women more difficult in some areas. The same point applies to the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who said that he thought employers should bear this charge. The employers in his constituency do not take that view.
The knitwear and hosiery industries have been foremost in their complaints that the scheme should be borne by the State, but they are quite prepared to make their contribution as employers towards it. They are worried about the impact it will have on the employment of women of child-bearing age. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that not just the employers in his constituency but the employees as well will be disappointed. Their job opportunities, which are already looking bleak, will be made a good deal bleaker.
I hope that the Government will give further consideration to our arguments during the passage of the Bill through another place. If we are to move, as the Germans have, to a system whereby the employer and not the State is responsible for the payment of many benefits, it will be necessary to consider the taxation level, the profitability level and the whole prosperity of individual firms.
In Britain we have for many years moved along the lines of a State insurance fund, and I am certain that that is the right way to proceed. The proposal will place additional burdens on employers, whether in the knitwear industry, in Orkney and Shetland, or in my constituency engaged in the manufacture of television sets or food processing, and it will make it more difficult for women to be employed.
§ Mrs. WiseI should be more impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the unfairness between employers in trades employing many women and other employers if, instead of moving the deletion of the whole clause, he had moved to substitute a system of levy on all employers. If that system were adopted there would be 294 no discrimination and it would not be unfair on particular groups of employers.
§ Mr. PriorI am grateful to the hon. Lady because she is firmly on my side. In what she said she accepted the principle of a levy on every employer. If there is a levy on every employer to meet the cost of the maternity payment, the best way to do that is through the employer's insurance contribution. That is what we have been arguing all the way through. It should be a levy imposed on every employer, according to the number of employees, through the ordinary insurance fund. That will put the payment fairly and squarely on all employers regardless of whether they employ men or women of child-bearing age.
§ Mrs. WiseI do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand my argument. I do not support his line of thought. There is a vast difference between a levy for a specific purpose which would have to be used for that purpose and simply absorbing the cost into the employer's share of the insurance contribution, which would lead to a diminution of interest in maternity benefits.
§ Mr. PriorI do not think so. We already know the estimated figure for the maternity payments. In many other countries—in most EEC countries—service qualifications are not required before a woman becomes eligible. It could all be done on a levy basis but, for convenience, collection would be through the insurance fund.
§ Mr. GrimondIf there were to be a levy on all employers for the difference between what is paid and what should be paid, in my constituency the oil companies which employ practically no women would have to pay—and perhaps make up for the alterations they had made to the economy. If the levy were entirely on the knitwear industry, the opportunities for the employment of women would be decreased, the oil companies, which are well able to pay, would be left untouched and, furthermore, women's lib would be set back. Shetland has been far in advance of the rest of the country in women's lib. They virtually run the place because women can get employment there.
§ Mr. PriorI entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is much the most sensible way to do it. There is agreement between the various parties in the House that we have been backward in maternity payments. There is still some division between the parties about the qualification period. We were not prepared to vote for a short period of qualification so long as the burden was placed on the employer, but if the burden were placed fairly on all employers, whether they be rich oil employers, poor knitwear employers or farmers, there would be general agreement, and I beg the Government to reconsider the clause.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerMay I clarify the right hon. Gentleman's position? He seems to be adopting a different position from that which he took in Committee. Is he now saying that the scheme should be financed through social security? Is he saying that the additional money that will be required to finance the scheme should be raised exclusively from increased employers' contributions?
§ Mr. PriorYes, certainly. The employers as a whole should pay. That would ensure that there was no discrimination against the employment of women. That is by far the fairest way. If the Government would give us an undertaking to think about it again we should not press the amendment to a Division. Unless the Government are prepared to give us that undertaking, we shall press it.
§ Mrs. HaymanThe right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the eligibility of the employee if there were to be a national insurance link. At present the maternity allowance is paid only to women who have paid the full contribution. Some women eligible for maternity pay as the Bill stands are eligible for nine-tenths of their weekly wage minus a sum which they do not receive because they have not paid the full contribution. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will get into difficulties with his scheme unless he repudiates the married women's option so that all women pay the full contribution and get the full benefit.
