§ The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 3, line 12 leave out subsection (3).
No. 6, in page 4, line 2, leave out schedule 1.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Although the amendment relates to redundancy payments, it is very much a Treasury matter so a Treasury Minister should be present.
§ Mr. John
My favourite song was never "Let my people go". However, I agree with my hon. Friend that on this occasion a Treasury Minister should be with us.
The clause seems to enshrine a dangerous novelty compared with previous Bills of this kind. It makes the employed person responsible to the extent of 0.35 per cent. of the 1 per cent. increase in contribution. For the first time, the employee is to be responsible for the redundancy payments fund. That type of benefit was first introduced in the Redundancy Payments Act 1965.
On the Second Reading of that measure, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) made an extremely interesting speech. Some of it proves his consistency; some of it ought to make the Government squirm with embarrassment. The only truly good taste that the right hon. Gentleman showed in his speech was when he mentioned my constituency. In explaining his opposition to the Bill, he said:I should much prefer to have seen a wage-related unemployment benefit scheme. That would seem to combine all the advantages of redundancy payment in a form which would achieve the aims of the present scheme.That rings hollowly today when the Conservative Government are intent upon destroying the sort of scheme that the right hon. Gentleman was then espousing.
Later in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman argued thatit would be possible to make sure that a larger proportion of redundancy payment was borne by the fund and a smaller proportion by the employer".Then he added:this is a measure of social benefit for employees generally and some part of the additional contribution might come from an additional 2d. per week from the employee.I hasten to add that that was in old—or what I would call real—money. The right hon. Gentleman continued:I should not regard that as an improper or unusual suggestion."—[Official Report, 26 April 1965; Vol. 711, c. 103–4.]In Conservative Party philosophy there has been some vague and lingering suggestion that the employee should 498 somehow bear the cost of his own potential redundancy, but we were then, in 1965, talking about tuppence a week. Now we are talking about 0.35 per cent. of the 1 per cent. increase in contribution. For a man on average earnings of £150 a week, it means more than £1 a week.
I suspect that for some time during the debate today—and certainly during the debate on Tuesday—we have been thrown by the fact that the Bill refers to the principal Act as being the Social Security Act 1975, but that was an Act to consolidate the 1973 Act and other Acts. I am not sure whether it is now proper to mention the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in the presence of Ministers, but certainly the debates took place when his Government were in office. No objection was expressed by any Conservative Back Bencher that the Government were trying to enshrine a provision that only the employer and the State should contribute towards the redundancy payments fund. No one suggested that the cost should be partly borne by the employee. Not a word to that effect was said. The measure went through on the nod. That was satisfactory from our point of view, because we believed it to be right. No Conservative Back Bencher could be found in 1973 to espouse the cause that an employee should pay a contribution towards his own prospective redundancy.
Now we find that the wheel has turned full circle. In the debate on Tuesday the Secretary of State said that it wasa perfectly logical extension of the principle of social insuranceto make those in work pay towards their own redundancy.
It was clear from the debate on Tuesday that the 0.35 per cent. which employed persons are asked to pay in respect of their liable earnings will bring in £353 million in 1982–83. Such is the record of the Government and such is the avalanche of redundancies created by their policies that the Minister had to go on to admit that the extra incomeshould be sufficient to keep the borrowing of the redundancy fund within the £300 million limit agreed by the House for the year."—[Official Report, 15 December 1981; Vol. 15, c. 175.]7 pm
We are again talking about the Government's fig leaf of cash limits as though they are sacrosanct and that every other imperative must be made subordinate to maintain them. We ignore the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consistently missed his targets and exceeded his borrowing requirements. He has failed to impose those cash limits to which he alleges he is sticking.
Therefore, those who have lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, are required to pay towards the redundancy fund. I have described it as the "Pay now, be redundant later" clause, which is a fair description. However, the people who contribute to the fund and who voted for the Government did not vote for redundancies, and certainly did not vote to finance their own redundancies. They voted for the synthetic concern of Saatchi and Saatchi's wall posters. In the Bill they face the increased prospect of redundancy and of paying towards it in the interim.
We do not believe that employed persons must contribute to keep the redundancy payments fund afloat. That is genuinely and properly the responsibility of the employer and of the State, and that is where it has rested since 1965. If it must be kept up by additional public expenditure, I for one would differ from the Economic 499 Secretary, the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), because I would not feel faint and retire to bed for a fortnight to recover from the shock. If it must be done in that way, so be it. It is time that the Government learnt that the proper use of public expenditure is to guard people against misfortune. The misfortune that is all too common in Britain today is that of people becoming redundant. To ask them to pay in preparation for their own redundancy is obscene. Therefore, the subsection should be struck out of the Bill.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
I support the amendment.
