§ 'The successor company shall satisfy the Secretary of State that it will—
- (a) establish adequate consultative procedures including provisions for industrial democracy;
- (b) negotiate terms and conditions of employment including pay, promotion, job security and other benefits;
- (c) promote and encourage satisfactory levels of recruitment, training, safety, health and welfare, for its employees.'.—[Mr. Golding.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Golding
I beg to move, That the clause be react a Second time.
I should explain to the House that I am on the Front Bench only because my mate wants his supper.
The Bill is a very bitter pill for the staff of BT. There are no safeguards for them. The Minister has refused to include any in the licence. He is full of assurances— 1051 vague, inevitably bland and always indeterminate. There are plenty of nods and winks. He is always saying that everything will be all right on the night. He is for ever saying, "I don't know what you're bothered about", and, "I can't see what the fuss is all about." But on clause after clause and issue after issue, nothing is put in writing. The hon. Gentleman must have been a very difficult man to court: nothing is put in writing.
The past four years have been a story of the Government giving private assurances, but not saying anything too firm or putting anything in writing. Those assurances, nods and winks have come unstuck within a few months. There have been more changes in the course of history that the Minister has been plotting in the past three years than occurred in the Russian and French revolutions. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman talks of history when he means a cracked crystal ball into which he frequently looks.
BT's staff have worked under a lifetime career guarantee arrangement. That lifetime career guarantee has led to civilised arrangements within the old Post Office and BT. It has led to great staff loyalty to the business. It is the nearest thing in Britain to the Japanese model. Postmaster-General after Postmaster-General, both Labour and Conservative, has paid tribute after their terms of office to the loyalty and dedication of the staff of the old Post Office, now BT.
BT staff want not only job security, but careers, and career prospects have been available to them in BT. BT has escaped from the worst of the "us and them" attitude that prevails in British industry. BT engineers have worked hard in working hours, and have also studied hard. A feature of the life of a public sector telecommunications engineer has been that he has studied hard as well as worked hard during the day.
Our apprenticeship arrangements in BT, jointly controlled, have been a model for British industry. It is well known that BT has trained for the nation, and has a first-rate record on training. Both apprentices and adult recruits have seen BT and the old Post Office as a career, and it is unusual to find that attitude among manual workers in Britain. With a promotion system based on merit, and not on the old school tie, youngsters and adults have gone for training and retraining, in order not only to tackle complex technical changes but to better themselves.
I cannot speak highly enough of BT's central technical college at Stone, or of the teaching staff's commitment. That willingness to cope with technical change together with productivity bargaining has led to massive increases in productivity.
If British industry in general, as well as private companies, had experienced the productivity increases that occurred in the old Post Office, now BT, there would have been not an economic decline in the past few years but an economic miracle. I have already referred to the absence of the traditional "them and us" attitude. Sadly that may change. Sometimes the Minister talks proudly of the so-called avhievements of liberalisation, but in the past few years there has been a black side to that.
Liberalisation, as applied by Sir George Jefferson and as manifested in profit centres, is destroying good industrial relations in BT. During the past three years I have witnessed an enormous deterioration in BT's industrial relations. It is easier to destroy a constructive 1052 partnership than to create it. However, there was once a constructive partnership in which the unions played a full part.
I have been a full-time officer of the POEU since 1960. It is sad to see the change in industrial relations within BT. It is not a change for the better. On the contrary I fear that it will be permanently for the worse. The POEU has played an important part in the development of British Telecommunications. All that is now at risk.
Does anybody seriously believe that private industry will invest well over £100 million a year in training as does BT? I had responsibility in the Department of Employment under Albert Booth for training and I find it very difficult to envisage private employers, particularly at a time of economic stringency, spending such sums on training. One has only to look at other areas of the electronics industry and information technology to understand that that level of training is not sustained. British Telecommunications has invested well over £100 million in training 10,000 staff a year. That training will not take place when the shareholders get hold of the accounts and decide that they would prefer to see the money paid out in dividends rather than reinvested in technical staff training.
I fear that promotion will be adversely affected in BT as in other British industries. Promotion will be made not on merit but on whom one knows, which school one went to, which club one frequents and who one's father is. I do not believe the same openness will prevail under private shareholding as has existed under public ownership.
I shall not refer to pensions as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) dealt adequately with that matter. I was a little dubious about my hon. Friend's doubts on whether the Government would take us into bankruptcy. Last night as I drove him home to north Staffordshire after the debate he kept on telling me he was seeing King Kong, and I doubted his stability then. Having heard him doubt that the Government would take us into bankruptcy, I question his stability again.
