BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (Hansard, 18 January 1983)

HC Deb 18 January 1983 vol 35 cc256-302 256

§ Ordered, That at this day's sitting, the Water Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.——[Mr. Major.]

§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)
I am sure that it was inadvertent on his part, but my hon. Friend quite wrongly kept saying that it is the Government's policy to restrict public service increases to 4 per cent. He is quite wrong, It is the poorer paid workers who suffer. The charimen of nationalised boards can get 15 per cent. on their £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000 a year without any question. It is the poorer paid public servants who, apparently, have to be restricted. If they earn thousands of pounds per week, they can get 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. with no questions asked.

Mr. Brown
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). It is true that if one is a senior civil servant, a general, admiral or air marshal one can get 19 per cent. or 20 per cent. from this Government who are committed to a 4 per cent. norm for the public sector and for the manual worker already in receipt of fairly poor pay.
I echo the plea of the editor of the Newcastle Journal that the Minister of State must intervene. It is no good lying back and saying "The negotiations are at a delicate stage, They are with ACAS now". ACAS can do nothing unless we have a firm assurance from the Goverment tonight that the water employers will have the right to free and untrammelled negotiations with their employees.

§ Mr. David Lambie (Central Ayrshire)
As a Scottish Member, I shall not follow directly the speeches made by my two hon. Friends who have already spoken. Although wage negotiations for water workers in Scotland are separate from those of their colleagues in England and Wales, I know that the water workers in Scotland would give full support to any action taken by their colleagues in England and Wales.
257 I am glad to see a Minister from the Scottish Office present. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not make the same mistakes at the beginning of the wage negotiations with water workers in Scotland that his colleagues at the Department of the Environment made.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should allow the employers, the regional councils in Scotland, to make a reply to any application for wage increases from the water workers that takes into account the important job that water workers in Scotland and in England and Wales do. The wages of people in this industry have been kept down for too long. They are entitled to better wages and conditions.
I am interested in the employees of the National Water Council, especially those whose jobs will cease to exist in September 1983 when the National Water Council is abolished. I am interested in the future employment prospects for people in these industries, especially in the training sector. I am also interested in the pension rights and conditions of service that are offered by any future employer.
On Second Reading, I expressed concern about the future of Melvin House in Kilwinning, in my constituency. I stated that there was nothing in the Bill to say how the present functions of the National Water Council were to be handled after September 1983, when the council ceases to exist. I was particularly interested in training and the future job prospects of my constituents who are employed at Melvin House—one of the National Water Council's training centres which serves the Scottish regional councils' water and sewerage departments, the river purification boards in Scotland and the Department of the Environment's water services in Northern Ireland.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present, because on Second Reading I criticised the absence of Scottish Office Ministers. Even though we were debating an English Bill, there were clauses in it that were of particular interest to Scotland. Following that debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to me stating that the Government expected the water industry to come up with its own proposals for future training arrangements and that the Scottish Development Department had encouraged the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish River Purification Boards Association to enter into discussions with their colleagues in the regional water authorities in England and Wales.
At the end of November, two regional water authority chairmen—Mr. Mann, chairman of the North-West water authority, and Mr. Matthews, chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, who at that time were developing training proposals on behalf of the chairmen's industry committee—met with representatives of CoSLA's water and sewerage committees. I am told that that meeting was useful, but it emerged that there was a wide spread of views among the regional water authorities about how training should be organised. To assist in developing detailed proposals, the two chairmen set up a small working party of officials, and invited Mr. Devenay, the director of water for Strathclyde regional council, to join the group. That was a good decision, as it provided a Scottish input to the discussions.
While as yet there are no final and detailed proposals, I am told that the two chairmen have made it clear that in general the regional water authority chairmen are in favour 258 of the establishment of a new limited company to take over the National Water Council's training assets and to carry out such central training as is still required, with the Scottish authorities and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment among the shareholders of that company. Such a solution would allow Scottish requirements on training and funding to be accommodated, even if different from the regional water authorities of England and Wales.
The two regional water authority chairmen are required to present a report on training arrangements to the chairmen's industry committee by the end of January. If approved, it will be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Environment. When the Secretary of State for Scotland considers this report, I hope that he will push for training on a national scale to be continued and for Melvin House, with its great traditions, to be retained as the northern training centre.
I accept that there have been recent and justifiable criticisms about the present training facilities and that these have been expressed in the chairmen's industry committee. However, I stress that none of those criticisms applies to the services supplied by Melvin House and its staff.
If a limited company is established to take over the National Water Council's training assets, it follows that the staff at Melvin House will, after September 1983, be employed by that limited company. That is why these amendments are important, because they try to give protection to former employees of the National Water Council after it ceases to exist.
It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that an offer of employment is made, not later than the day following the day the council ceases to exist, to the staff of Melvin House by the new employers, the proposed limited company. The present terms and conditions of employment and pension rights must be continued in any future organisation. The negotiated agreements should be respected and, if there are disputes, they should, as suggested in new clause 9, be referred for discussion to new arbitration machinery.
The proposals in new clauses 9 and 10 do not go far enough but at least they would give safeguards to the staff employed in Melvin House and the other training establishments. That is why I am speaking as a Scottish Member in this predominantly English and Welsh debate in support of the employment prospects of constituents who are employed in the training services of the National Water Council.

