§ 'A diver engaged in exploration or exploitation activities in a designated area (as those expressions are defined for the purposes of section 38 of the Finance Act 1973) shall be treated for tax purposes as a person carrying on a trade, profession or vocation in relation to such activities and not the holder of an office or employment.'—[Mr. David well.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. David Howell
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Extremely worrying stories have erupted in the Press recently about the taxation position of North Sea divers. It needs no explanation from me to bring home what a crucial job these people do. They work in a variety of conditions, almost every case involving extremely difficult conditions at great depths. They work under physical pressures so great that at the age of 45 their working careers are finished. They work in some cases under contract to one employer. Some work in the North Sea and others work abroad.
The problem arises because a few months ago it emerged that the Inland Revenue had "recently decided "—that phrase came from a letter by the Financial Secretary to one of my hon. Friends —that the North Sea divers who hitherto had been taxed as self-employed under Schedule D were now to be regarded as employed persons to be taxed under Schedule E. That decision was reached rather suddenly and divers came ashore at the beginning of the tax year to find that their tax status had changed.
The change was imposed, in a sense, over their heads in that it was established not with the divers themselves but with the contracting companies which employed them. This has caused many of them to feel that they have suffered an injustice. Whether that is true in every case is impossible for this House to determine. However, when we debated this matter in Standing Committee the Chief Secretary reassured me that, in spite of all the concern and all the statements from the divers that they would go abroad and that they could not possibly operate unless they were treated fairly, 938 he believed that their position was perfectly clear. He said in Committee:The information that the Inland Revenue has is that all North Sea divers do qualify for inclusion under the Schedule E category.The Financial Secretary then spoke about an examination which apparently lastedfor the best part of a yearin whicha great deal of work was done in finding out the method of operation and the requirements of the particular tests for Schedule E."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23rd June 1977; c. 1280.]Since we had that debate there have obviously been further discussions. Further points have been raised, in particular some points about what the Financial Secretary had to say in Committee. First, the question has been asked—I ask it again—what was this examination for a year? The representatives of the divers are not aware of any examination having taken place into their work, conditions and methods. Was the Department of Energy involved in this examination? Is it now in a position to be happy about the situation in which all North Sea divers have been thrown? What about the contracting companies, and possibly the oil companies, which need to get hold of teams of divers to do this dangerous work?
The Financial Secretary talked about discussions with the companies and implied that there had been agreement. But my understanding is that there was no agreement in the usual sense of the word and that the companies were faced with little choice but to move on to an employed basis in dealing with the divers who were contracted to them.
The Financial Secretary also said that it was simply a matter which could be settled in the courts. He said:The question is the simple one of whether those people arc employees, or come within the category of self-employed…it is a question of fact, which will be determined by a court of law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23rd June 1977; c. 1285.]Earlier, on 9th May, the hon. Gentleman had written a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) in which he categorically said that the North Sea divers working with companies in the North Sea were 939 such that the Inland Revenue had taken a view that they were employees assessable to tax under Schedule E.
The situation is highly ambiguous. Either a view has been taken—in which case it is a dangerous and absurd generalisation to apply to a group of people working under very difficult conditions—that they are all employed or this is a matter which can be further discussed, examined and determined by the courts in some way or other. I am not sure in what way the Financial Secretary would expect that determination to be made.
Our quarrel is with the sweeping categorisation that has been made by the Inland Revenue that all these people are employed, when clearly some of them—possibly many, probably the majority—are still operating under conditions which may be described as self-employed. The effect of the Inland Revenue's insensitivity in laying down this rule generally is not that it will raise any more revenue or bring into tax all sorts of people who may have, in some way, been escaping. What has happened is that these people are going abroad. These British North Sea oil divers are disappearing from British waters and the contractors are employing foreign divers. Nothing has been gained but great damage has been done to a crucial part of the oil programme.
A generalisation has been asserted without any understanding of the vast variety of conditions under which these people have to work. There has been talk that they can go to appeal. We want to know when those appeals will be. Will they be before the end of the current tax year in which the divers have been suddenly redesignated under Schedule E as employed people? Or will they take place at the end of next summer, which will be far too late because the divers will all have gone?
