§ Mr. John GrantI beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 12, line 8 leave out ' five ' and insert ' three '.
The essence of clause 11, although by no means its only objectionable aspect, is the creation of a two-tier system. In dealing with this matter in Committee, I went into considerable detail about the great weight of evidence against the Government's case. I do not want to repeat that this evening. However, I ought to mention some of the bodies which have criticised the Government in respect of this clause, because they are many and varied. They include the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Low Pay Unit, the Conservative trade unionists, the Equal Pay and Opportunities Campaign and the Institute of Personnel Management.
Perhaps I can refer to what the latter body said, because the Institute took the view:
It is potentially the most damaging of all the proposed amendments to existing maternity rights and deserves the strongest opposition ".Of course, the Department of Employment had the benefit of the results of the Opinion Research Centre survey, which has already been referred to in our debates. I think the findings indicated that there should be no change. The evidence from various employers' associations on the effects of employment legislation produced precisely nothing to indicate that the maternity provisions were damaging to recruitment, employment or to the conduct of their businesses.The Association of Independent Businesses, the Forum of Independent 1440 Businesses, the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses all carried out surveys of one kind or another, or submitted documents of one kind or another, which had no real criticism based on actual evidence of the harmful effect of the maternity provisions. Of course, a survey by the Small Businesses Bureau supported the Government's view, but I think that even the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that that asked somewhat leading questions. Of course, we know that that is an organisation which is closely linked to Conservative Central Office.
Therefore, there has been no independent view that these provisions should be changed in the way in which the Government propose. There has been no worthwhile evidence at all to support the exemption of small firms or the other changes which are envisaged. Far from encouraging employers to take on more women, as the Equal Opportunities Commission has pointed out, I think that women of childbearing age may be much more reluctant to work for small firms. Thus, the employers' range of potential employees will be reduced.
Quite apart from the two-tier aspect, this clause is riddled with a number of unsatisfactory phrases, and they are important phrases. There are the terms " suitable " alternative employment, " not substantially less favourable " and " not reasonably practicable ", all of which would cause problems of interpretation for industrial tribunals making judgments and would very probably lead to inconsistencies in their decisions. Indeed, I think it would be very difficult for tribunals to reach consistent decisions on the basis of the legislation as it will stand if the Bill goes through unamended.
The Equal Opportunities Commission said this of the Bill:
The changes in maternity rights put forward in the Bill erode the principle that the 1441 maternity rights package was intended to protect women from disadvantage in employment when they took time off to bear children. This principle has been breached by allowing employers to offer women returning to work jobs which could be less favourable than their original jobs.The Equal Opportunities Commission is very clear about its attitude to these clauses of the Bill, and of course it does include employer representatives as well as trade union representatives, which ought to be borne in mind by the House.In Committee I referred to a special survey of small businesses carried out by the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council, and subsequently my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to an updated version of that survey when we pursued our debates on this on the Floor of the House. Again, there was no evidence at all in that survey that any of the small firms were really bothered at all about maternity rights.
I have said that the two-tier argument is the essence of this clause, and of course it is. The Government's consultative document conceded that a two-tier system was undesirable—that is what it actually said—yet this clause creates this special category of firms with five or fewer employees which have this special exemption. The employer has only to show that it was " not reasonably practicable " to offer the same job back or to offer one " not substantially less favourable ".
We on the Opposition side of the House want the whole clause to go but, recognising that there is scant chance of the Government budging in that respect, we are trying by amendment No. 83 to minimise the damage as much as possible.
As the Government have moved since the publication of the consultative document from the figure of 20 or fewer down to the current figure of five or fewer employees, we are now seeking to reduce the figure still further, to three. I accept at once that that is an arbitrary figure, but so is the Government's figure. They have never at any stage, so far as I am aware, sought to justify the figure of five, and the reason is, of course, that they know full well that no such distinction should be drawn at all.
I have referred to the small firms exemption, but the rest of the clause is 1442 equally objectionable, and it all hangs together. In particular, there is the part about reinstatement, which talks about the offer of " suitable " and " appropriate " alternative work. The conditions here are very loose and ill-defined, and I think they will worry any woman leaving work to have a baby and hoping to go back to her job. They would create very considerable insecurity. At least if our amendment were accepted fewer women would be disadvantaged in that way.
