EMPLOYMENT STATEMENT

HC Deb 19 October 1981 vol 10 cc101-11 '(1) In section 18(1) of the 1967 Act (Director's report etc.) there shall be added the following— "(c) Date for manual and non-manual men and women, full time, part time, casual and homeworkers, showing, in aggregate and separately for plants employing over 500 workers—

1. Numbers employed in United Kingdom at year's end.
2. Aggregate annual remuneration.
3. Total annual employment cost and a breakdown of non-wage costs.
4. Average weekly earnings for the last week in April and October each year.
5. Days lost through sickness.
6. Accidents and days lost.
7. Total days spent in training and costs of training.
8. Numbers employed outside the United Kingdom, by country.

(d) Aggregate information and separate information for plants employing over 500 workers on—

1. Periods of short time working, indicating reasons.
2. Turnover of employment.
3. Retirements and pre-retirement arrangements.
4. Redundancies, total redundancy payments and arrangements made to assist those affected.
5. Pension provisions, stating whether the company has contracted out of the State additional pension scheme."

(2) In section 18(2) of the 1967 Act there shall be added the following— "(c) Date for manual and non-manual men and women, full time, part time, casual and homeworkers, showing in aggregate and separately for plants of the company and the subsidiaries employing over 500 workers—

1. Numbers employed in United Kingdom at year's end.
2. Aggregate annual remuneration.
3. Total annual employment cost and a breakdown of non-wage costs.
4. Average weekly earnings for the last week in April and October each year.
5. Days lost through sickness.
6. Accidents and days lost.
7. Total days spent in training and costs of training.
8. Numbers employed outside the United Kingdom, by country.

(d) Aggregate information and separate information for plants of the company and subsidiaries employing over 500 workers on—

1. Periods of short time working, indicating reasons.
2. Turnover of employment.
3. Retirement and pre-retirement arrangements.
4. Redundancies, total redundancy payments and arrangements made to assist those affected.
5. Pension provisions, stating whether the company and any subsidiaries have contracted out of the State additional pension scheme .".'—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Clinton Davis

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

New clause 7—Pension reporting.

New clause 8—Statement of source and application of funds.

Mr. Davis

We have argued for an employment statement to be included in a directors' report. We did that in Committee, and we maintain that view. The drafting of the new clause is to some extent different from that which we argued in Committee, but the principle underlying it is the same. The philosophy that we adopt is that there should be more open government of companies, notably in the medium and large companies, while the Government take the opposite view.

Shrouded in the misty argument about cutting down on bureaucracy, which we have heard incessantly from the Under-Secretary, is the real argument for enabling companies within the areas that I have described to hide important aspects of information about their affairs, or at least to make it more difficult for those seeking such information to procure it. Therefore, there remains a substantial area of conflict between the Government and ourselves on that matter. Our approach is healthier. It is interesting to observe that the United States takes much the same line.

All too often the Government's approach is dominated by the traditional, somewhat antiquated concept that companies are almost exclusively responsible to their shareholders and creditors, whereas we say that that doctrine should be substantially qualified and extended to employees, customers and society at large.

The Government find it difficult to argue against the substance of the case that we have put forward. they say that they have no opposition to the principle, but merely to encompassing the change that we seek in law. They say that they believe in the voluntary approach to these matters.

The Green Paper issued by the Government said: A number of companies prepare statements about employment for inclusion in a separate report to employees. The Government welcomes these moves towards producing employment reports and also the experiments in wider social reporting which is being undertaken by a number of companies, but does not consider that, for the present at least, legislation has a part to play in encouraging these developments. The Government use the phrase for the present at least". Perhaps they have it in mind to adopt our proposals in future, but I doubt that.

The information that we are seeking in the new clause is highly relevant to the work force and of considerable significance to the public. it is important for the public and the work force to know how a company's employment resources are being managed. For example, should not the public know how large and medium-sized companies—and medium-sized companies, within the Government's definition, are very substantial indeed—are fulfilling their responsibilities for training and retraining, for registering the contribution that is made by them towards the social good of the community as a whole, how they are operating apprenticeship schemes—which are disappearing all too rapidly—and how they are dealing with accidents at work? All those matters, and many more, are dealt with specifically in the new clause, and we say that they ought to be known by the public and by the work force.