If we can get the Financial Secretary in an amenable frame of mind, I would urge him to use his pressures to get the Revenue to think again about its approach to this problem. We are not asking that all those who claim to be self-employed should have that claim recognised. That is absurd. Obviously, the law has to be decided in relation to 940 the actual employment status of these people.
Now we have reached a position where the North Sea divers are leaving because of their terrific sense of injustice. if the Financial Secretary would be prepared to consider it, a group of people could sit down and work out how best to handle the tax affairs of these divers. That would surely produce a much more realistic answer than the very insensitive and provocative course on which he is now set.
That is my perfectly reasonable plea to the Financial Secretary, and that is what lies behind the clause. It seeks to reopen the matter. I hope we shall not have to press it, and that he will understand the reasonableness of what I am saying. If he were to take the line that he took upstairs, that the subject is almost not for him to comment upon because it is simply a question of the Inland Revenue proceeding as it apparently intends to do, I should have to advise my hon. Friends to pursue the matter in a different way.
It is a reasonable proposition about a crucial area of our economy in regard to which there is a deep sense of injustice. I am not clear as to the point at which this curious twist in the affair has been taken, but certainly the lives of these people are being made intolerable, and if the situation continues it will simply drive them from our shores, at great loss to the national economy.
§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)
I have to declare an indirect interest in this matter. I have been more concerned than perhaps any hon. Member of this House with the fact that Britain has developed major diving techniques specifically related to the North Sea, going back to the early Hewitt field at the time of the gas discoveries.
I have only a few things to add to the very poignant remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). First, it is important to differentiate between air-breathing divers and divers who are on mixed gases and at saturation. There are different levels of income. But, having said that, I emphasise that all divers feel the same amount of unease, and they have a very strong feeling that they are being specially picked out.
941 Whereas there are between 800 and 1,000 saturation divers operating in the North Sea at this moment who are affected by this aspect of the tax regulations, if 200 saturation divers were to leave the North Sea it would be a major blow to the development of the oil resources of this country. The possibility of our being able to get foreign divers of experience to carry on saturation maintenance and the saturation work required in the North Sea is very much in doubt.
By its obduracy the Treasury will not achieve any increase in revenue. What is involved is the possibility of major harm being done to an area of development which could be the economic salvation of our country, certainly in the long run.
I urge the Financial Secretary to consider the suggestion that these divers should be treated in the way that the clause outlines, and to recognise that many of these people are working only during the weather window in the North Sea—from March to September or October—and that they will then be working overseas, in America or in Saudi Arabia, as far away as Jakarta or even Japan, for entirely different employers, although some of them for the same diving companies. But if foreign nationals come to take their place, those foreign nationals are resident abroad and are paid abroad, and not one penny of payment to the foreign divers comes to the British Exchequer. It seems that if the Treasury does not agree with the arguments that have been put forward by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, it is cutting off its nose to spite not just its face but the whole of its body.
I can see no reason for the Treasury not holding to the position that used to exist or, if it sees a legal difficulty, getting out of the problem by accepting this clause. The clause would remove the difficulties and would be an admirable way of solving any legal problem about which the Treasury might be worried.
If the Treasury does not do this, the only other resort is that some divers may consider turning themselves into limited companies, then having to be employed by the diving contractors, with the divers 942 themselves becoming consultants to the limited companies. That is the sort of aspect of avoidance which Treasury Ministers ought surely to try to stop, or which they should not encourage. That, again, would not directly benefit the Treasury in any way. If the Treasury is in any doubt, then please let it either revert to the previous position or accept the clause. In that way a major problem could be averted.
§ Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)
I declare an interest in that I have been indirectly an employer of North Sea divers.
I believe that this question is a very simple one. It goes back to conditions of contract and whether a diver should come under Schedule D or Schedule E under the normal rules of the Inland Revenue. That is all. There is no reason for hon. Members to get "up tight" about it.
What worries my right hon. and hon. Friends, and has led us to table the clause, is the apparent assumption that North Sea divers should be under Schedule E and not Schedule D. I hope that the Financial Secretary can assure us that this apparent assumption does not exist. I put it to him that for a Schedule E basis of assessment to be applicable there must exist a contract of service rather than a contract for service. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for service is a fair distinction to use when deciding whether North Sea divers should come under Schedule D or Schedule E.