§ Mr. Golding
I see that King Kong has arrived even now in the House.
The level of joint consultation that took place in the old Post Office is being undermined. Apart from changed managerial attitudes, decentralisation is responsible for that. We ought to be going further and enjoying worker participation, not destroying what has already been built up. No better area for experimentation in advanced forms of worker participation has existed than in British Telecommunications. Our unions and our staff have always taken a great interest in the financial affairs of British Telecommunications and in its future. The concerns of the unions have always gone beyond wages, hours and conditions. Our unions and staff have wanted to be involved in managerial decision making. Management is becoming more reluctant to let us become involved, and I fear that with privatisation and increased liberalisation we shall regress and not progress.
Above all there is job security. The Minister of State has charged the POEU time and again with wanting to protect the jobs of its members. My answer to the charge 1053 is very simple: we are guilty of wanting to protect the jobs of our members. The Minister and the Under-Secretary do not understand the motivation of saving British jobs, with the execption of their own. The Minister of State seems willing to hop from constituency to constituency, but I doubt whether he would be willing for an American senator to represent Mole Valley in the House.
§ Mr. Golding
When hon. Members are prepared to give their jobs to the Japanese and to the Americans, they will have more right to say that they intend to give the jobs of British workers to the Americans and the Japanese in the name of some Conservative free trading philosophy.
Telecommunications workers deserve job security. They have committed their lives, their skill and their dedication to the development of telecommunications in this country. They have been committed to the building up of one firm, they have been loyal and they deserve job security. Beyond that, job security will bring many benefits to British Telecommunications. In the past it has brought craft flexibility, loyalty, long service and benefits to British Telecommunications and its customers.
In the following two debates the House will be considering further the customer. For the first time the Minister should make provision in the Bill for the protection of the interests of the staff. So far the Government have failed to give assurance to the staff. The staff deserve to have such assurance. The House should vote in favour of the new clause.
§ Mr. McWilliam
I am surprised that the Minister did not leap up and say that he would accept new clause 3 because it is such an eminently reasonable one. All it calls for is the codification in the Bill of good industrial relations practice. The Minister will not accept it because he is afraid of Conservative Members and because he knows very well that they would scream and yell and shout. But those Conservative Members are already aware that, in industries where good industrial relations practice is built in, as in the terms of new clause 3, there exist good industrial relations, a lack of strikes, a codified system of settling disputes and a proper bargaining procedure. They know that people by and large get on better, work better and have fewer problems. Those hon. Members shout because they get much more fun out of it. They prefer to be nasty to people who do not deign to vote for them. That is their privilege. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can chat away if they like and they can make sedentary interventions. I shall give way to the Minister if he desires. I observe that the hon. Gentleman can make sedentary interventions, but he cannot rise to speak.
This is a serious new clause. It calls in paragraph (a) for the establishment ofadequate consultative procedures including provisions for industrial democracy.We had industrial democracy in BT. An industrial democracy experiment was working extremely well and, because of it, an industrial dispute that might have taken place did not occur. That experiment was cravenly thrown out by the then chairman of BT because he did not like it. He did not want to be accountable to anyone other than the Minister. He certainly did not want to be accountable to the customer and, from the point of view of accountability to the work force, he felt that he knew better than people who had spent their lives in BT, so it was thrown out. It 1054 went for no other good reason than that it was disliked; it was thought almost to be a breach of the prerogative of management.
It will come as no surprise to Conservative Members to know that, in my view, the only prerogative management has is to breathe. For everything else it must be answerable, whether it is dealing with the customers, shareholders or employees, or all three groups. Therefore, I denounce the autocratic systems of management that many Conservative Members would like to impose on British industry. We have seen the effects of tying people's hands behind their backs. People continue to fight, and they are made even more bitter. That is why we want to establish adequate consultative procedures and make some provision for industrial democracy. The new clause does not say that we should introduce it tomorrow or that we need another industrial democracy experiment. It simply refers toprocedures including provisions for industrial democracy".Paragraph (b) refers to negotiatingterms and conditions of employment including pay, promotion, job security and other benefits.I hope that BT will do all those things because there will be trouble if it does not, and rightly so, just as in any organised industry if an employer refuses to comply with such demands there is trouble. While investors put their money into a business, the employees put their lives into it, sometimes literally. That brings me to paragraph (c) of the new clause, which refers to promotingsatisfactory levels of recruitment, training, safety, health and welfare, for its employees.It is not much fun having to climb up a telegraph pole from which someone has fallen to find out if there was good reason why he fell. Nor is it much fun having to tell a lady that her husband died because the wood at the top of the pole was rotten or there was a loose step or the arm bolt had rusted through. Unfortunately, I have had to do those things. We must promote safety, and it should be codified. I accept that employees have protection under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, but in an industry as dangerous as this it should he codified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme rightly praised the training within BT, but I must remind him that in recent years there have been cutbacks in training and that, as a result, problems have arisen in finding people suitably qualified to do certain jobs. I accept that BT is probably the best employer in the country for providing training, but it has been cutting back, and I see that as a forerunner of what could happen after it becomes a public limited company, because shareholders are not interested in long-term benefits.