In their previous Bill the Government made a concession. They said that there should be a form of employment statement for the disabled. We had been urging that and eventually the Government relented. If they are prepared to concede the principle for the disabled, why should they not concede it for the whole work force? What is the difference in principle between the two? The Government must convey their argument about it to the House tonight.

Why do we say that the voluntary approach is inadequate? We say that it is based essentially on a false proposition—that companies are prepared all too readily to divulge the information. I do not believe that that is the evidence. But the the Government say "We ought not to impose too great a bureaucracy on the private sector with regard to employment statements, pension requirements, pension reporting, and so on, because it has far too much to do". Is it not strange that the Government employ the voluntary approach for companies but refuse to do it for trade unions? With trade unions there has to be the force of law, but with the private sector—even with modest provisions such as these—we have to rely on the voluntary approach.

In this context it is not idle to consider the enormous concentration and power of industry in our society today. I quoted the statistics in Committee. In 1950, the top 100 companies in Britain produced 20 per cent. of our national output. In 1979 the figure was nearing 60 per cent. In 1980–81 it is close to 70 per cent. Many of these companies operate multinationally. Most exercise enormous power, and it is a power that is concentrated in relatively few hands, all too often closely linked, and barely accountable to the community, to employees and to consumers. We have to deal with that situation. These modest proposals are one way of getting beneath the shroud that is sometimes used by companies to hide important information that ought to be readily available. That is why we are putting forward the proposition.

We are not acting in isolation. In France, even under the regime of Giscard d'Estaing, far more extensive reporting on employment statements was required than we have provided for in our modest amendment. In Belgium, Holland and West Germany disclosure is far more extensive than in this country, so we ask the Government to change their mind on this matter. We believe that it would be a great advance and that it would be appreciated by the work force. The Government ought to do it.

Pension reporting is dealt with in new clause 7. The Government say that they are not opposed in principle to the concept of pension reporting. Their objections lie essentially on the following grounds. They say that they do not want to increase the requirements for statutory reporting, that it is inconsistent with their general policy. They say that an accounting standard is being produced. Lastly, they say that the new provision in the Bill goes further than anything that has previously been prescribed.

9 pm

I have already dealt with the importance of including the employment statement in the directors' reports. We believe that pensions reporting is perhaps even more important. Some pension fund trustees have no obligation to produce any accounts at all, let alone have them audited, yet pension costs form a significant proportion of the total payroll cost.

Paragraph 50(4) of schedule 1 requires particulars of pension commitments actually provided in the accounts to be disclosed, and some similar information is required of pension commitments for which no provision has been made, but no guidance is given of the kind of detail required. There is no framework.

I believe that the voluntary approach is pretty useless. Very few companies give more than the barest possible details and no accounting standard has yet been provided, although the accountants' profession has been working on this since 1975. We have no assurance that an accounting standard will be available in the near future or will satisfy the standards that should apply, because I suspect that when a standard emerges it will be the result of considerable compromise.

We therefore contend that there is a strong case for a framework of more informative reporting to be established, that it ought to be done now and that the best way of doing it is in the Bill. This would enable the actuarial and accounting professions to develop more detailed guidance to provide the framework for the new accounting standard. We have waited too long for this. It is important that we press this matter to a Division. We shall do so on the basis of the employment statement, but we put on record our strong views on pension reporting.

I concede that I do not place so much reliance on the statement of source and application of funds. Indeed, although it has been selected for discussion in this debate, I do not think that I should press the matter to a Division.

I therefore base my arguments primarily upon the need for more open government within private industry, or at least within the area of private industry comprising the large and medium-sized companies, and I hope—although I suspect that I shall be disappointed—that the Minister will come forward with a more positive reply than his colleague was able to give in Committee.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) has moved the new clause with his usual facility, clarity and brevity. I shall follow him, at least in the brevity.