§ Mr. Durant
I should like to intervene briefly following on what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has said about the training side of the industry. I had the honour recently to visit a training establishment for the water industry, Flint House, at Goring near my constituency. The people there are concerned about their future, as are those in all the other training establishments. I do not think that they are any more anxious than the rest.
The Government should make a statement soon. There are jobs at stake and the people want to know what will happen. We have learnt from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire about some of the steps that are being taken. This was revealing to me; I had not heard it. We ought to know more about the steps that are to be taken. I hope that the working party mentioned by the hon. Member will give 259 favourable consideration to places like Flint House. It is a small establishment, but it covers one of the widest training areas. It is always the small establishments that get nervous when matters like this are involved. I make a special plea on its behalf that as soon as possible the Government should make clear what will happen on the training side. Those in the water industry are skilled people, and training is essential. The training carried out at these establishments is of a high standard. I hope that they will continue under whatever system is worked out. The sooner everyone knows what is to happen, the better.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
It is with some regret that I have to refer to the behaviour of the Secretary of State in this debate. It was particularly discourteous of him to make his statement and then leave the Chamber before listening to the Opposition's comments, particularly the well-informed comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown). The Secretary of State owed to the House the courtesy to listen for at least a few minutes. One has the suspicion that he is out busily trying to manage the reporting of his speech. Having perhaps felt he did not do very well in the House he wants to make sure that the media put the most sympathetic gloss on it.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to have given an undertaking to continue to keep the House informed about the progress on negotiations and of the contingency plans. He should have said that he would seek, either on Thursday of Friday, to make a statement to the House. It is the least that we on this side of the House can demand. If the Minister was not prepared to say any more tonight, he should have been prepared to undertake to make a statement later in the week on both the negotiations and the contingency plans.
Many of my constituents in the north-west of England who did not themselves experience the problems of the unofficial disputes in the spring of 1979 but who were close to those problems and heard them reported by the media are extremely alarmed that similar problems may occur in their area and throughout the country. There is very little possibility of the Government being able to produce contingency plans which could cope on a national scale.
At the same time, many of my constituents who work in the water industry are extremely bitter about the length of time that they have been hearing people say that they should be compared with other public utilities when it is a matter of rebates and so on, but as soon as wage negotiations arise when they want a comparison to be made with the rates that are paid for similar jobs in the gas and electricity industries they are told that it is nothing to do with them and that there should be no comparability.
10.15 pm
The Government must make a better offer through the water undertakings and must do so quickly to satisfy the legitimate demands of the people in the water industry who cannot be fobbed off any longer. They want that extra offer to be made as soon as possible. The Government have a duty to ensure that that offer is made before a national dispute occurs rather than afterwards. It has been made clear that it is much easier to get a sensible offer accepted before rather than after a dispute. In view of the great difficulties which would arise from such a dispute, the 260 Government owe it to the country to ensure that an offer is made quickly. The Government also owe it to the House to guarantee that they will, on Thursday or Friday, make a progress report on the negotiations.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
New clause 9 sets out a clear and sensible approach to national wage negotiations by creating a central bargaining machine. It will prevent a leapfrogging arrangement which, in the minds of some water workers today, may be one reason why they feel sufficiently provoked into possibly taking full industrial action next Monday with the possible total withdrawal of their labour.
As a result of having observed other industrial disputes, may I predict what will happen? If the Government allow matters to deteriorate to the point where there is a full withdrawal of labour next week, and as the Bill has yet to attain the approval of their Lordships, they may seek further to amend it in the light of likely developments over the next days, weeks or months.
It is an interesting precedent that we are perhaps on the eve of a national withdrawal of labour at the same time as the Bill is passing through the House. Many of the difficulties and confusions that exist in the minds of water workers today stem from the clear undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Government during the last general election that the Government subscribed to principles of free collective bargaining.
Water workers nationally know of those press reports which were adequately presented in the Financial Times in late November, when it was alleged that the former Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, had telephoned different persons involved in the negotiations throughout Britain, and also representatives of the National Water Council, to ensure that the 6 per cent. offer that was being implied was not made. Indeed, only a 4 per cent. offer was made. There remains in the minds of many water workers nationally the belief that additional money has been on the table, that it is there still to be offered, and that it is only the Government who are preventing that fuller offer from being made.
The Government were elected on principles of free collective bargaining that I and some of my hon. Friends oppose. I think that it was Sid Weighell who described free collective bargaining as the politics of the pig trough, those with the biggest snouts getting the lion's share. However, that is not the key issue today. The water workers believe that undertakings that were given to them by the Labour Government and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) would have given them comparability with gas and electricity workers and were reasonable. They felt that this Government should have complied with those arrangements. If they are reticent about arbitration today, it is because they believe that the Government should be negotiating directly with them, prior to any arbitration, with a view to establishing the objectives set for them some years ago.