§ Mr. PriorWe should not get into anything like the difficulties under the scheme we have put forward as will arise under the existing scheme, which is highly dis- 296 criminatory against women. There should be a method whereby for the purposes of maternity benefit a married woman who has not paid the full contribution will be entitled to the maternity payment. There need be no difficulty over that. At present the married woman who does not pay the full contribution will be entitled to maternity payment from the employer. I do not see why under our proposal she should not have the same entitlement. It is for the DHSS to work out a proper scheme. I hope that such a scheme will go some way at least towards providing qualifications which will cover more women than it is possible to cover under the Government's scheme.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerI hope that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) will not think I am accusing him of shifting his ground when I say that he has presented a different argument today from that which he presented in Standing Committee. It may be that I did not follow his argument with sufficient care or understanding in Standing Committee. However, my understanding of the case he has put forward this afternoon is very different from my understanding until now.
At this late stage in the passage of the Bill it would be foolish for me to try to use words that would unduly raise hopes. Certainly there are formidable difficulties in the way of proceeding along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. The most full and detailed considerations will be required with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services about how such a scheme, as has been proposed, could effectively be woven into our social security provisions. Equally I understand that there would be technical difficulties about introducing the proposals in another place because of the financial considerations involved and so on.
Although I recognise the formidable difficulties and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are asking us to take a very radical departure from the very firm line that we have adopted until now, it would be wrong, in my view, for me not to be able to say to him, "Yes, of course, we ought to think about what you have said" 297 However, it would be wrong if I raised unfairly hopes that had no foundation, and, perhaps appeared to do so in order to avoid dividing the House. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to divide the House I have no objection, but I say quite frankly that we shall still look very carefully at what he has said.
§ Mr. PriorThat is a fair enough reply. We should like to divide the House. We hope that the Government will understand
§ that as far as the Opposition are concerned we believe that by far the best way of carrying this out is through the employer's insurance contribution. If we did not make that clear in Committee I apologise.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes, 189, Noes, 219.
299| Division No. 325.] | AYES | [6.32 p.m. |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Griffiths, Eldon | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) |
| Alison, Michael | Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Pardoe, John |
| Arnold, Tom | Grist, Ian | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Awdry, Daniel | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Penhaligon, David |
| Baker, Kenneth | Hampson, Dr Keith | Percival, Ian |
| Banks, Robert | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) | Peyton, Rt Hon John |
| Beith, A. J. | Hastings, Stephen | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Hawkins, Paul | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hayhoe, Barney | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Blaker, Peter | Henderson, Douglas | Raison, Timothy |
| Body, Richard | Holland, Philip | Rathbone, Tim |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hooson, Emlyn | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Brittan, Leon | Howell, David (Guildford) | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) |
| Brotherton, Michael | Hunt, John | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hurd, Douglas | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Buck, Antony | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Jessel, Toby | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Carr, Rt Hon Robert | Kershaw, Anthony | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Kimball, Marcus | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | King, Tom (Bridgwaler) | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Cockcroft, John | Kirk, Peter | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Lamont, Norman | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Cope, John | Lane, David | Shepherd, Colin |
| Cordle, John H. | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Silvester, Fred |
| Cormack, Patrick | Lawrence, Ivan | Sims, Roger |
| Corrie, John | Lawson, Nigel | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Crawford, Douglas | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Critchley, Julian | Luce, Richard | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Crowder, F. P. | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | MacCormick, lain | Speed, Keith |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Macfarlane, Neil | Spence, John |
| Drayson, Burnaby | MacGregor, John | Sproat, Iain |
| Dykes, Hugh | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Stainton, Keith |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Madel, David | Stanley, John |
| Elliott, Sir William | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Marten, Neil | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Mates, Michael | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | Mather, Carol | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Farr, John | Maude, Angus | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Fell, Anthony | Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald | Tebbit, Norman |
| Fisberg, Geoffrey | Mawby, Ray | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Trotter, Neville |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Moate, Roger | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Freud, Clement | Monro, Hector | Viggers, Peter |
| Fry, Peter | Montgomery, Fergus | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Moore, John (Croydon C) | Wall, Patrick |
| Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Watt, Hamish |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Godber, Rt Hon Joseph | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Welsh, Andrew |
| Goodhart, Philip | Mudd, David | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Nelson, Anthony | |
| Gorst, John | Neubert, Michael | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Newton, Tony | Mr. W. Benyon and |
| Gray, Hamish | Normanton, Tom | Mr. Spencer Le Marchant. |
| Page, John (Harrow West) | ||