In view of the comparative position in EEC countries in terms of reporting obligations, I stand somewhat amazed at the moderation of the terms of the new clause. We know, particularly in relation to new clause 3, that the addition of a new obligation is proposed in respect of the statement. I concede that a balance must be struck between the argument that one is simply increasing bureaucracy by such new obligations, creating red tape and diverting the business man from his true function of producing and selling the goods, and the arguments relating to the company's social responsibilities. Under new clause 3, the obligation is to be placed only upon medium and larger companies, so the Government cannot argue that it will be oppressive to smaller companies. I suspect that all the information sought in new clause 3 is already readily available to the companies in various forms. It is, therefore, not a substantial obligation upon them simply to collate information which is probably already available to them if only they put it together. Moreover, as my hon. Friend has said, it is a move away from the nineteenth century definition of a company and the rather narrow definition of its obligations in respect only of its shareholders to the more modern concept of a company having community and social responsibilities. Certainly, the information sought in the new clause is of public concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central said that details of the training facilities undertaken by a company would be made available. However, people in areas such as my own think of the extent to which apprenticeships have halved or more in the recent past. Although the Government may say that they are wedded to the voluntary principle and self-regulation, in these Companies Bills they are forced to move some steps away from self-regulation—for example, with insider dealing, concert parties and so on. Self-regulation is gradually being eroded and it seems that the Government are unwillingly being dragged towards a wider and more modern definition of a company's responsibilities.

If modest new clause 3 is now rejected, and on the precedent of the moves away from self-regulation and the voluntary principle, we can promise the Government that this will not be the end of the matter. Just as we have Company Bills year after year and Session after Session, we shall continue to raise this matter until the Government eventually succumb.

Mr. Peter Rees

I can reassure the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). It is certainly not the intention of this Administration that there should be Companies Bills year after year. We regret having troubled the House with Companies Bills in two successive years. However, neither the House nor the hon. Gentleman should regard that as establishing any kind of precedent. But as I said earlier, one's perception of company problems and their nature develops and, naturally, we must keep abreast of them.

Mr. Anderson

That is not quite what I meant. I was thinking in terms of the pipeline of European directives which the Government are gradually having to accept.

Mr. Rees

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in one sense. I do not say that we would not have had this Companies Bill had it not been for the fourth directive, but that was part of the justification for troubling the House yet again with a long and complicated Companies Bill.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is an output at Brussels, which is both constructive and illuminating, of which we shall take account at appropriate moments. However, the hon. Gentleman should not feel that there is any comparability between Companies Bills and Finance Bills because that would be going a little too far.

I hope that there is not too much between us on these issues. I assure Labour Members that we are not being dragged protesting into the late twentieth century. I do not want to take the debate into acrimonious and partisan areas from which we have managed to escape so far, but I do not recall that in the nineteenth century the Tory Party was the party of mill owners. The mill-owners may have made their contribution to the country's economy, but the Tory Party can look back to Lord Shaftesbury and thereafter to a wide range of enlightened legislation in the whole area of industrial relations and so on.

If Labour Members want some tangible evidence of our recognition of the debt that companies and their directors owe to their employees, I need only remind them that, for the first time, in the Companies Act 1980 directors were specifically permitted on winding-up to take account of the interests of employees.

Mr. Anderson

That is not enforceable.

Mr. Rees

The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the legal profession, says "That is not enforceable." The whole point is that prior to that there was some question as to whether directors were entitled to apply the assets of a company in the course of a winding-up for the benefit of employees.

However, I do not believe that we need stray too far into the technicalities. As the hon. Gentleman may guess, I am very ready to debate legal technicalities, but I do not believe that it would generate the debate that we need to illuminate the new clauses. Nor would it grip the minds of other hon. Members who do not have a legal background. However, perhaps on some other occasion we can engage in friendly battle.

I recognise the more general points that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) makes, but I listened in vain to his speech for a recognition that there are certain obligations in the first schedule which states that a great range of information is to be included in a director's report on matters touched on, I admit, rather more comprehensively in his provisions.

We have to ask ourselves whether employees are at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the company either under schedule 1 or, indeed, under other statutory provisions. The Employment Protection Act 1975—no doubt the hon. Gentleman will claim credit for it and perhaps correctly so, as it was introduced by the previous Administration—indicates a whole range of areas where information must be given. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 does so in another area of employment. Therefore, there is provision for relevant information to be available to employees and those who represent them in negotiation or otherwise in those and other Acts. It is not as though they are completely excluded from any knowledge of what is happening in the management of the companies that employ them. I suggest that there is sufficient information there and also in the matter of pensions.