It may take only three years of apprenticeship to train a technician, but it can take another 18 months, plus a year or so, for him to become a technical officer, and in my experience he is not worth a great deal until he has had much more experience and undergone more training. In the first 10 years of my marriage I spent at least one month of each year at the Post Office central technical Training college at Stone or at the Post Office college at Harrogate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I pay tribute to the standards of training offered at both. I also pay tribute to the accommodation offered at Stone, although my hon. Friend's praise was perhaps rather too fulsome. I gather that it has improved, but my hon. Friend did not have to eat the Stone food, which was 1055 not all that great. Those are matters about which we should have the right to negotiate, and I accept that things have changed and improved.
When we talk about satisfactory levels of recruitment we do not mean going to the public schools to recruit trainee managers and to the local comprehensives to recruit the rest of us. It does not mean recruiting purely at one level or another without adequate means of progressing between the two. Members of the POEU have always had an input into promotion. There is joint appraisement procedure and anybody wanting to apply for promotion can do so. People used to have to get a form from the branch secretary—a Whitley form under the old regional Whitley council—to make sure that the person was qualified to apply. In other words, the union checked his basic qualifications — his technical qualifications and length of service — rather than the management. The management dealt with it after that, and we have always had a close input into the recruitment system in BT. I would not suggest that it was perfect, but it was much better than procedures that I have seen operated elsewhere.
For all those reasons, I hope that the House will accept the new clause. For the first time let us tell one of the newly privatised companies, "You can have the organisations even though we do not like the idea, but we want certain safeguards." In later debates we shall talk about customers and finance, but let us first safeguard the staff. They should be properly safeguarded because in an industry such as this they are probably the most important resource available.
§ Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West)
I shall be brief because the guillotine falls at 8 o'clock. In case the Minister has been persuaded by the eloquence and rhetoric of Opposition Members, particularly of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne—
§ Mr. Page
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman gets exceedingly upset when his constituency is named wrongly. I should have referred to him as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).
As I was saying, lest the Minister has been persuaded by the arguments of Opposition Members, I urge him vigorously to resist their blandishments. Their cry was that jobs would be saved in BT and that there was immense work flexibility, yet the history of the matter is littered with the failures of consensus management. The companies that have succeeded have been those in which management has gone forward and managed, and we can begin to see that happening in BT today. In the last couple of years, following the first liberalisation measure, BT has gone ahead. Anybody who has had to deal with British Telecom, whether on a private or a commercial basis, since its withdrawal from experiments with the union on controls, cannot speak highly enough of the improvements that have been introduced. Therefore my hon. Friend should rigorously resist the new clause.
§ Mr. Page
No, I will not give way. I have got only 60 seconds before I should retire in favour of my hon. Friend.
1056 Does anyone really think that by resisting new technology, by building a mythical fence around the country and by keeping this all in one set of hands we can hold back the progress on information technology that is going on throughout the world? Jobs will come from embracing new technologies and new ideas. Industry will be able to export its products and we shall create jobs, not take them away.
There must be flexibility within industry if we are to succeed. Japan has designated information technology as its major growth area for the next 10 years. We should be wise to do the same. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to resist the new clause.
§ Mr. Butcher
The proposed new clause envisages that the Secretary of State will obtain assurances from the successor company about its relations with its work force and then presumably seek to monitor the implementation of the assurances. This would involve a continuing role for the Secretary of State which would be out of keeping with the conduct of BT as a private sector company.
Government policy towards terms and conditions of employment in the private sector is aimed at establishing the minimum framework necessary to protect the rights of employers and employees. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that this debate has been heightened recently because of proposals from Europe in the name of Mr. Vredeling.