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank | Gould, Bryan | Ovenden, John |
| Anderson, Donald | Gourlay, Harry | Palmer, Arthur |
| Archer, Peter | Graham, Ted | Park, George |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Parker, John |
| Ashton, Joe | Grocott, Bruce | Parry, Robert |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Atkinson, Norman | Hardy, Peter | Peart, Rt Hon Fred |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Harper, Joseph | Pendry, Tom |
| Bates, Alt | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Perry, Ernest |
| Bean, R. E. | Hatton, Frank | Phipps, Dr Colin |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Hayman, Mrs Helene | Prescott, John |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Heffer, Eric S. | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Bishop, E. S. | Hooley, Frank | Radice, Giles |
| Booth, Albert | Horam, John | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Bradley, Tom | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Buchanan, Richard | Hunter, Adam | Roper, John |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) | Ryman, John |
| Cant, R. B. | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) | Sandelson, Neville |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Cartwright, John | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Janner, Greville | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Cohen, Stanley | Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) | Sillars, James |
| Coleman, Donald | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Siiverman, Julius |
| Conlan, Bernard | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Small, William |
| Corbett, Robin | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Judd, Frank | Snape, Peter |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Kelley, Richard | Spearing, Nigel |
| Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | Kerr, Russell | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Stallard. A. W |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lamborn, Harry | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) |
| Davidson, Arthur | Lamond, James | Sloddart, David |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Litterick, Tom | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| Deakins, Eric | Loyden, Eddie | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Luard, Evan | Tinn, James |
| de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Tomney, Frank |
| Delargy, Hugh | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Torney, Tom |
| Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | McCartney, Hugh | Tuck, Raphael |
| Dempsey, James | MacFarquhar, Roderick | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Mackenzie, Gregor | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Maclennan, Robert | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Dunn, James A. | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Madden, Max | Ward, Michael |
| Eadie, Alex | Magee, Bryan | Watkins, David |
| Edelman, Maurice | Mahon, Simon | Watkinson, John |
| Edge, Geoff | Marks, Kenneth | Weetch, Ken |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Marquand, David | Weitzman, David |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Wellbeloved, James |
| English, Michael | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Ennals, David | Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Maynard, Miss Joan | Whitlock, William |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Mendelson, John | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Mikardo, Ian | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Millan, Bruce | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Flannery, Martin | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston) | Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Fietcher, Ted (Darlingon) | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) | Woodall, Alec |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Molloy, William | Woof, Robert |
| Forrester, John | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Moyle, Roland | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | |
| Freeson, Reginald | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Newens, Stanley | Mr. J. D. Dormand and |
| Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Noble, Mike | Mr. James Hamilton. |
| George, Bruce | O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian | |
| Gilbert, Dr John | Orbach, Maurice |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Miss RichardsonI beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 28, line 43, leave out 'six' and insert 'eighteen'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may take the following amendments:
No. 84, in page 29, line 7, leave out 'six' and insert 'eighteen'.
301 No. 85, in page 29, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Miss RichardsonIn view of the debate on the last amendment I am encouraged to think that, as a result of the views put forward and the conclusion arrived at by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior)—that a scheme whereby a levy spread over all employers might be one way of looking at this whole problem—the Opposition will support the increase of paid leave from six weeks to 18 weeks.
We lag behind most of Europe, and some parts of the rest of the world as well, in the length of time which we allow for maternity leave. In the consultative document, four weeks was proposed. The Government have been generous in increasing that period to six weeks.
I am also encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said. Although he could not give too much hope on the last amendment, I thought that I detected a tiny chink, in that the Government might in time reconsider the whole matter. I hope that they will reconsider the length of time to be made available. Following from the previous debate, if a levy were eventually accepted it would have no worse effect on small firms than on big firms, because the money would be spread out.
As I said, most European countries make much better provision for maternity pay than we do. The original Six EEC countries, for example, have 14 weeks. One or two countries of Eastern Europe, although I do not know the exact figures, have as much as a year.
In the public sector, a period of 18 weeks' paid leave is written into local government employment, in the National Health Service, in electricity, water, and gas services and in the universities. It seems a pity that what amounts to the poorer section of the community—women—should be restricted to this short term of six weeks. I was interested to note that the TUC General Council's original proposal was for 30 weeks, not even 18 weeks.
Some women will want to go back to work as soon as possible—we do not deny that—but others with family responsibilities will need a period of at least 302 18 weeks not only to cope with the new baby and to make the necessary adjustments in the home, but, where other children are involved, to make the necessary adjustments in that respect.