There is also the word " substantially ", which, again, will offer opportunities for endless wrangling between the employer and the employee, and ultimately cause difficulties for the tribunals. The Government keep telling us that they do not want to create uncertainty, yet in this Bill they have gone on creating more and more uncertainty, clause by clause. They are hiding behind the tribunals and saying " Leave it to them ". The hon. and learned Gentleman made that his theme for much of the Committee stage of the Bill. " Leave it to the tribunals, which are experienced in these matters," he said. In practice what the Government are doing—albeit the experience of the tribunals is considerable and we have great faith in them—is making the tribunals' job very much more difficult.
We do not know what all this would mean in terms of job opportunities. Again, the hon. and learned Gentleman has come back to that tonight and given it as the reason for the changes. But there has been no real research on that and no attempt, as far as I am aware, to estimate the effects on job opportunities. I would have expected there to be some such research if the Government were seriously trying to make out a case instead of just groping along. Nor, until tonight, have we had any estimate from the Government of how many women would be adversely affected. I am a little surprised by the figure of 5,000 which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave, although perhaps we are not making quite the same comparisons. I did remind the Standing Committee that when the present Government, then in opposition, were proposing to exclude from the requirements of the Employment Protection Act 1975 employers with fewer than four employees the Department of Employment advised Ministers—and I am indebted for this information to my right 1443 hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker)—as follows:
The right is an individual one and it would be wrong to deprive an employee of these rights just because she happens to work for someone who has very few employees. To apply such an exclusion could deprive a large number of women, perhaps as many as half a million, of those rights.That was the advice which the Department of Employment gave to Ministers in the previous Government.That figure of half a million was based on the exclusion figure being four, so I would have thought it must now be more because the figure the Government have picked on is five. We know also that both the percentage of women at work in terms of the total work force and the actual number of women at work have increased, and I would have thought it would not be unreasonable to talk about three quarters of a million women at least being adversely affected—or potentially so; perhaps that is the difference between the figure the hon. and learned Gentleman gave and what I am trying to establish, which is the number of women potentially adversely affected as a consequence of these two clauses of the Bill.
I wonder what advice the Minister has had from his officials this time, whether officials have changed their tune and, if so, why. It seems rather unlikely. I would have thought it much more likely that the advice the officials have given has been disregarded. I would not pretend that an employer will never experience difficulty when an employee takes maternity leave. It would be silly to suggest that. But the Government have, as always in this Bill, chosen an arbitrary figure. I think it is fair to ask whether an employer with five workers who has one absentee on maternity leave will be more disadvantaged than an employer with 10 employees who has two of them on maternity leave, which is a quite possible situation. So it is an arbitrary figure, and the fact is that employers have overcome these difficulties, in so far as they are difficulties, in the past and can continue to do so. But I think they are minimal difficulties and have been unfairly and indeed grossly exaggerated by the Government in trying to make their case. They should not be going along this road of a two-tier system at all. We are talking 1444 here about individual rights and they really cannot be denied simply to suit the convenience of a particular employer at a particular time.
In Committee the Under-Secretary claimed, in connection with this clause:
wide support for what we propose in the Bill". [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 March, 1980; c. 1234.]He gave a very full response to the debate, which I read very carefully subsequently in the Official Report and in that response he did not offer a jot or tittle of evidence for that particular phrase claiming support. I think that if ever the Government have scraped the barrel to justify legislative change they have certainly done so on clause 11.I have spoken of a two-tier system but I think we can really talk about three tiers. First, there are women with reinstatement rights who will be aware of those rights and will use them whether or not they intend to return to work. They will use the situation to safeguard their position, and this will create uncertainty, not least for the employer. Secondly, there will be those who simply will not understand the complication and they will be deprived of their rights for that reason, so that effectively they will lose them by default. Thirdly, there will be those in the small firms who will effectively again be without rights at all. I must say this is very strange behaviour for a party which proclaims itself so often as being in favour of the individual. That claim is exposed as being phoney and a sham.
6.30 pm
It is not maternity rights or any other provisions in the Employment Protection Act that are hitting job opportunities or small businesses; it is the policies of the Government and high interest rates. We have seen today the latest CBI survey on industrial confidence. Those, and all the other problems reflected in plummeting business confidence, and the forecasts of startlingly high unemployment, which are made with increasing regularity, are hitting firms, not least small firms, hardest.
The Government are not fussy about the scapegoats they pick. In the Bill it is not just the unions, but, far more important, individual working people. In this clause, the Government have picked 1445 on working women. In view of that, it is not unreasonable to suggest that Conservative Members are a hollow and hypocritical bunch and I do not know how they can call themselves freedom fighters.
§ Mr. LeightonI find it obnoxious that the Government should legislate for inequality before the law and to create two classes of citizens, one group with one set of rights and another with fewer rights.