This framework, where legislated, applies to companies generally although it allows for employers and employees to develop arrangements best suited to their requirements. It would be inappropriate to treat BT differently from other private sector companies once it has been privatised. What the new clause calls for is continued public sector control over BT's policy towards its employees and this would be contrary to the effect of the privatisation measure.
BT must also be treated on all fours with other private sector companies in regard to industrial democracy. We welcome moves to promote the involvement of employees in the businesses they work for. That is why, for example, we will be offering BT employees the opportunity to take shareholdings in the successor company. But we do not consider that methods of informing and consulting employees is something which the Government should impose on any undertaking through legislation. This is much better left to employers and employees to pursue voluntarily, taking into account their particular circumstances. In a moment I shall deal with a couple of points made by Opposition Members about that.
In regard to the provision in the new clause dealing with employees' welfare, health and safety, and training and recruitment, the health and safety of employees at work is already covered by legislation so I think a statutory provision for consulting the Secretary of State is unnecessary. The training and recruitment of employees will be matters which fall very much within the successor company's own interests. Again I find the implication here that the successor company should be subject to special vetting and direction by the Secretary of State over and above its duties and interests in these respects as a normal private sector company. It is this implication that we must oppose.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) made some observations with which we agree. Despite the unhappiness of recent months over industrial 1057 relations in BT, BT and its employees have enjoyed good industrial relations historically. We all hope that the unfortunate events of recent weeks will be seen in the fullness of time as an aberration in the history of good relationships. The loyalty of the employees of BT is not in question.
While we are concerned about making the Secretary of State take over these safeguards from BT, we agree that the motion highlights and signposts a number of things which good management should do to get good working relationships and the best possible performance from its employees. Therefore, we do not necessarily disagree with some of the objectives in the new clause. We disagree fundamentally with its methodology, but we believe that it is in the interests of the successor company to get involved in many of the things highlighted by the new clause because the company will perform well only if it does so.
I must advise my hon. Friends to oppose new clause 3.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 192, Noes 305.1060
|Division No. 100]||[7.55 pm|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Eadie, Alex|
|Alton, David||Eastham, Ken|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)|
|Ashton, Joe||Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Evans, John (St. Helens N)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Fatchett, Derek|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Faulds, Andrew|
|Barron, Kevin||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Beggs, Roy||Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)|
|Beith, A. J.||Fisher, Mark|
|Bell, Stuart||Flannery, Martin|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Forrester, John|
|Blair, Anthony||Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Foster, Derek|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Foulkes, George|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Freud, Clement|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||Garrett, W. E.|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||George, Bruce|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Campbell, Ian||Godman, Dr Norman|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Golding, John|
|Canavan, Dennis||Gould, Bryan|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hamilton, James (M'well N)|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)|
|Clarke, Thomas||Hardy, Peter|
|Clay, Robert||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Cohen, Harry||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Coleman, Donald||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Conlan, Bernard||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Home Robertson, John|
|Corbett, Robin||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Cowans, Harry||Howells, Geraint|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Hoyle, Douglas|
|Craigen, J. M.||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Crowther, Stan||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Hughes, Roy (Newport East)|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)||John, Brynmor|
|Deakins, Eric||Johnston, Russell|
|Dewar, Donald||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Dixon, Donald||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Dormand, Jack||Kennedy, Charles|
|Dubs, Alfred||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil|
|Lambie, David||Randall, Stuart|
|Lamond, James||Redmond, M.|
|Leighton, Ronald||Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Litherland, Robert||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Robertson, George|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Rooker, J. W.|
|Loyden, Edward||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|McCusker, Harold||Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Rowlands, Ted|
|McGuire, Michael||Ryman, John|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McKelvey, William||Sheerman, Barry|
|Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|McNamara, Kevin||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|McTaggart, Robert||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|McWilliam, John||Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)|
|Madden, Max||Skinner, Dennis|
|Marek, Dr John||Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Martin, Michael||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Snape, Peter|
|Maxton, John||Soley, Clive|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Spearing, Nigel|
|Meacher, Michael||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Meadowcroft, Michael||Stott, Roger|
|Mikardo, Ian||Strang, Gavin|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Molyneaux, Rt Hon James||Tinn, James|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Torney, Tom|
|Nellist, David||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Nicholson, J.||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|O'Brien, William||Wareing, Robert|
|O'Neill, Martin||Welsh, Michael|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||White, James|
|Paisley, Rev Ian||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Park, George||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Parry, Robert||Wilson, Gordon|