Mr. Mick Martin, the public services national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, said: The Government have made arbitration a dirty word by refusing it in the Civil Service dispute two years ago and in last year's health dispute and refusing in other cases to implement arbitration awards. In part, that may well be why such suspicion exists in the minds of the water workers.
261 I sound a note of caution on the eve of possible industrial action. I am told that members of the National Union of Public Employees voted by four to one in favour of the industrial action. Some of us have observed industrial action at close quarters. I remember one instance of industrial action in the steel industry very well, because my constituency was affected. During the National Health Service dispute there was a fairly substantial disruption of services in the west of the county in which my constituency lies and feelings were strong. I also remember the Civil Service dispute. Some clear conclusions can be drawn. For example, such industrial action works only when the Government are conscious of the need to preserve the social fabric. That is what I call playing by the rules. The Government must understand that they are under an obligation to preserve that social fabric.
However, that will, understanding, determination and commitment are not to be found in this Government. There is a recklessness in the Government's attitude towards the preservation of the social fabric. Some of us observed from a distance but took note of what happened when there was a threat of a miners' strike. Some of us also believe that the Prime Minister would have allowed disruption, would not have compromised, and would have let the social fabric be totally undermined in her obsessive belief that to win is to be right and that to comprise is to be wrong.
The NHS dispute was a good example of that. Tens of thousands of people were added to the waiting lists of hospitals, yet there were no groans of pain from Downing Street or from the DHSS. Ministers seemed unaffected. They blamed the trade unions and refused to accept any responsibility.
Even in the Civil Service dispute, it was a Committee that established that the arrears to the Exchequer were about £1 billion. I am sure that I shall be corrected if I am wrong. At the time, we were being given clear signals from the Treasury that there were no problems. It was only afterwards, when the sums were added up, that we saw the great losses to the Exchequer as a result of the industrial action. Even in those conditions, the Government persisted and did not give way.
The trade unions should be careful and deliberate because the present Government do not play by the normal rules of a Government managing a civilised society. They believe that they can cheat and that they do not have an obligation to the public to preserve the social fabric of the nation.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
It will not come as a surprise to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that we consider it unnecessary for there to be statutory requirements for the arrangements to be made for the negotiation and agreement on pay and other terms and conditions of service. The parties should be free to establish whatever machinery they consider appropriate and to change it by mutual agreement if and when circumstances require. They will no doubt wish to consider the various options that are available.
I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance, which is wanted at the moment, that the Government do not wish to impose a particular structure of pay bargaining on the parties. Much has been made by hon. Members, and to some extent by the right hon. Gentleman, of the belief that one interpretation of the major objectives of the Bill is that we wish to get rid of national pay bargaining and introduce 262 regionalised negotiation in the water industry. If that were our intention, we could have legislated for it. It is open to all interested parties, including Government and the Opposition, to take and express their views on the arguments for and against pay bargaining at regional or national level, and that is fully understood. I emphasise that it is not our intention to impose our point of view by legislative means.
Certain other matters were raised in connection with this clause. The right hon. Member for Small Heath asked, in particular, about pensions. The Yorkshire water authority is to be designated under the local government superannuation regulations as the administrating body for the water industry pension fund. The water authorities and the Department of the Environment, are considering what arrangements are possible to delegate responsibilities for effective managerial control of the fund to a committee of representatives from all the water authorities. The designation to the Yorkshire water authority will be effected before the National Water Council is abolished, and the machinery for the payment of pensions will be preserved intact. That is an important consideration.
With regard to training, I was glad to hear how well informed the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was in the discussions on Melvin House. He will be aware from what my hon. Friend has passed on to him that this has been given full consideration. The matter of training has not yet been completed by the consideration of the chairman's committee. The existing training scheme will have to cease when the council is wound up.
The water authority chairmen are still considering the central requirements for training after that time. We understand that there will be some provision for central training, but the precise scale and the number of staff and training centres required still remains to be resolved. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will now know, the provisions for the requirements of Scotland and Northern Ireland will be considered in the final proposals. We expect a conclusion on this matter from the chairmen in early February and arrangements will be made for the proper information to be established.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath mentioned staffing levels. It is too early to report to the House what will be the consequences for central staffing as a result of the establishment of the association of water authority chairmen, but I fully understand the anxiety of getting this decision through quickly so that everybody will be informed. I advise the right hon. Gentleman that the absolute numbers to be employed centrally will be significantly fewer than those employed currently in the National Water Council.
I advise the House to resist the new clause. The arrangements for pay and bargaining will, and should, be left to the determination of the water authority chairmen in discussion with trade union representatives. I shall see that the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on the intervention of my right hon. Friend are passed on to my right hon. Friend. I can assure him that the House will be kept properly informed of developments.