My hon. Friends and I believe that women will still want to return to work. Therefore, 18 weeks is not an untoward, out of the way, figure for this House to consider.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerI welcome the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) has moved this amendment. She is right to draw attention to the fact that most EEC countries, in their own different ways, make more generous provision than we do for maternity pay. My hon. Friend is also right to urge the Government to seek to match and perhaps eventually to surpass the provisions made in those countries.
I am glad that my hon. Friend took some encouragement from my earlier remarks regarding the Government's intentions in this direction. When we leave behind our present economic difficulties, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will seek to use the powers given to him in the Bill to introduce an order to establish more generous provisions. Certainly neither my hon. Friend nor the House would expect me to commit myself to the figure in the amendment or any other specific amendment. However, it is our hope that eventually we shall be able to make more generous provision.
I am bound to say that for the moment I am compelled to fall back on the arguments I used earlier about the cost and the present circumstances. Neither my hon. Friend nor the House will want me to rehearse them all again. I hope that my hon. Friend and her colleagues will look carefully at their amendment, which seeks to delete the power of the Secretary of State to vary by order. In the light of what I said earlier, my hon. Friend probably realises that that is not an amendment that should be urged upon the House. I hope that in the light of what I have said my hon. Friend will feel able to ask leave to withdraw her amendment, and particularly will not press the amendment which refers to the Secretary of State's power to vary by order.
§ Mr. HayhoeI intervene only briefly to refer to the comment of the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) about the position that we adopted when considering the previous amendment. The hon. Lady suggested that would be an argument for supporting her point of view.
When we discussed the way in which these matters should be financed, on the previous amendment, the Government suggested that the point of view being put forward by my right hon. Friend was something new. In fact, if the Minister will turn to the report of the debate on Second Reading he will see what I said in winding up for the Opposition, namely:
why not place the burden upon industry overall and pay the benefit to those concerned through the national insurance scheme? "—[Official Report, 28th April 1975; Vol. 891, c. 147.]That is instead of placing the burden on the individual employer.In Committee my right hon. Friend said:
I should like to make it absolutely plain that the Opposition believe that it is not the right way of proceeding, that it would be far better if the Government undertook this scheme through the insurance fund and through the ordinary method of social security than by way of the employer being made responsible.That means the particular employer. My right hon. Friend continued:It would be far fairer to society as a whole if the imposition of this burden were shared out through the insurance scheme.In column 760 my right hon. Friend spoke of the scheme being run by the State. In column 763 I said that there was a basic unfairness in putting the burden on the employer—that is, the specific employer—as is made clear in the context of the debate. I then said:Why should not the State carry it, raising the money from all employers? "—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24th June 1975; c. 759–63.]It was an outrageous suggestion that the Under-Secretary of State put before the House a short while ago, namely, that this was a matter that had not been mentioned in Committee. From Second Reading onwards it was made clear that we were posing questions but leaving open for argument the balance that should be ascribed between employers generally and the individual employer. However, the balance of the argument that we were putting forward was that rather than 304 putting the burden on individual employers of a woman of child-bearing age, it was fairer to spread the burden over industry as a whole.I think that it was necessary to make those remarks so as to get the record straight. In the circumstances I am not prepared to recommend my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 93, in Clause 4, page 31, line 45, leave out '29' and insert '52'.
No. 94, in page 32, line 6, leave out '29' and insert '52'.
No. 95, in page 32, line 8, leave out '29' and insert '52'.
No. 97, in page 32, line 28, leave out '29' and insert '52'.
No. 98, in page 32, line 34, leave out '29' and insert '52'.
No. 99, in page 32, line 42, leave out '29' and insert '52'.
§ Mrs. WiseI shall be brief in moving the amendment, which seeks to lengthen the period in which an employer will have to hold a job open for a woman who has recently had a baby. An employer would have to hold it open until 52 weeks after the confinement instead of 29 weeks as in the Bill.
I do not want to disguise the fact that there may be difficulties for employers in holding jobs open for women to return after childbirth, but I suggest that in practice there will not be a great difference in the difficulty faced by an employer if the period is increased from 29 weeks to 52. It is the initial problem of not being able to replace a woman at the time that she is having her baby that causes the difficulty. I suggest that to lengthen the period would not make a qualitative difference to the difficulties faced by employers. However, it would make a difference to the women concerned.
I remind my Front Bench colleagues that, lamentably, we have seen a great extension of the artificial feeding of infants. Nevertheless, there may well be a swing back to breast-feeding. I remind 305 my hon. Friends that 29 weeks does not even cover the standard lactation time. I speak with some personal knowledge of this matter, as a mother myself. It is extremely important that in any legislation which is brought forward the Government, as a matter of public policy, do not seem to discriminate against women who wish to feed their babies themselves in the standard lactation time.