If the right hon. Gentleman could accept the point that I am making, which I understand is the existing rule of the Inland Revenue, our whole debate could be resolved. Or, if one puts it in more common legal parlance—which I am sure will appeal to those of my hon. and learned Friends who are present tonight —for a Schedule E application to be correct there must exist what, in the quaint language of the law, is called "a master and servant relationship". For instance, does the diver have an entitlement to paid holidays or to a pension? These are the sort of basic things that come under a contract of service. If the relationship comes under that, I suggest that it is under Schedule E. If it does not, there is a prima facie basis for saying that it comes under Schedule D.
943 The meaning of the expression "master and servant relationship" is fairly clear. From all the information that I have about the conditions attached to offshore oil rigs, the "masters" are very often the divers. To a large extent the divers call the tune as to the conditions under which they operate, rather than the so-called employers. This must be resolved under the facts of the conditions of service of each individual diver.
What worries me, and the reason why I support the clause, is that it appears that the Inland Revenue has made a major change and is assuming that a North Sea diver should be treated as coming within the master-servant relationship and, therefore, should come within Schedule E. The matter should be judged in terms of the individual conditions of service of the diver.
§ Mr. Hamish Gray (Ross and Cromarty)
I wish to speak on the importance of the energy aspect of this matter.
The North Sea divers approached me some time ago and asked for my advice on the method that they should use to try to retain their self-employed status. I arranged a meeting with the Minister and attended it with the divers. I thank the Minister for the courtesy he showed them. Unfortunately, his courtesy was not followed by action and, therefore, we were bound to raise the matter on behalf of the divers.
For 15 years the divers have enjoyed self-employed status. Their job has intensified in recent years, but basically it is exactly the same work as that which they have been doing throughout their careers. Yet, at a stroke, the Inland Revenue has decided arbitrarily to change their status to that of employed persons. This is resented very much by the divers.
The divers were intent upon taking strike action at one stage, but, following the meeting with the Minister, I suggested to them than it would be better if, in view of the assurances of the Minister that he would consider their case again, they desisted from taking such action and waited to see what the outcome was. The outcome has not satisfied them, and there is a great danger not only that they will take industrial 944 action but that many of them will leave the service and work elsewhere.
We must not be under any misapprehension about the jobs offered in the North Sea. They are not the only jobs available to the divers. There are jobs in various parts of the world to which they can go and in which they can make very good money at much lower tax rates.
§ Mr. Graham Page
From his great knowledge of this matter, can my hon. Friend say how many divers are involved and how many have already left the service because of the new tax position?
§ Mr. Gray
About 1,500 are involved, of whom between 800 and 900 are British subjects. The remainder come from elsewhere and dive for companies in the North Sea. One company with a work force of 160 recently lost 114 of its divers. A company which acts as an agency had to contact no fewer than 80 divers in order to obtain five crew members for a rig. That illustrates the seriousness of the position.
I ask the Minister to think again about this matter because it is of great importance nationally. The divers are involved in every process in North Sea exploration and oil production. They examine the safety of the steel platforms. They examine the pipelines. They are involved at each stage in advising and in ensuring that Acts such as the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Act are enforced. Should they decide to go elsewhere to work, the result could be very serious for our oil production. One would imagine that a Government finding themselves in the sort of economic position that this Government face would do all that they could to ensure that there was no interruption in the supplies of oil from the North Sea. It is most unfortunate that the Inland Revenue should have adopted the tactics that it has in enforcing this regulation.
It has been suggested that the contractors have co-operated with the Government. To some extent they have. But it has not been voluntary co-operation. Too often these days we hear of arm-twisting in various forms. We hear of participation agreements in future licensing arrangements being achieved with a little arm-twisting here and there. 945 Now this practice appears to have spread into the tactics used by the Treasury.
It is extremely disappointing. I hope that the Minister will think seriously about it and accept the clause.
§ Mr. Michael Spicer (Worcestershire, South)
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) was a little more than generous to the Government when he said that there seemed to be some doubt in their mind about whether these divers should be subject to Schedule E or Schedule D. The Government view expressed in the Committee by the Financial Secretary was quite clear. He said that the examination that had been carried out made it clear that these people, by the tests which had been used in the examination, came under Schedule E. That was quite clear and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, that is the nub of the Opposition's worry.