10.30 pm

§ Mr. Denis Howell
By leave of the House, I should like briefly to respond to the remarks of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State in this important 263 debate. I found both contributions profoundly disappointing. While the Secretary of State mentioned contingency planning, it is a matter of great regret that he chose deliberately to say nothing about the essential questions facing the negotiators in this potentially damaging strike, due to start on Sunday.
The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the reversal of the Government's attitude on arbitration. This is bound to be the cause of considerable suspicion among the unions. Why can arbitration be offered on day one to the water workers when it has been consistently refused over the past two years in respect of Health Service and Civil Service workers?
I could not have put more clearly the questions that it is essential to answer. Are the negotiators free to negotiate? It is sad that the Secretary of State refused to answer that question. It is also potentially very damaging. Are they free agents? Unless the Government make clear that they are free agents, there can be no significant progress. The silence of the Secretary of State was deafening. That may be very damaging. If no progress is made within the next 48 hours, the House will have to return again to this issue.
I must also record my disappointment with the reply of the Under-Secretary of State on whether the national joint industrial negotiating machinery is to be maintained. It seems to me inconceivable that the Under-Secretary cannot say tonight what is the Government's attitude on this vital question. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the Government do not wish to impose any one system of wage bargaining on the industry. In response to my argument about the necessity to maintain the national joint industrial negotiating machinery, the hon. Gentleman said, if I quote him accurately, that the Government do not wish to impose any one system of wage bargaining upon the new association of water chairmen. What does that mean?

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
I stated that the Government would not wish to legislate and to impose upon this industry its form of central or regional wage negotiations. I made it clear that the chairmen of the regional water authorities, as now formed into the association, in negotiation, no doubt, with the trade unions, will determine what form of central or regional bargaining structure they wish to have.