I raised a point of order earlier to impress upon the Government the fact that we should have some Treasury Ministers here because the clause is not a social security measure. It is fundamental to the management of the economy. It is sad that the Government have hinted in the Bill that they do not believe their statement that we are turning the corner. If they really believed that and also that the number of redundancies would decline during the next few months, the need to boost the redundancy fund would disappear. The Government do not have that confidence in their policy, so they must boost the fund in this way.
If the fund will be called upon less than has been the case in recent months, the need to boost it would be greatly reduced. If there is an improvement in the economy, such as the Government have claimed, the likelihood of redundancies will be less and the Government should be talking about the redundancy fund being better off than it is. The worrying feature of the Bill is the Government's lack of confidence in the future of British industry.
If the Government are not confident that they have turned the corner, they should take other measures than simply putting their efforts into ensuring that there is enough money in the fund for future redundancies. It will not give my constituents much Christmas cheer to learn that the Government are saying that we have not seen the worst of the redundancies and that there are more to come. A town such as Stockport has already seen far too many redundancies, although it is still an area that is more fortunate in that respect than many. The Government should have confidence in their economic policies or do something about them. They should not put the emphasis on increasing the redundancy fund.
If there must be more money in the redundancy fund, where should it come from? It is inappropriate to say that it must come from the employees and that they must pay for their own redundancies. They have little control over the matter. They are rarely consulted about whether there should be redundancies at any time. It is a blow that strikes suddenly. A notice goes up, there is a meeting with the shop stewards, and the workers are informed. There is no way in which they can influence the decisions that make them redundant. The employers have much influence about whether people are made redundant. It is also an area of Government policy. Time after time firms must make people redundant because of Government policy, not because of the behaviour of the employees.
High interest rates have operated this year. If the Government could get interest rates down, the likelihood of a large number of redundancies next year, thereby creating an imbalance in the fund, would be greatly reduced. The Government should direct their attention 500 towards bringing down interest rates rather than ensuring that there is sufficient money in the fund to pick up the disasters that occur because of their policy.
If we consider again the question of who should pay, it is suggested that the slimming down of British industry would be to the benefit of the whole community. It is certainly not for the benefit of those groups that are made redundant. Redundancy payments should be made out of the tax that is paid by everyone and not merely those who are in work. This is one of the more mean measures being brought forward by the Government. It will also boost inflation, because as contributions are increased people receive less in their wage packets, which encourages them to ask for more. That undermines the Government's strategy.
The measure of putting up employees' contributions to the redundancy fund shows the Government's lack of confidence in their economic management. It is a mean measure, because it asks those who are about to suffer to contribute to a minor relief of that suffering. The Government should consider ways in which we can ensure that there will not be a drain on the redundancy fund during the next 12 months.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)
This has been a short debate, but I shall try to put into context some of the claims that have been made by the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). The effect of the amendment and those linked with it, Nos. 4 and 6, would be to remove from the Bill the provision that introduces into the primary class 1 contribution—the employee's contribution—an element for the employment protection allocation.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd said that he did not believe that employees should make a contribution. That already happens in a roundabout way. Subsection (3) of clause 3 earmarks 0.35 per cent. for the employment protection allocation. I question the hon. Gentleman's statement that employees should not make a direct contribution, because it has become a long established principle in Britain that we make contributions towards our pensions and towards those days when we must have recourse to the national insurance fund. I should have thought that this measure, which is to provide resources for times ahead when one may not, for one reason or another, be in paid work, is a sensible and logical extension.
§ Mr. John
I think that the hon. Lady will accept that we all hope that retirement is within our control. If it is not, natural causes have intervened. Redundancy is caused by others and not by the employee. Secondly, I take up the remarks of the Secretary of State on Second Reading, especially in column 175 of Hansard of 15 December. The right hon. Gentleman is not setting his principles on an elevated plane. He is acting to keep the redundancy payments fund solvent. We know that, and it is no good dressing this up as a moral issue.
§ Mrs. Chalker
We all hope that we may choose retirement, but equally we all know that many reach retirement age and are not ready to retire. We know also that others must have recourse to the fund through no wish of their own. That can happen, for example, if a person has an accident and becomes ill.