The all-embracing nature of the Government's attitude to divers is manifestly absurd. Anyone who has studied the industry at all knows that there are at least some divers who have, by the nature of their jobs, to work on a contract basis. To introduce legislation which embraces all divers, as the Government clearly intend by this provision, under one form of taxation which is not applicable to many divers is extremely unfair.
But it can be put even stronger. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) said, it is also very foolish. In the Evening Standard tonight we read that Britain will be the fifth largest oil producer in the next three or four years. If we have oil reserves larger than those of the United States, and if they are to be exploited in the national interest, it is stupid to make such a proposal.
It may be, of course, that the Minister has some tremendously exciting new mechanical device for doing these underwater operations by automation. Unless he can come forward with alternatives to using divers, it is very serious to sabotage the industry by taxing divers in this way.
§ Mr. Pardoe
Having listened to the debate, I find myself more and more confused by the issues in this case. Surely they cannot be quite as simple as has been made out. There must be some clear 946 definition of how a person becomes self-employed or how he is employed. Only Members of Parliament can simply say that they will all be self-employed one minute and employed the next, and they do that by passing legislation.
There must be a fairly clear-cut understanding, not just for Inland Revenue purposes but for other purposes, including insurance, about whether or not a man is employed by a company. How, for instance, does a plumber who is now employed become self-employed? He starts working for himself. He may work for all sorts of people. He does not do all his work for one person. If a number of people in a village require the services of a plumber and they all employ him for parts of his time, he is self-employed. But if one of those people puts himself into a way of business where he requires a full-time plumber and he takes him on, it may be that the plumber becomes employed although previously he was self-employed.
What has happened here is that some divers—perhaps most of them—have arrived at the situation, as a result of the development of North Sea oil, where they are working full-time for one employer, whereas previously they were working for several employers and, therefore, clearly were self-employed. I do not see how we can say that all divers will automatically be self-employed because they are divers, any more than we can say that all plumbers will automatically be self-employed because they are plumbers.
I should like the Minister to give a simple and easy definition of what constitutes "self-employed" and to say how a diver or plumber or carpenter becomes self-employed or employed and, indeed, what constitutes the difference in status.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Robert Sheldon
Emphasis has been laid in this debate on the problems and dangers involved in diving operations in the North Sea. Let me say at the outset that I recognise those problems, quite apart from any question whether a man is employed or self-employed.
The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and I have met a number of divers; I have also met representatives of the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors and officials from the tax office concerned in these matters in 947 Scotland. Everything I have seen leads me to accept the difficult nature of the work and to recognise the problems that arise from the short periods of activity, with all the hard work involved—work that is crucial in the North Sea operations. These are difficulties which the Inland Revenue has tried to resolve in ways in which I shall describe.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) mentioned the situation of saturation divers and what he said fits in with all that I know of the problem. The hon. Gentleman pointed to the need for these divers and asked for concessions in their case. If that were the only consideration involved, I do not think we should need to detain the House for very long on this subject, but many problems are created when one seeks to intervene in matters of taxation between one citizen and another.
I noted one or two differences between the remarks made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) in this debate and his contribution in Committee. This evening he mentioned the difficulties involved in the House deciding matters on a Schedule E or Schedule D basis. I fully accept that argument. But when this matter arose in Committee, the Opposition sought to point out: that one category of people should be regarded as self-employed and another as employed. We are starting on a slippery slope if we seek to determine by the political processes of this House how a person's tax affairs shall be judged or to decide whether he shall be regarded as employed or self-employed. So far, that process has been wholly divorced from the political process, and it is a matter that can be decided only by understanding of the actual work that is carried out by the person concerned. These decisions—and the Inland Revenue may make them wrongly from time to time—can be pursued to appeal through the courts in the normal way, and that must be the way to proceed.
The Inland Revenue, in its dealings with North Sea diving companies, examined the basis of divers' employment and formed the view that it came within the limits of Schedule E. It made its decision known. It had discussions with the companies concerned and found that some, at any rate, seemed to agree that the conditions were those of the employee.
§ Mr. Sheldon
Perhaps I may deal first with this point. I shall then gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman. I particularly welcomed the sensible approach made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price). He said that we must not get excited about this matter, that we are dealing with facts, and that facts should be the basis of it. I entirely agree.