If the House refers again to schedule 1 and particularly paragraph 56 it will see that the directors have to return: wages and salaries paid or payable in respect of that year to those persons"— that is, employees— social security costs incurred by the company on their behalf; and other pension costs so incurred; so it is not as though there is no information to be given.

The practice in France and other countries has been referred to. In most of those countries the industrial structure is a little different.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

More successful.

Mr. Rees

The hon. Gentleman may fairly make that point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

That is the connection.

9.15 pm

Mr. Rees

The third new clause, as the hon. Member for Hackney, Central was disposed to agree, is perhaps not quite in the same class. It raises a very interesting and perhaps important accounting point—the source of funds point. I understand from my reading of Hansard that this was the subject of some slight debate upstairs in the Standing Committee. I recognise the general points that were made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was right not to elaborate the debate, because those who pay attention to these matters know the various considerations. He will be the first to admit that this is covered by SSAP 10. It is a question whether that goes far enough or whether it should be given the force of law. I believe that in this area it is better to leave the accountancy profession to work out the rules, subject, of course, to the general oversight of Parliament. I believe that the accountancy profession is sufficiently adroit and sensitive—

Mr. Clinton Davis

I have not pressed the argument about new clause 8. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give some information, however, on the progress being made with regard to the accounting standard relating to pension reporting? Hon. Members were given some information by the Government in Committee, but progress seems terribly dilatory.

Mr. Rees

The hon. Gentleman may level that criticism at a distinguished profession of which neither he nor I am a member. I do not believe that there is any need for Government intervention. I believe that the profession is aware of its responsibilities. The Government will watch, benevolently but carefully, developments in that field.

The hon. Gentleman fairly put the case on new clause 8. I think that this is adequately covered by SSAP 10. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman agrees that this matter can perhaps be left to the accountancy profession, although the Government do not absolve themselves from all responsibility.

I come back to the two questions that relate more nearly to employees and to pensions. I hope that I have deployed the considerations that have weighed with me and which lead me to ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his proposal to a Division. If he feels disposed so to do, I would ask the House to reject it. I do not say that I have any doubts about the position that I have deployed. One approaches these matters with a certain diffidence. I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Standing Committee. I have read the debates but I have, perhaps, not got the full immediacy of them. I have not been subjected, day after day, to the relentless but charming force of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central and the arguments of his hon. Friends. If, however, I had any doubts, I would be fortified by what I have read in the Green Paper entitled "The Future of Company Reports" published in July 1977 by the previous Administration. The general principles to be applied in considering this kind of problem are fairly set out in paragraph 8 of that document. I hope that the House will forgive me if I read them: In considering any proposal for extra disclosure in company reports a number of criteria need to be applied. The most important criterion is whether publication will clearly assist those with a direct interest in the company to gain a better understanding of the affairs of the company as a whole or a significant part of it. I venture to put to the House that the existing requirements coupled with the requirements of other legislation provide adequate information in this field. The document goes on to state fairly: But there are other considerations that tend to limit the amount of information to be disclosed: is the information already available,"— yes , I suggest that it is—— or would the cost of collecting and presenting it be prohibitive? I think that, in many cases, this would be so.

Mr. Anderson

Has any consideration been given by the Government to how much additional work will be necessary within a company to collate this information? Is it not right that all, or virtually all, the information requested is readily available in companies and there is not, therefore, a substantial additional obligation?

Mr. Rees

No one could give a confident answer to that question. If I were to attempt to quantify the cost I would not be believed, and rightly so. The cost must vary according to the circumstances of each company. Various factors are involved, including the spread of a company's operations, where workers are employed, how many are part-time and how many are full-time and so on. A whole range of factors are involved and they make it impossible to give a confident answer. We should err on the side of caution unless we are persuaded that information is crucial. I suggest that in some cases the cost of obtaining and supplying the information would indeed be prohibitive.