501 I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in column 175 of the Official Report. The increase in employees' contributions for the employment protection allocation will mean that the fund will keep within the statutory borrowing limits which the House of Commons agreed on 18 November.
We seek to ensure that if redundancies occur there is adequate provision in the fund to make the necessary payments. The manner of doing so by contributions from those who are in employment seems to be the most sensible course. I note that there have been no suggestions for alternative funding. If we are to criticise what is proposed in clause 3(3) it behoves us to think about alternative means. It is true that there are rarely any except to provide the necessary funding by general taxation.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Will the hon. Lady accept that it is difficult for us to table amendments that represent an alternative economic strategy, and that it is the need for such an alternative that is basically the argument? If we had a better economic strategy, there would not be a need for the Bill.
§ Mrs. Chalker
I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's economic strategy. I shall enjoy debating it with him.
The financial effect of the three amendments would be to deprive the redundancy payments fund of £353 million in 1982–83 and to increase the income of the national insurance fund by £438 million, including £47 million of Treasury supplement. I do not think that anyone has suggested that that is what should be done.
There has been a far higher level of redundancies than anyone would wish. The Government wish that there could be no redundancies. However, I am confident that we shall see a steady fall in the number of redundancies in future. Having agreed that clause 1 should remain part of the Bill and that we should make a 1 per cent. increase in national insurance contributions, we would not be very sensible or logical if we were to amend clause 3(3) by amendment No. 3. That would not cause a reduction in national insurance contributions, but it would mean extra resources for the national insurance fund. That is clear to all those who have delved into these matters.
However we go about ensuring that there are sufficient resources in the redundancy fund for those who suddenly become redundant, we must apply economic sense, and that is exactly what clause 3(3) does.
§ Mr. John
The hon. Lady rightly addressed her remarks to the effect of the clause. Unfortunately, she seemed to come up against several mental barriers which prevented her from contemplating a different approach. She said, for example, that the effect of the amendment would be to provide extra income for the national insurance fund, as if the fund is currently embarrassed by the money that it has available and that it cannot find useful ways in which to use it. It could use extra income to uprate benefits by the full amount of inflation instead of a 2 per cent. shortfall. It could retain an element of earnings relation.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we managed to carry these amendments we would be happy to table a series of amendments that set out ways of spending the money?
§ Mr. John
I understand that. That is almost the reverse of my domestic function.
Another central theme of the hon. Lady's reply was that the Government would overshoot the borrowing requirement of the redundancy fund if they accepted our amendments. Again, the hon. Lady was running up against mental buffers—horror of horrors, we might have to borrow more to keep the fund alive. We have said consistently that the Government have a mental block. The Economic Secretary has a mental blockage on the Government's borrowing requirement, but with our reserves of oil and natural wealth there would be no great obstacle to increasing the requirement. I doubt whether even a Treasury mandarin would be forced out through ill health if we were to put before the House of Commons a measure to increase the borrowing requirement for the redundancy fund by another £300 million to keep it in balance. I consider the hon. Lady's reply to be spurious.
The Minister said that the Government expect the number of redundancies to lessen. She did not devote the rest of her speech to inspiring us with confidence. It is notable how striking proclamations are made in tremulous tones. The Government Actuary's assessment and assumptions suggest that another 300,000 adult employees will be made redundant. When the Bill is enacted, those who are now in employment will be called upon to pay to keep the the redundancy fund alive. They will not want to lose their jobs. If the 300,000 could be polled, it would be the one opinion poll that I would believe. I am sure that they would be 100 per cent. in favour of retaining their jobs, yet the forced loan that the Government are presenting will cause them to pay towards their own inevitable doom.