§ Mr. Howell
I am bound to repeat my question: what does that mean? If one regional water authority says that it does not intend to go into any central wage negotiating machinery which the other authorities want to do, does it mean that that water authority can stand alone and conduct its own individual negotiations? If that is what it means, it will be a disaster for the water industry.

§ Mr Shaw
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right.

§ Mr. Howell
If I am right, surely the Government should have a view on the matter and legislate on that basis. They should say that they want a national joint industrial council. If Anglia, the North-West, or any other regional water authority wanted to go it alone, it would destroy any suggestion of collective responsibility in the water industry. I am bound to record my profound disappointment at the situation that the Under-Secretary has revealed.
264 What the Under-Secretary said about training was helpful, and we await developments. As we both acknowledge, this is a matter of great importance.
The Under-Secretary made it clear tonight, in his brief reference to the staffing question, that there will be considerable redundancies in the National Water Council. It is a matter of great regret. One would have thought that it was possible to utilise methods of natural wastage. I hope that the chairman will do that, and try to find jobs for people who have served the industry well and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy unless some collective responsibility is accepted by the chairman. I am glad to see the Minister nodding, and I trust that he will use his best endeavours to bring that about.
We are discussing a matter of great importance. It is probably the most vital issue in the whole Bill, on the eve of the proposed water strike. I urge all my hon. Friends to register their disgust at the situation which the Government have contrived, by their direct intervention, by voting for new clause 10.

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

§ The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 268.

267

Division No. 43]	[10.36 pm
AYES
Abse, Leo	Dunnett, Jack
Adams, Allen	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Allaun, Frank	Eastham, Ken
Anderson, Donald	Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	English, Michael
Ashton, Joe	Ennals, Rt Hon David
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)	Evans, John (Newton)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Ewing, Harry
Beith, A. J.	Faulds, Andrew
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Field, Frank
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	Fitch, Alan
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Flannery, Martin
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Ford, Ben
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Forrester, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Foster, Derek
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)	Foulkes, George
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)	Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Buchan, Norman	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Campbell, Ian	George, Bruce
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Golding, John
Canavan, Dennis	Gourlay, Harry
Cant, R. B.	Graham, Ted
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)	Hardy, Peter
Cohen, Stanley	Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Conlan, Bernard	Haynes, Frank
Cook, Robin F.	Heffer, Eric S.
Cowans, Harry	Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Cox, T. (Wdsw'th, Toot'g)	Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)	Home Robertson, John
Crowther, Stan	Homewood, William
Cryer, Bob	Hooley, Frank
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Howell, Rt Hon D.
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)	Howells, Geraint
Davidson, Arthur	Hoyle, Douglas
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)	Huckfield, Les
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Deakins, Eric	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Janner, Hon Greville
Dewar, Donald	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Dixon, Donald	John, Brynmor
Dobson, Frank	Johnson, James (Hull West)
Dormand, Jack	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Douglas, Dick	Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Dubs, Alfred	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

265

Kerr, Russell	Robertson, George
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Lambie, David	Rooker, J. W.
Lamond, James	Roper, John
Leadbitter, Ted	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Leighton, Ronald	Rowlands, Ted
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)	Sever, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Sheerman, Barry
Litherland, Robert	Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Short, Mrs Renée
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)	Silverman, Julius
McCartney, Hugh	Skinner, Dennis
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
McElhone, Mrs Helen	Snape, Peter
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Soley, Clive
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Spearing, Nigel
McKelvey, William	Spriggs, Leslie
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Stallard, A. W.
McWilliam, John	Stoddart, David
Marks, Kenneth	Stott, Roger
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)	Strang, Gavin
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)	Straw, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Maxton, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Maynard, Miss Joan	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Meacher, Michael	Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Mikardo, Ian	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Tilley, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Tinn, James
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Torney, Tom
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)	Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Warden, Gareth
Newens, Stanley	Weetch, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Welsh, Michael
O'Neill, Martin	White, Frank R.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Palmer, Arthur	Whitehead, Phillip
Park, George	Whitlock, William
Parker, John	Wigley, Dafydd
Parry, Robert	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Pavitt, Laurie	Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Pendry, Tom	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Prescott, John	Winnick, David
Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Woodall, Alec
Race, Reg	Woolmer, Kenneth
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)	Wright, Sheila
Richardson, Jo	Young, David (Bolton E)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)	Mr. George Morton and
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Mr. Ioan Evans.