There is now strong scientific evidence of the dangers into which women have often been enticed by the upscrupulous advertising indulged in by manufacturers of baby foods. Women have been led to think that natural ways are in some way inferior. Now science is coming on to the side of those who believe in natural methods. It is not unimportant, in the context of maternity provisions, that the Government should bear that factor in mind.
I also suggest that in some families it is necessary for there to be a period of up to a year for the family to become fully adjusted to the birth of the new infant, and that the Government should be willing to make this possible when families feel the need for extra time. I believe that the difficulties which are faced by employers and the difficulties faced by women and their families should always be resolved in favour of the women and their families.
In my view most women would either return to work well within the 52-weeks period or would not return for considerably longer, and so put themselves outside this provision in any case. I believe that the Government should provide an adequate margin to enable families to become fully adjusted. I suggest that it is reasonable to make that period 52 weeks instead of 29 weeks.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerI shall deal only briefly with the amendment. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am not attaching to it the importance which it clearly deserves. I can only tell her that in Committee we had some long arguments on the question whether the period we were putting forward was right. Conservative Members were seeking most vigorously to reduce the period. Of course, it is never a strong argument to say that because the Opposition are proceeding in a different direction it means that the Government are right. 306 However, for the time being we think that we have adopted the right period. Indeed, in Committee, we resisted any proposals for a reduction. I believe that an increase such as my hon. Friend proposes would go too far in the opposite direction. My hon. Friend has recognised that the extension she proposes would cause employers problems. I am sure that she does not seek to underestimate that.
We have received strong protests from employers to the effect that the present period is too long. Many of them urged a reduction in the period, and if the extension proposed by my hon. Friend is agreed to they will face considerable problems. Such a proposal would be counter-productive, and might result in employers tending more and more to discriminate against women of child-bearing age. For those reasons, I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HayhoeI wish to make it clear that when, in Committee, we moved an amendment to reduce the period from 29 to 16 weeks, it was made clear that this was being done with a view to the possibility of an extension to that period on medical grounds. We were told that the Government were seeking to remove the uncertainty of the situation. If one reads the argument set out in Committee, obviously the Minister was attempting to speed up the deliberations, and perhaps, in the event, he tended to condense, oversimplify and slightly misrepresent the point.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. HayhoeI beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 30, line 35, leave out 'job' and insert 'occupation'.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 208.
§ Mr. HayhoeA similar amendment was moved in Committee, when it appeared that some change of wording had taken place. The Minister then advised that it was a drafting matter, whereas we thought that some point of substance might be involved. It is clear that the Government have given further consideration to the matter, that the Minister has accepted that we made a fair point, and has come forward with his 307 own amendment, namely, Government Amendment No. 90.
Therefore, I do not propose to proceed with the amendment.
§
Amendments made: No. 90, in page page 30, line 39, after 'above', insert:
'—(a)"job", in relation to an employee, means the nature of the work which she is employed to do in accordance with her contract and the capacity and place in which she is so employed; and
(b)'.
§ No. 91, in page 31, line 10, leave out 'an alternative job' and insert 'alternative employment'.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
§ Amendment proposed: No. 92, in page 31, line 27, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
§ Question put. That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 178.