The hon. Lady argued that the subsection is necessary, that the system that we propose is not necessary and that in any event our suggestion is being followed in a roundabout way already. If that is so, there is no reason to reject the amendment. If she resists it, that more than ever will convince me that we are right. To show that we believe that the way in which redundancy payments have heretofore been dealt with is the right way, we intend to divide the Committee on this amendment.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 202, Noes 272.505
|Division No. 35]||[7.18 pm|
|Abse, Leo||Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)|
|Adams, Allen||Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)|
|Alton, David||Buchan, Norman|
|Anderson, Donald||Callaghan, RtHon J.|
|Archer, RtHon Peter||Campbell-Savours, Dale|
|Ashton, Joe||Canavan, Dennis|
|Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)||Carmichael, Neil|
|Barnett, Guy(Greenwich)||Clark, Dr David (S Shields)|
|Beith, A. J.||Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stolS)|
|Benn, RtHon Tony||Cohen, Stanley|
|Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)||Coleman, Donald|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.|
|Booth, RtHon Albert||Cowans, Harry|
|Boothroyd, MissBetty||Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)|
|Bottomley, Rt HonA.(M'b'ro)||Crawshaw, Richard|
|Bradley, Tom||Crowther, Stan|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Cryer, Bob|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Cunningham, G, (IslingtonS)|
|Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)||Cunningham, DrJ, (W'h'n)|
|Davidson, Arthur||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||McKelvey, William|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||McMahon, Andrew|
|Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)||McTaggart, Robert|
|Deakins, Eric||McWilliam, John|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Magee, Bryan|
|Dempsey, James||Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)|
|Dewar, Donald||Martin, M(G'gowS'burn)|
|Dixon, Donald||Maxton, John|
|Dobson, Frank||Maynard, MissJoan|
|Dormand, Jack||Meacher, Michael|
|Douglas, Dick||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Dubs, Alfred||Miller, Dr M.S. (EKilbride)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Molyneaux, James|
|Eadie, Alex||Morton, George|
|Ellis, R.(NED'bysh're)||Newens, Stanley|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||O'Halloran, Michael|
|English, Michael||O'Neill, Martin|
|Ennals, Rt Hon David||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Ewing, Harry||Park, George|
|Faulds, Andrew||Parker, John|
|Fitch, Alan||Parry, Robert|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Penhaligon, David|
|Ford, Ben||Pitt, WilliamHenry|
|Foster, Derek||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Foulkes, George||Prescott, John|
|Fraser, J. (Lamb'th.N'w'd)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Race, Reg|
|Freud, Clement||Radice, Giles|
|Garrett, John (NorwichS)||Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)|
|George, Bruce||Roberts, Albertf(Normanton)|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Roberts, Allan(Bootle)|
|Golding, John||Roberts, Gw'iiym(Cannock)|
|Graham, Ted||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Grant, George(Morpeth)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Grant, John (IslingtonC)||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Hardy, Peter||Ryman, John|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Sever, John|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Sheerman, Barry|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Haynes, Frank||Silkin, RtHonJ. (Deptford)|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)|
|Heffer, EricS.||Silverman, Julius|
|Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)||Skinner, Dennis|
|HomeRobertson, John||Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)|
|Homewood, William||Snape, Peter|
|Hooley, Frank||Soley, Clive|
|Howell, RtHonD.||Spearing, Nigel|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Huckfield, Les||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Stoddart, David|
|Hughes, Hoy (Newport)||Stott, Roger|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Straw, Jack|
|John, Brynmor||Summerskill, HonDrShirley|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Thomas, Mike (NewcastleE)|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Torney, Tom|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)|
|Kerr, Russell||Watkins, David|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Weetch, Ken|
|Kinnock, Neil||Wellbeloved, James|
|Lamborn, Harry||Welsh, Michael|
|Lamond, James||White, J. (G'gowPollok)|
|Leighton, Ronald||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Lestor, MissJoan||Whitlock, William|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)||Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)|
|McDonald, DrOonagh||Wilson, Gordon (DundeeE)|
|McElhone, Frank||Wilson, RtHonSirH.(H'ton)|
|Wilson, William (C'trySE)|
|Winnick, David||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Woolmer, Kenneth||Mr. James Tinn and|
|Wright, Sheila||Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.|
|Adley, Robert||Fairgrieve, SirRussell|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Faith, MrsSheila|
|Alexander, Richard||Farr, John|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Fell, Anthony|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Ancram, Michael||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Arnold, Tom||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Forman, Nigel|
|Banks, Robert||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Bell, SirRonald||Fox, Marcus|
|Bendall, Vivian||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)|