The Under-Secretary said that no previous piece of legislation had been canvassed more widely or had been the subject of wider consultations, but my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) has given us a long list of organisations, including Conservative trade unionists, who oppose the clause.
I wish to return to the survey, conducted by the Department of Employment, of 301 firms employing fewer than 50 employees. Two-thirds of the sample employed 10 or fewer workers. Only 4 per cent. of that sample had experience of holding a job open for a pregnant woman for 40 weeks and only 2 per cent. had given maternity pay. It is clear that only a miniscule proportion of women claim these rights. No firm had found any difficulties.
The Under-Secretary relied on the fact that 20 per cent. of the firms in the survey thought that holding a job open for 40 weeks could prove troublesome for the future. The hon. and learned Gentleman rested his whole case on that. But surely that finding is based on speculation and not on experience. Not one of the firms with experience of this matter believed that it caused any problem.
Another fact shown by the survey was that only 11 per cent. of those polled knew that there were any maternity provisions. Only when prompted and asked whether holding open a job for 40 weeks might cause problems did they reply " Yes, perhaps it could." That is not really convincing evidence. There is no evidence from small businesses that the maternity provisions are worrying them. What concerns those businesses are interest rates, VAT, lack of orders and so on. They are not concerned about the maternity provisions. It is unworthy for the Government to legislate on such slim evidence.
§ Mr. MayhewUnder the present law, a woman who qualifies for the right to return must be given her original job back unless it has disappeared for reasons of redundancy. If she is not given her original job back, she may put in a claim for unfair dismissal.
The clause is intended to tackle the difficulties that employers face in holding open the woman's original job for up to 40 weeks, and the problems that they face on her return. Of course, many employers cope with the problem by taking on temporary replacements who can be readily dismissed on the woman's return, because they will not have served long enough to qualify for unfair dismissal compensation.
As I said in our previous debate, we have to spare some thought for the women who can be dismissed with little warning, no matter how good a job they may be doing. Although the employer is likely to be merely uncertain about the woman's return, much more turns on the matter for her replacement. The main point of the clause is to cater for those situations in which it is not possible to recruit a temporary replacement and when permanent employment has to be offered to the person covering the absentee's job. At present an employer has to choose between facing an unfair dismissal claim from the woman on maternity leave or breaking the undertaking that he has made to her replacement.
The clause sets out to do two things. As for the reference to suitable alternative employment, any employer who finds it not reasonably practicable to take the woman back in her original job can offer an alternative, provided it is suitable.
The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) expressed anxiety about the wording, but the formula in the clause is taken from the previous Government's 1978 Act, which replaced a provision in the 1975 Act concerning the right to return to work in the case of redundancy. Section 45(4) of the 1978 Act sets out the description of the alternative job that has to be found. I am advised that it has not caused difficulties to tribunals and we believe that it is important that the same formula should be applied in the Bill.
The formula will give employers who have alternative jobs to offer much more flexibility in making their arrangements 1447 and, at the same time, keep the employees' links with their old jobs. I emphasise that an employer can take advantage of that flexibility only if he or an associated employer has suitable alternative work to offer.
I turn to the limited exception for very small firms, with which the amendment is concerned. There is only one exception to the general rule. If a firm with five or fewer employees cannot keep open the original job and has no suitable alternative to offer, either in that firm or with an associated employer, it may be exempted altogether from the obligation to reinstate the woman. However, if that is to apply the employer will have to be able to show, first, that it was not reasonably practicable to offer the woman her original job and, secondly, that it was not reasonably practicable to offer a suitable alternative.
It is only right that the small firm that is genuinely in that position should be relieved of the burden of the reinstatement provision. Those who say that our proposal is damaging to the interests of women employees must surely ask themselves what the position would be for a small firm. Its choice would be either to pay perhaps substantial compensation for unfair dismissal, which it might be unable to afford, or to take the woman back in her original job when that was not reasonably practicable.
When dealing with a firm employing only five or fewer employees, which will therefore probably be among the most fragile of firms, compelling it by law to do something that is not reasonably practicable and that would have a significant effect on its operations would create great danger to the future viability of the firm and the viability of the jobs of those whom it employs.
I will not raise again the question whether the Government are justified in
§ heeding what has been said to them and, in forming their judgment, the question whether, by making the adjustment for very small firms, they will be encouraging the creation and maintenance of jobs in those firms and the creation of new firms. The arguments on that aspect of the clause are the same as the arguments put forward on the previous clause. I heard what the hon. Member for Islington, Central said and he heard what I said. I suspect that neither of us will convince the other by repeating what has been said.