309| Division No. 326.] | AYES | [7.2 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Anderson, Donald | Fletcher, Ted (Darlingon) | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) |
| Archer, Peter | Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Madden, Max |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Forrester, John | Magee, Bryan |
| Ashton, Joe | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Mahon, Simon |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | Marks, Kenneth |
| Atkinson, Norman | Freeson, Reginald | Marquand, David |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Bates, Alf | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Bean, R. E. | George, Bruce | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Gilbert, Dr John | Maynard, Miss Joan |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Gould, Bryan | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Gourlay, Harry | Mendelson, John |
| Bishop, E. S. | Graham, Ted | Mikardo, Ian |
| Booth, Albert | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Millan, Bruce |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Grocott, Bruce | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) |
| Bradley, Tom | Hardy, Peter | Molloy, William |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Harper, Joseph | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Buchanan, Richard | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Moyle, Roland |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Hatton, Frank | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Hayman, Mrs Helene | Newens, Stanley |
| Cartwright, John | Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Noble, Mike |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Heffer, Eric S. | O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Hooley, Frank | Orbach, Maurice |
| Cohen, Stanley | Horam, John | Ovenden, John |
| Coleman, Donald | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Conlan, Bernard | Huckfield, Les | Park, George |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Parker, John |
| Corbett, Robin | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Parry, Robert |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Peart, Rt Hon Fred |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Hunter, Adam | Pendry, Tom |
| Dalyell, Tam | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) | Perry, Ernest |
| Davidson, Arthur | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) | Phipps, Dr Colin |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Prescott, John |
| Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Janner, Greville | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Deakins, Eric | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Radice, Giles |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Delargy, Hugh | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Dempsey, James | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Judd, Frank | Roper, John |
| Dunnett, Jack | Kelley, Richard | Ryman, John |
| Eadie, Alex | Kerr, Russell | Sandelson, Neville |
| Edelman, Maurice | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Edge, Geoff | Lamborn, Harry | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Lamond, James | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) |
| Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Sillars, James |
| English, Michael | Litterick, Tom | Sllverman, Julius |
| Ennals, David | Loyden, Eddie | Skinner, Dennis |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Luard, Evan | Small, William |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Snape, Peter |
| Faulds, Andrew | McCartney, Hugh | Spearing, Nigel |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | MacFarquhar, Roderick | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Flannery, Martin | Mackenzie, Gregor | Stallard, A. W. |
| Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) | ||
| Stoddart, David | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley | Ward, Michael | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Swain, Thomas | Watkins, David | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) | Watkinson, John | Woodall, Alec |
| Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) | Weetch, Ken | Woof, Robert |
| Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) | Weitzman, David | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Tinn, James | Wellbeloved, James | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Tomney, Frank | White, Frank R. (Bury) | |
| Torney, Tom | Whitehead, Phillip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES |
| Tuck, Raphael | Whitlock, William | Mr. J. D. Dormand and |
| Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) | Mr. James A. Dunn |
| Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) | |
| Walker, Harold (Doncaster) | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) | |
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, Jonathan | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Normanton, Tom |
| Alison, Michael | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Page, John (Harrow West) |
| Arnold, Tom | Hampson, Dr Keith | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Awdry, Daniel | Hastings, Stephen | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Baker, Kenneth | Hawkins, Paul | Penhaligon, David |
| Banks, Robert | Hayhoe, Barney | Percival, Ian |
| Beith, A. J. | Henderson, Douglas | Peyton, Rt Hon John |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Holland, Philip | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| Blaker, Peter | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Body, Richard | Howell, David (Guildford) | Raison, Timothy |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hunt, John | Rathbone, Tim |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hurd, Douglas | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) |
| Brittan, Leon | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Brotherton, Michael | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Jessel, Toby | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Buck, Antony | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Ritkind, Malcolm |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Kershaw, Anthony | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Kimball, Marcus | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Carlisle, Mark | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Carr, Rt Hon Robert | Kirk, Peter | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Lamont, Norman | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | Lane, David | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) |
| Cockcroft, John | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Lawrence, Ivan | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Cope, John | Lawson, Nigel | Shepherd, Colin |
| Cordle, John H. | Le Marchant, Spencer | Silvester, Fred |
| Corrie, John | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Sims, Roger |
| Crawford, Douglas | Luce, Richard | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Crowder, F. P. | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | MacCormick, Iain | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Macfarlane, Neil | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Drayson, Burnaby | MacGregor, John | Speed, Keith |
| Dykes, Hugh | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Spence, John |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Sproat, Iain |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Madel, David | Stainton, Keith |
| Elliott, Sir William | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Eyre, Reginald | Marten, Neil | Stanley, John |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Mates, Michael | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | Mather, Carol | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Farr, John | Maude, Angus | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Fell, Anthony | Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Mawby, Ray | Tebbit, Norman |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Temple-Morris, Pete |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Mayhew, Patrick | Trotter, Neville |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Freud, Clement | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Fry, Peter | Moate, Roger | Viggers, Peter |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Monro, Hector | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Montgomery, Fergus | Wall, Patrick |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Moore, John (Croydon C) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Godber, Rt Hon Joseph | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Watt, Hamish |
| Goodhart, Philip | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Welsh, Andrew |
| Gorst, John | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Gray, Hamish | Mudd, David | |
| Griffiths, Eldon | Nelson, Anthony | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Neubert, Michael | Mr. W. Benyon and |
| Grist, Ian | Newton, Tony | Mr. Michael Roberts |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.