The Green Paper also asks whether there is a danger of revealing information of value to competitors I suggest that in many cases that would also be a factor. Assisted considerably by the Green Paper, I suggest to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central, who must have had a hand in its preparation——

Mr. Campbell-Savours

The Minister referred to the Green Paper's statement that it would not be convenient for companies to produce information at reasonable expense. But what area of the new clause is not covered by information that is already available in any company with more than 500 employees? There is not one question in the new clause to which such a company would not have the answer. Can the Minister pick out one area where information would not be available?

Mr. Rees

I have no doubt that information could be collected.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

It is already collected.

Mr. Rees

I doubt that. Collecting, collating, analysing and distilling information in the terms of the new clause would be an unwarrantable burden on companies.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Be specific.

Mr. Rees

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to look through a long clause. I could readily do so, but I suspect from the hon. Gentleman's agreeable contributions to Finance Bill debates that he has some slight knowledge of industry and he will know that, although information may be available, it may not be available centrally but only at various branches. The cost of collecting, distilling and analysing information would in many cases—I do not say every case—be an unwarrantable burden on the company concerned.

Bearing in mind the broad principles so elegantly set out in the Green Paper of 1977, which the hon. Member for Hackney, Central has no doubt been able to reflect on for many years—I did not notice any rush to translate those aspirations into legislation between 1977 and 1979—I ask the Opposition not to press the new clause to a Division. I think that, at heart, we approach the problems in the same way. If the hon. Gentleman presses the new clause to a Division, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will unhesitatingly reject it.

Mr. Clinton Davis

The Minister for Trade constantly refers to agreeable contributions. His was no less agreeable than anyone else's, but perhaps he has to try to be more agreeable than anyone else because he is trying to hide an implausible case.

The Minister quoted the 1977 Green Paper at me. I was, to some extent, part author of that document. I wish that he had read on from the part that he quoted, because on page 9 we argued strongly for an employment statement. We said that it was appropriate that that should be embodied in legislation dealing with the fourth directive. We committed ourselves to that, and I shall read one paragraph that may even commend itself to the Minister: What is proposed is that companies should publish an employment statement which sets out information about its workforce and employment policies which are relevant not only to employees themselves but to shareholders and others concerned with the company. The aim is to provide sufficient information about the workforce and about the way in which the employment resources are managed to give an indication of the effectiveness of management in this crucial area of the company's activities, and the way in which the company is meeting its social obligations with respect, for example, to training of school-leavers or the employment of the disabled.

Mr. Wickenden

That is meaningless.

Mr. Davis

The hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) says that it is meaningless. It was so meaningless that in the 1980 Bill the Government decided to enact a provision that there should be a statement in the directors' report on the employment of the disabled. The hon. Member for Dorking is willing himself to vote, in future, against his Government. In his case, it will take a great deal of will power. This is a reasonable step to take and it is not burdensome. The better companies can manage it. Those companies that are less efficient and less willing to practise open government and are not prepared to do so need a shove. That is what the employment statement is all about.

Precious little has been said about pension reporting. I have made a reasonable case for establishing that the accountancy profession also needs a shove in this respect. Pension reporting is vital to the work force and to those who wish to know how a company is fulfilling its social obligations. It is also important as regards profitability. It is not good enough that the accountancy profession should take six years to play around with a draft accounting standard. If the profession is not prepared to do something, the Government should. Indeed, a Labour Government would do something. The information is important and should not be hidden in the way that many companies hide it. Disclosure obligations in this connection are not sufficiently expressed in our law, and the Government's proposals are wholly inadequate. Therefore, the disagree- ment between the Government and the Opposition should be reflected in a Division. Accordingly, we shall divide the House on the clause dealing with the employment statement.

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

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 195.