§ We believe that our proposal will stimulate employment. The figures that I was asked for are based on an assessment of the number of employers with five or fewer employees. About 1 million people are employed in small firms. About 40 per cent. of them—about 400,000—are women. The 1.33 per cent. figure that I gave in the last debate amounts to 5,000. The 500,000 referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, Central is derived from the same assessment that produces the 400,000 figure that I have just given. The 1.33 per cent leads to the 5,000 figure.
§ Of course, we wish to avoid two classes of employee. As a result of heeding what was pressed upon us strongly, we reduced the application of the special exemption from firms employing 20 people to firms employing five. I agree that five is an arbitrary number. However, it is the number adopted by the last Government in their application of the Sex Discrimination Act. We feel that it is sensible. We stand by that judgment. We believe that three would confine the special exemption too closely. For those reasons, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the amendment.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 297.
1453| Division No. 273] | AYES | [6.40 pm |
| Abse, Leo | Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Buchan, Norman |
| Adams, Allen | Beith, A. J. | Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) |
| Allaun, Frank | Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) |
| Anderson, Donald | Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Campbell, Ian |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Bidwell, Sydney | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest | Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Canavan, Dennis |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough) | Cant, R. B. |
| Ashton, Joe | Bray, Dr Jeremy | Carter-Jones, Lewis |
| Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham) | Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Cartwright, John |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Clark, Dr David (South Shields) |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S) | Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) |
| Cohen, Stanley | Hooley, Frank | Race, Reg |
| Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Horam, John | Radice, Giles |
| Conlan, Bernard | Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South) |
| Cook, Robin F. | Howells, Geraint | Richardson, Jo |
| Cowans, Harry | Huckfield, Les | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill) | Hudson, Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Crowther, J. S. | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North) |
| Cryer, Bob | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Robertson, George |
| Cunningham, George (Islington S) | Janner, Hon Greville | Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW) |
| Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven) | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Rodgers, Rt Hon William |
| Dalyell, Tam | John, Brynmor | Rooker, J. W. |
| Davidson, Arthur | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Johnson, Walter (Derby South) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) | Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda) | Ryman, John |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Sandelson, Neville |
| Dempsey, James | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Sever, John |
| Dewar, Donald | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Sheerman, Barry |
| Dixon, Donald | Kerr, Russell | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L) |
| Dobson, Frank | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop) |
| Dormand, Jack | Kinnock, Neil | Short, Mrs Renée |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Lamborn, Harry | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) |
| Dubs, Alfred | Lamond, James | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Leighton, Ronald | Silverman Julius |
| Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale) | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dunnett, Jack | Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West) | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire) |
| Eadie, Alex | Litherland, Robert | Snape peter |
| Eastham, Ken | Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Soley, Clive |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford West) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson | Stallard, A. W. |
| English, Michael | McCartney, Hugh | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Ennals, Rt Hon David | McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Stoddart, David |
| Evans, loan (Aberdare) | McElhone, Frank | Stott, Roger |
| Evans, John (Newton) | McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Strang, Gavin |
| Ewing, Harry | McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Straw, Jack |
| Faulds, Andrew | McKelvey, William | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Field, Frank | MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West) |
| Fitch, Alan | McNally, Thomas | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Flannery, Martin | McWilliam, John | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Fletcher, L. R. (llkeston) | Marks, Kenneth | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n) | Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Ford, Ben | Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn) | Tilley, John |
| Forrester, John | Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Torney, Tom |
| Foster, Derek | Maxton, John | Urwin, Rt Hon Tom |
| Foulkes, George | Maynard, Miss Joan | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood) | Meacher, Michael | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Freud, Clement | Mikardo, Ian | Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster) |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Watkins, David |
| Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) | Weetch, Ken |
| George, Bruce | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Welsh, Michael |
| Ginsburg, David | Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw) | White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) | White, James (Glasgow, Pollack) |
| Graham, Ted | Morton, George | Whitlock, William |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Movie, Rt Hon Roland | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Grant, John (Islington C) | Newens, Stanley | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington) |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Ogden, Eric | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East) |
| Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | O'Halloran, Michael | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton) |
| Hardy, Peter | O'Neill, Martin | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Winnick David |
| Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David | Woodall, Alec |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Palmer, Arthur | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Haynes, Frank | Parker, John | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Parry, Robert | Wright, Sheila |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Pavitt, Laurie | Young, David (Bolton East) |
| Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire) | Penhaligon, David | |
| Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Home Robertson, John | Prescott, John | Mr. James Tinn and |
| Homewood, William | Price, Christopher (Lewisham West) | Mr. Donald Coleman. |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Atkins, Robert (Preston North) | Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) |
| Alexander, Richard | Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Benyon, W. (Buckingham) |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Banks, Robert | Best, Keith |
| Ancram, Michael | Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Bevan, David Gilroy |
| Arnold, Tom | Bell, Sir Ronald | Biffen, Rt Hon John |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Bendall, Vivian | Biggs-Davison, John |
| Blackburn, John | Grieve, Percy | Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes) |
| Body, Richard | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds) | Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Mudd, David |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Grist, Ian | Murphy, Christopher |
| Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West) | Grylls, Michael | Myles, David |
| Bowden, Andrew | Gummer, John Selwyn | Neale, Gerrard |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll) | Needham, Richard |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Nelson, Anthony |
| Bright, Graham | Hampson, Dr Keith | Neubert, Michael |
| Brinton, Tim | Hannam, John | Newton, Tony |
| Brittan, Leon | Haselhurst, Alan | Normanton, Tom |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Hawksley, Warren | Nott, Rt Hon John |
| Brotherton, Michael | Hayhoe, Barney | Onslow, Cranley |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) | Heddle, John | Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Henderson, Barry | Osborn, John |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hicks, Robert | Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Parris, Matthew |
| Buck, Antony | Hill, James | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Budgen, Nick | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Burden, F. A. | Hooson, Tom | Pink, Rt Bonner |
| Butcher, John | Hordern, Peter | Pollock, Alexander |
| Butler, Hon Adam | Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford) | Porter, George |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Hunt, David (Wirral) | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down) |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hurd, Hon Douglas | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn) | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Channon, Paul | Jessel, Toby | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Chapman, Sydney | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Raison, Timothy |
| Churchill, W. S. | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Rathbone, Tim |
| Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) |
| Clark, Sir William (Croydon South) | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Renton, Tim |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Kimball, Marcus | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Cockeram, Eric | King, Rt Hon Tom | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Colvin, Michael | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Cope, John | Knight, Mrs Jill | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Cormack, Patrick | Knox, David | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Corrie, John | Lamont, Norman | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Costain, A. P. | Lang, Ian | Rossi, Hugh |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Rost, Peter |
| Critchley, Julian | Latham, Michael | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Crouch, David | Lawrence, Ivan | St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman |
| Dean, Paul (North Somerset) | Lawson, Nigel | Scott, Nicholas |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Lee, John | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Dover, Denshore | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills) |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo) | Silvester, Fred |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Sims, Roger |
| Durant, Tony | Loveridge, John | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | McCrindle, Robert | Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton) |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke) | Macfarlane, Nell | Speed, Keith |
| Eggar, Timothy | MacGregor, John | Speller, Tony |
| Elliott, Sir William | MacKay, John (Argyll) | Spence, John |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire) |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) | Sproat, lain |
| Farr, John | McQuarrie, Albert | Squire, Robin |
| Fell, Anthony | Madel, David | Stainton, Keith |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Major, John | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Marland, Paul | Stanley, John |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Marlow, Tony | Steen, Anthony |
| Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N) | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Stevens, Martin |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Marten, Neil (Banbury) | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Mates, Michael | Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire) |
| Forman, Nigel | Mather, Carol | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Maude, Rt Hon Angus | Tapsell, Peter |
| Fox, Marcus | Mawby, Ray | Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW) |
| Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Taylor, Teddy (Southend East) |
| Fraser, Peter (South Angus) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Tebbit, Norman |
| Fry, Peter | Mayhew, Patrick | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. | Mellor, David | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Thompson, Donald |
| Gardner, Edward (South Fylde) | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian | Mills, lain (Meriden) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Moate, Roger | Trippier, David |
| Gorst, John | Molyneux, James | Trotter, Neville |
| Gow, Ian | Monro, Hector | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Montgomery, Fergus | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) | Moore, John | Viggers, Peter |
| Gray, Hamish | Morgan, Geraint | Waddington, David |
| Greenway, Harry | Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth) | Wakeham, John |
| Waldegrave, Hon William | Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester) | Wheeler, John | Wolfson, Mark |
| Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire) | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek | Whitney, Raymond | |
| Wall, Patrick | Wickenden, Keith | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Waller, Gary | Wiggin, Jerry | Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and |
| Walters, Dennis | Wilkinson, John | Mr Anthony Berry. |
| Ward, John | Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.