§ Mr. David Howell
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned discussions that the Inland Revenue had with the contracting companies. Did those discussions take place before or after the Inland Revenue had reached its view on the status of North Sea divers? If afterwards, was it not a curious way for it to conduct the examination and reach its conclusion?
§ Mr. Sheldon
The Inland Revenue made investigations with the companies and formed the view, which may be right or wrong, that divers came in the category suitable for being assessed under Schedule E. Having formed that view, it asked the companies to bring PAYE into operation.
§ Mr. David Howell
I am sure that the Financial Secretary is trying to answer my question, but he has not done so. I asked whether the Inland Revenue held discussions with the contracting companies before or after it reached its view about Schedule E status. Will he please answer that question, because it is important?
§ Mr. Sheldon
The Inland Revenue investigated the position with the diving contractors. Having investigated the position, it reached the conclusion that these people should be assessed under Schedule E.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh showed the way ahead, and I should like to follow the points that he made. He pointed out, without getting too technical, that the difference consisted largely of the contract of service, which is of the Schedule E category, and the contract for services, which is of the Schedule D category. He said that the right way to approach the matter was on the basis of facts, and he asked that the Inland Revenue should look at it in that way. He was quite right. There is a corpus of law that determines whether an occupation should 949 be categorised as that of employee or self-employed.
§ Mr. Sheldon
I am coming to that point.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) asked for a clear-cut understanding. That is what we are seeking to achieve now.
During the past couple of days the Inland Revenue has agreed with the Association of Offshore Diving Contractors to discuss the operations of divers to determine whether they should be accepted as being within Schedule D or Schedule E. Both sides are trying to reach agreement on a number of cases that might be suitable as test cases. We have offered every facility to expedite the testing of such cases so that a final determination may be made. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, the right way to proceed is on the basis of facts.
§ Mr. David Howell
The Financial Secretary has clearly applied his mind to the problem and I am pleased to hear that the test cases will be tried.
I concede that the technical nature of our clause suffers from the same faults as does the approach of the Financial Secretary. His letter clearly stated that the Inland Revenue had reached a view on the whole nature of this work. This is a matter of administration rather than of tax law, and the Inland Revenue reached
§ a view in advance; regardless of the infinite variety of this work and the fact that some people in diving were self-employed by any commonsense definition, they were all to be regarded as employees.
§ We find that sweeping general proposition highly objectionable. In order to get a debate on administration rather than the law, we had to table a clause that went to the other extreme and said that the Inland Revenue's general view was wrong and another general view should be substituted.
§ The precise nature of the clause is not ideal. The Inland Revenue and the Financial Secretary still adhere to a general sweeping view that is insensitively applied to a profession in which there are a variety of circumstances. The Minister should not be as satisfied as he appears to be with tax law being administered in this general sweeping way to cover people in totally different circumstances, some of whom may be employed but others of whom are clearly self-employed.
§ We are left with this difficulty in the interstices between tax law and administration. It is worrying and is causing unease among divers and many others outside the House.