Division No. 303]	[9.25 pm
AYES
Allaun, Frank	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Anderson, DonaldM	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Lamborn, Harry
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)	Lamond, James
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Lestor, Miss Joan
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)	Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)	Lyon, Alexander (York)
Buchan, Norman	McCartney, Hugh
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)	McElhone, Frank
Campbell, Ian	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Carmichael, Neil	McWilliam, John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Magee, Bryan
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)	Marks, Kenneth
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Maynard, Miss Joan
Conlan, Bernard	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Cook, Robin F.	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Cowans, Harry	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Crowther, Stan	Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Cryer, Bob	Morton, George
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Newens, Stanley
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Dalyell, Tam	Palmer, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur	Parry, Robert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Pavitt, Laurie
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Deakins, Eric	Prescott, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Dixon, Donald	Race, Reg
Dormand, Jack	Radice, Giles
Douglas, Dick	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dubs, Alfred	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Robertson, George
Eadie, Alex	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Eastham, Ken	Sandelson, Neville
Evans, John (Newton)	Sever, John
Ewing, Harry	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Fitch, Alan	Skinner, Dennis
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)	Snape, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Soley, Clive
Ford, Ben	Spearing, Nigel
Forrester, John	Spriggs, Leslie
Foster, Derek	Stoddart, David
Foulkes, George	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Torney, Tom
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
George, Bruce	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Watkins, David
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Weetch, Ken
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)	Welsh, Michael
Hardy, Peter	Whitlock, William
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Wigley, Dafydd
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Haynes, Frank	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Heffer, Eric S.	Winnick, David
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)	Wright, Sheila
Home Robertson, John	Young, David (Bolton E)
Hooley, Frank
Hoyle, Douglas	Tellers for the Ayes:
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Mr. Frank R. White and
John, Brynmor	Mr. Allen McKay.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Alton, David	Hill, James
Ancram, Michael	Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Aspinwall, Jack	Hordern, Peter
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Banks, Robert	Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Beith, A. J.	Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Bendall, Vivian	King, Rt Hon Tom
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)	Kitson, Sir Timothy
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)	Knight, Mrs Jill
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Lamont, Norman
Berry, Hon Anthony	Lee, John
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Le Marchant, Spencer
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Blackburn, John	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Blaker, Peter	Lyell, Nicholas
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Macfarlane, Neil
Boscawen, Hon Robert	MacGregor, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Braine, Sir Bernard	Major, John
Bright, Graham	Marland, Paul
Brinton, Tim	Marlow, Antony
Britten, Rt. Hon. Leon	Mather, Carol
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Bryan, Sir Paul	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Budgen, Nick	Mellor, David
Bulmer, Esmond	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Burden, Sir Frederick	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Moate, Roger
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Monro, Sir Hector
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Montgomery, Fergus
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )	Morgan, Geraint
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Chapman, Sydney	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Churchill, W. S.	Mudd, David
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)	Murphy, Christopher
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Myles, David
Clegg, Sir Walter	Neale, Gerrard
Cope, John	Needham, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount	Nelson, Anthony
Critchley, Julian	Newton, Tony
Crouch, David	Osborn, John
Dorrell, Stephen	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Dover, Denshore	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Elliott, Sir William	Pattie, Geoffrey
Eyre, Reginald	Pawsey, James
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell	Penhaligon, David
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Percival, Sir Ian
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Pollock, Alexander
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	Raison, Timothy
Forman, Nigel	Rathbone, Tim
Fox, Marcus	Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Rhodes James, Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Goodhew, Victor	Rifkind, Malcolm
Gorst, John	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Gow, Ian	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Rossi, Hugh
Gray, Hamish	Royle, Sir Anthony
Greenway, Harry	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Grist, Ian	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Gummer, John Selwyn	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Shersby, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith	Silvester, Fred
Haselhurst, Alan	Skeet, T. H. H.
Hawkins, Paul	Smith, Dudley
Hawksley, Warren	Speed, Keith
Hayhoe, Barney	Speller, Tony
Henderson, Barry	Spence, John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Wakeham, John
Squire, Robin	Waldegrave, Hon William
Stainton, Keith	Walker, B. (Perth)
Stanbrook, Ivor	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Stanley, John	Wall, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Martin	Waller, Gary
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)	Warren, Kenneth
Stokes, John	Watson, John
Tapsell, Peter	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Wells, Bowen
Temple-Morris, Peter	Wheeler, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.	Wickenden, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Thompson, Donald	Winterton, Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm	Wolfson, Mark
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Trippier, David
Trotter, Neville	Tellers for the Noes:
Vaughan, Dr Gerard	Mr. Peter Brooke and
Viggers, Peter	Mr. Alastair Goodlad.
Waddington, David

Question accordingly negatived.