NOES
Adley, Robert	Boscawen, Hon Robert
Alexander, Richard	Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Arnold, Tom	Braine, Sir Bernard
Aspinwall, Jack	Bright, Graham
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)	Brinton, Tim
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)	Brooke, Hon Peter
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)	Brotherton, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)
Banks, Robert	Browne, John (Winchester)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Bryan, Sir Paul
Bendall, Vivian	Buck, Antony
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)	Budgen, Nick
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Bulmer, Esmond
Berry, Hon Anthony	Butcher, John
Best, Keith	Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Blackburn, John	Chapman, Sydney
Blaker, Peter	Churchill, W. S.
Body, Richard	Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

266

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)	Lamont, Norman
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Lang, Ian
Clegg, Sir Walter	Latham, Michael
Cockeram, Eric	Lawrence, Ivan
Colvin, Michael	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Cope, John	Lee, John
Corrie, John	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Cranborne, Viscount	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Critchley, Julian	Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Crouch, David	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Dickens, Geoffrey	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Dorrell, Stephen	Loveridge, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Lyell, Nicholas
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	McCrindle, Robert
Durant, Tony	Macfarlane, Neil
Dykes, Hugh	MacGregor, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	MacKay, John (Argyll)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Eggar, Tim	McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Elliott, Sir William	McQuarrie, Albert
Emery, Sir Peter	Major, John
Eyre, Reginald	Marland, Paul
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell	Mather, Carol
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Fell, Sir Anthony	Mawby, Ray
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Mayhew, Patrick
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Mellor, David
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet	Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Fox, Marcus	Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Miscampbell, Norman
Gardner, Sir Edward	Moate, Roger
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian	Monro, Sir Hector
Glyn, Dr Alan	Montgomery, Fergus
Goodlad, Alastair	Moore, John
Gow, Ian	Morgan, Geraint
Grant, Sir Anthony	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish	Murphy, Christopher
Greenway, Harry	Myles, David
Grieve, Percy	Neale, Gerrard
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)	Nelson, Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)	Neubert, Michael
Grist, Ian	Newton, Tony
Gummer, John Selwyn	Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Hon A.	Onslow, Cranley
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Hampson, Dr Keith	Osborn, John
Hannam, John	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Haselhurst, Alan	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Hastings, Stephen	Parris, Matthew
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Patten, John (Oxford)
Hawkins, Sir Paul	Pattie, Geoffrey
Hawksley, Warren	Pawsey, James
Hayhoe, Barney	Percival, Sir Ian
Henderson, Barry	Pink, R. Bonner
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Pollock, Alexander
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Porter, Barry
Hill, James	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Hooson, Tom	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Horam, John	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)	Rathbone, Tim
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Renton, Tim
Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman	Rhodes James, Robert
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Jessel, Toby	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Rossi, Hugh
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rost, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Royle, Sir Anthony
Kershaw, Sir Anthony	Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
King, Rt Hon Tom	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Knight, Mrs Jill	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Knox, David	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

267

Shelton, William (Streatham)	Trippier, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Trotter, Neville
Shepherd, Richard	van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Shersby, Michael	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Silvester, Fred	Viggers, Peter
Sims, Roger	Waddington, David
Skeet, T. H. H.	Wakeham, John
Smith, Sir Dudley	Waldegrave, Hon William
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)
Speed, Keith	Walker, B. (Perth)
Speller, Tony	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Spence, John	Waller, Gary
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Walters, Dennis
Sproat, Iain	Ward, John
Squire, Robin	Warren, Kenneth
Stainton, Keith	Watson, John
Stanbrook, Ivor	Wells, Bowen
Stanley, John	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Steen, Anthony	Wheeler, John
Stevens, Martin	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)	Whitney, Raymond
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)	Wickenden, Keith
Stokes, John	Wilkinson, John
Stradling Thomas, J.	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Winterton, Nicholas
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman	Wolfson, Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.	Younger, Rt Hon George
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Thompson, Donald	Tellers for the Noes:
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)	Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and
Thornton, Malcolm	Mr. David Hunt.
Townend, John (Bridlington)