|Patchett, Terry||Winnick, David|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Woodall, Alec|
|Pendry, Tom||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Prescott, John||Mr. Frank Haynes and Dr. Roger Thomas.|
|Adley, Robert||Bright, Graham|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Brinton, Tim|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Brittan, Rt Hon Leon|
|Amess, David||Brooke, Hon Peter|
|Ancram, Michael||Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)|
|Arnold, Tom||Bryan, Sir Paul|
|Ashby, David||Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Bulmer, Esmond|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.||Burt, Alistair|
|Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)||Butcher, John|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Butler, Hon Adam|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)||Butterfill, John|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Carlisle, John (N Luton)|
|Baldry, Anthony||Carttiss, Michael|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Chapman, Sydney|
|Batiste, Spencer||Chope, Christopher|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Churchill, W. S.|
|Bendall, Vivian||Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)|
|Benyon, William||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Berry, Sir Anthony||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Best, Keith||Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Clegg, Sir Walter|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Cockeram, Eric|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Colvin, Michael|
|Body, Richard||Conway, Derek|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Coombs, Simon|
|Bottomley, Peter||Cope, John|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton Kto'n)||Cormack, Patrick|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Corrie, John|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Couchman, James|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Crouch, David|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Knight, Gregory (Derby N)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Dover, Denshore||Knowles, Michael|
|Dunn, Robert||Knox, David|
|Durant, Tony||Lang, Ian|
|Dykes, Hugh||Latham, Michael|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Eggar, Tim||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Evennett, David||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Fallon, Michael||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Farr, John||Lester, Jim|
|Favell, Anthony||Lightbown, David|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Lilley, Peter|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Lloyd, Ian (Havant)|
|Fletcher, Alexander||Lord, Michael|
|Forman, Nigel||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||McCrindle, Robert|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Fox, Marcus||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Freeman, Roger||Maclean, David John.|
|Fry, Peter||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Gale, Roger||McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)|
|Galley, Roy||Major, John|
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)||Malins, Humfrey|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Malone, Gerald|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Maples, John|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Marland, Paul|
|Gorst, John||Marlow, Antony|
|Gow, Ian||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Mates, Michael|
|Grant, Sir Anthony||Mather, Carol|
|Greenway, Harry||Maude, Francis|
|Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Grist, Ian||Mellor, David|
|Grylls, Michael||Merchant, Piers|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Mitchell, David (NW Hants)|
|Hargreaves, Kenneth||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Harvey, Robert||Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)|
|Hawkins, C. (High Peak)||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)||Mudd, David|
|Hawksley, Warren||Neale, Gerrard|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Nelson, Anthony|
|Hayward, Robert||Neubert, Michael|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Henderson, Barry||Norris, Steven|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Oppenheim, Philip|
|Hickmet, Richard||Osborn, Sir John|
|Hicks, Robert||Ottaway, Richard|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Page, Richard (Herts SW)|
|Hill, James||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Hind, Kenneth||Parris, Matthew|
|Hirst, Michael||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Pawsey, James|
|Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Hooson, Tom||Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Hordern, Peter||Pollock, Alexander|
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)||Porter, Barry|
|Hubbard-Miles, Peter||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Powley, John|
|Hunter, Andrew||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Price, Sir David|
|Irving, Charles||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Jessel, Toby||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Rathbone, Tim|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Renton, Tim|
|Jones, Robert (W Herts)||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'field)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Rossi, Sir Hugh||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Rost, Peter||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Rowe, Andrew||Thurnham, Peter|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Ryder, Richard||Tracey, Richard|
|Sackville, Hon Thomas||Trippier, David|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Scott, Nicholas||Viggers, Peter|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Waddington, David|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Walden, George|
|Shersby, Michael||Walker, Bill (T'side N)|
|Sims, Roger||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Waller, Gary|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Walters, Dennis|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Ward, John|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Speed, Keith||Warren, Kenneth|
|Speller, Tony||Watson, John|
|Spence, John||Watts, John|
|Spencer, D.||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Squire, Robin||Wheeler, John|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Whitfield, John|
|Stanley, John||Whitney, Raymond|
|Steen, Anthony||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Stern, Michael||Wilkinson, John|
|Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Stevens, Martin (Fulham)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)||Wood, Timothy|
|Stokes, John||Woodcock, Michael|
|Stradling Thomas, J.||Yeo, Tim|
|Sumberg, David||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Tapsell, Peter||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Robert Boscawen.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.