§ Despite what I said about the difficulties of framing the right amendment, I urge my hon. Friends to show their concern and press the clause to a vote.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 194.953
|Division No. 199.]||AYES||[11.13 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Fox, Marcus|
|Alison, Michael||Channon, Paul||Fry, Peter|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Churchill, W. S.||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Bain, Mrs Margaret||Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Baker, Kenneth||Clark, William (Croydon S)||Godber, Rt Hon Joseph|
|Banks, Robert||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Goodtiew, Victor|
|Bell, Ronald||Clegg, Walter||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Cockcroft, John||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Gray, Hamish|
|Biffen, John||Coslaln, A. P.||Grieve, Percy|
|Blaker, Peter||Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Boscawen. Hon Robert||Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Hannam, John|
|Bottomley, Peter||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Dykes, Hugh||Hawkins, Paul|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Elliott, Sir William||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Emery, Peter||Henderson, Douglas|
|Brooke, Peter||Farr, John||Hicks, Robert|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Fell, Anthony||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Fisher, Sir Nigel||Hodgson, Robin|
|Buck, Antony||Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Budgen, Nick||Fookes, Miss Janet||Howell, David (Guildford)|
|Burden. F. A.||Forman, Nigel||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Hunt, John (Bromley)|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Silvester, Fred|
|James, David||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)|
|Jessel, Toby||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Mudd, David||Spence, John|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Neave, Airey||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Kimball, Marcus||Newton, Tony||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Normanton, Tom||Stanley, John|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Nott, John||Stewart, lan (Hitchin)|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Onslow, Cranley||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Knox, David||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||Tapsell, Peter|
|Lamont, Norman||Osborn, John||Tebbit, Norman|
|Lawson, Nigel||Page, John (Harrow West)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Page, Richard (Workington)||Thompson, George|
|Lloyd, lan||Pattie, Geoffrey||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Loveridge, John||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Trotter, Neville|
|McCrindle, Robert||Raison, Timothy||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|MacGregor, John||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Viggers, Peter|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)||Rhodes James, R.||Wakeham, John|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Madel, David||Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Marten, Neil||Ridsdale, Julian||Wall, Patrick|
|Mather, Carol||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Maude, Angus||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Watt, Hamish|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Wealherill, Bernard|
|Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Royle, Sir Anthony||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Sainsbury, Tim||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Moore, John (Croydon C)||Scott. Nicholas|
|More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Morgan, Geraint||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)||Mr. Jim Lester and|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Shelton, William (Streatham)||Sir George Young.|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Luard, Evan|
|Ashton, Joe||English, Michael||Lyon, Alexander (York)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Ennals, David||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||McGuire, Michael (Ince)|
|Bates, Alf||Faulds, Andrew||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Maclennan, Robert|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Ford, Ben||McNamara, Kevin|
|Bldwell, Sydney||Forrester, John||Madden, Max|
|Bishop, Rt Hon Edward||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Magee, Bryan|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Freeson, Reginald||Mahon, Simon|
|Boardman, H.||Freud, Clement||Mallalieu, J. P. W.|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Bradley, Tom||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Glnsburg, David||Meacher, Michael|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Gourlay, Harry||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)|
|Buchan, Norman||Grant, John (lslington C)||Molloy, William|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middteton & P)||Grocott, Bruce||Moonman, Eric|
|Campbell, lan||Hardy, Peter||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Caravan, Dennis||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Cant, R. B.||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Moyle, Roland|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hatton, Frank||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Cartwright, John||Hayman, Mrs Helene||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King|
|Clemitson, lvor||Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Newens, Stanley|
|Cocks, Rt Hon Michael||Heffer, Eric S.||Noble, Mike|
|Cohen, Stanley||Hooley, Frank||Oakes, Gordon|
|Coleman, Donald||Hooson, Emlyn||Ogden, Eric|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan)||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Corbett, Robin||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Cowans, Harry||Huckfield, Les||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Pardoe, John|
|Cronin, John||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Parker, John|
|Crowther, Slan (Rotherham)||Janner, Greville||Parry, Robert|
|Cryer, Bob||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Cunningham, G (lslington S)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Pendry, Tom|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||John, Brynmor||Penhaligon, David|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Prescott, John|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Davies, lfor (Gower)||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Deakins, Eric||Judd, Frank||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Kelley, Richard||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Kerr, Russell||Rooker, J. W.|
|Dormand, J. D.||Kilroy-Sllk, Robert||Rose, Paul B.|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Kinnock, Neil||Ross, Stephen (lsle of Wight)|
|Eadie, Alex||Lamborn, Harry||Rowlands, Ted|
|Edge, Geoff||Lamond, James||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Lomas, Kenneth||Shaw, Arnold (llford South)|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Swain, Thomas||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Sillars, James||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Silverman, Julius||Tierney, Sydney||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Skinner, Dennis||Tomlinson, John||Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)|
|Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)||Torney, Tom||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Snape, Peter||Urwln, T. W.||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Spearing, Nigel||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.||Woodall, Alec|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)||Woof, Robert|
|Stallard, A. W.||Wainwrighl, Richard (Colne V)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)||Ward, Michael|
|Stoddart, David||Watkins, David||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Stott, Roger||Weetch. Ken||Mr. Ted Graham and|
|Strang, Gavin||Wellbeloved, James||Mr, Joseph Harper.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.