|Benyon, Thomas(A'don)||Fry, Peter|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Gardiner, George(Reigate)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Gardner, Edward (SFylde)|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Biffen, RtHonJohn||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Blackburn, John||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Blaker, Peter||Gorst, John|
|Body, Richard||Gower, SirRaymond|
|Bonsor, SirNicholas||Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Green way, Harry|
|Bowden, Andrew||G riff iths, E. (B 'ySt. Edm 'ds)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Griffiths, PeterPortsm'thN)|
|Bright, Graham||Grist, Ian|
|Brinton, Tim||Grylls, Michael|
|Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon||Hamilton, Hon A.|
|Brotherton, Michael||Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)|
|Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)||Hampson, DrKeith|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Hannam, John|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon.A.||Hastings, Stephen|
|Buck, Antony||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Budgen, Nick||Hawkins, Paul|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hawksley, Warren|
|Burden, SirFrederick||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Butcher, John||Heddle, John|
|Butler, Hon Adam||Henderson, Barry|
|Carlisle, John (Luton West)||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)||Hicks, Robert|
|Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Hill, James|
|Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul||Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Holland, Philip(Carlton)|
|Churchill, W.S.||Hooson, Tom|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)||Hordern, Peter|
|Clark, Sir W (Croydon S)||Howell, RtHonD.(G'ldf'd)|
|Clarke, Ken neth (Rushcliffe)||Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Colvin, Michael||Hurd, Hon Douglas|
|Cope, John||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Jenkin, RtHon Patrick|
|Corrie, John||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Jopling, RtHon Michael|
|Critchley, Julian||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Crouch, David||Kaberry, SirDonald|
|Dean, Paul (North Somerset)||Kitson, SirTimothy|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Knight, MrsJill|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Knox, David|
|Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.||Lamont, Norman|
|Dover, Denshore||Lang, Ian|
|Dunn, Robert(Dartford)||Langford-Holt, SirJohn|
|Durant, Tony||Latham, Michael|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Eggar, Tim||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Elliott, SirWilliam||Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lloyd, Ian (Havant& W'loo)|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Luce, Richard||Sainsbury, HonTimothy|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Scott, Nicholas|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)|
|Macmillan, RtHonM.||Shelton, William(Streatham)|
|McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)||Shepherd, Colin(Wereford)|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)||Shepherd, Richard|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Shersby, Michael|
|Madel, David||Silvester, Fred|
|Major, John||Sims, Roger|
|Marland, Paul||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Marlow, Antony||Speed, Keith|
|Marshall, Michael(Arundel)||Speller, Tony|
|Marten, RtHon Neil||Spence, John|
|Mather, Carol||Sproat, Iain|
|Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus||Squire, Robin|
|Mawby, Ray||Stainton, Keith|
|Mawhinney, DrBrian||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|May hew, Patrick||Stanley, John|
|Mellor, David||Stevens, Martin|
|Meyer, SirAnthony||Stewart, A(ERenfrewshire)|
|Miller, Hal(B'grove)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Mills, lain (Meriden)||Stokes, John|
|Miscampbell, Norman||StradlingThomas, J.|
|Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Moate, Roger||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Morgan, Geraint||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Thompson, Donald|
|Mudd, David||Thome, Neil (IlfordSouth)|
|Murphy, Christopher||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Myles, David||Townend, John(Bridlington)|
|Neale, Gerrard||Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)|
|Needham, Richard||Trippier, David|
|Nelson, Anthony||Trotter, Neville|
|Neubert, Michael||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Newton, Tony||Vaughan, DrGerard|
|Onslow, Cranley||Viggers, Peter|
|Osborn, John||Waddington, David|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Wakeham, John|
|Page, Richard (SW Herts)||Waldegrave, HonWilliam|
|Parris, Matthew||Walker, Rt HonP. (W'cester)|
|Patten, Christopher(Bath)||Walker, B. (Perth)|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Walker-Smith, RtHon Sir D.|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Wall, SirPatrick|
|Pawsey, James||Waller, Gary|
|Percival, SirIan||Walters, Dennis|
|Pink, R.Bonner||Ward, John|
|Pollock, Alexander||Wells, Bowen|
|Porter, Barry||Wells, John(Maidstone)|
|Prentice, RtHon Reg||Wheeler, John|
|Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)||Whitelaw, RtHonWilliam|
|Proctor, K, Harvey||Whitney, Raymond|
|Pym, RtHon Francis||Wiggin, jerry|
|Raison, Timothy||Wilkinson, John|
|Rathbone, Tim||Williams, D. (Montgomery)|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Winterton, Nicholas|
|RhodesJames, Robert||Wolfson, Mark|
|RhysWilliams, SirBrandon||Young, SirGeorge (Acton)|
|Ridsdale, SirJulian||Younger, RtHon George|
|Roberts, M. (CardiffNW)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Mr. Robert Boscawen and|
|Rossi, Hugh||Mr. John Selwyn Gummer.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.