HC Deb 14 July 1983 vol 45 cc1062-71

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cook

Like the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am not a lawyer. That being so, I would welcome his assistance. The notes on clauses are more than usually laconic in their observations. They tell us that the effect of the clause is to exempt development land tax: certain operations relating to the installation of advanced telecommunications systems. Although I am not a lawyer, I managed to work that out from the clause.

I would appreciate a brief statement from the Minister on the necessity for the clause. Why is it necessary for the provisions within it to be in this Bill rather than in next year's Finance Bill? I ask for an assurance that it has nothing to do with the nefarious business that we shall be debating on Monday. I refer to the Telecommunications Bill.

Mr. John Moore

The clause has a relationship to that business. It makes a technical but important change in development land tax as it affects the telecommunications industry. I shall take a little longer than I had planned to explain these provisions because, quite legitimately, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) wishes to have a proper and full explanation of the clause.

The Committee will be aware that development land tax was introduced by the previous Labour Administration in a form which the then Conservative Opposition considered, rightly, to be damaging to the land market and the construction industry. The changes that have been made since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979 have ensured that the tax is in general no longer the serious disincentive that it was. Nevertheless, cases can come to light where, because of unforseen circumstances, development land tax could hold back developments that are of importance if we are to continue in the forefront of technological change.

The clause deals with an incident that recently came to light. It is one of the Government's objectives to stimulate competition and efficiency in telecommunications. The aim is to put British companies in the forefront of world communication activities and so create more jobs in Britain and better services for British consumers. To ensure that effective competition develops in an industry that is dominated by one company, it is necessary that newcomers in telecommunications, such as the Mercury consortium, are not placed at an unnecessary disadvantage. There is already one major disadvantage for such a company in telecommunications. A new company has to set up its network from scratch, and that could give rise to liability to development land tax. This could make the launch of a new system extremely difficult, if not impossible, financially. We cannot allow technological advance and healthy competition to be frustrated in this way.

Furthermore, activities undertaken by British Telecom under an existing general development order are exempt from DLT. The present order does not apply to a company other than British Telecom. This was another reason why the clause was needed to put competition on a more equal footing. It is the intention to lay before Parliament a revised general development order relating to the activities of British Telecom. The timing of that order is linked to the Telecommunications Bill. It is our intention that the revised order shall extend to other companies in the same business as British Telecom.

Once the revised order has been made, there will be automatic exemption for the type of operation that is covered by the clause. This explains why the relief is temporary. In a sense, the clause anticipates the making of an order. It would clearly not be right for a company that happens to be active in communications to be disadvantaged relative to those that may come later.

The clause provides that certain operations in connection with the establishment of new and advanced telecommunications systems are not to constitute development for the purposes of development land tax. That effectively takes them outside the ambit of the tax. Essentially, the operations concerned are cable laying and other closely associated operations. However, the clause will not cover the erection of substantial structures such as administration and control buildings. Their construction will continue to be within the scope of the tax.

7 pm

The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the timing and the need for the proposal. I have explained clearly that the private sector is waiting to get on with the job. Mercury has already started work on the installation of a network. It is vital to its success that it should be completed as quickly as possible. It is therefore crucial that the tax position should be clarified immediately. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mr. Robin Cook

Will the Minister refresh my memory? Was the clause in the original Bill?

Mr. Moore


Mr. Cook

I am glad that we asked the Economic Secretary these questions. He has fully and frankly stated the purpose of the clause. He will not be surprised to learn that we are unhappy at the consequences. He will be aware that he goes straight to the heart of the debate on the privatisation of the telecommunications system when he says that essential to any private sector company operating the telecommunications business is a network infrastructure such as the sort that is exempt from development land tax under the provision.

That was a key matter in the debate on the Telecommunications Bill in the previous Parliament and will be the key matter for debate when the Telecommunications Bill starts going through the House on Monday. Many people in the Opposition and outside the House believe that, as there has to be a major and well-disseminated network of telecommunications installations, if any such business is to succeed, it is better that it is organised on the basis of a public body that has responsibility throughout the land for maintaining a single network. The intrusion of a second network which, for example in Mercury and other private companies, feeds off some of the facilities created by the publicly owned body, will disrupt the achievement of an effective, efficient, well-organised and well-invested state network.

For those reasons, as the Economic Secretary will be aware, we have been opposed to private companies starting to poach in this area. Therefore, the Opposition will have to resist the clause, which provides a favourable tax regime for those companies.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 77.

Division No.23] [7.00 pm
Alexander, Richard Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Arnold, Tom Bright, Graham
Ashby, David Brinton, Tim
Atkins Robert (South Ribble) Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Bruinvels, Peter
Baldry, Anthony Buck, Sir Antony
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Budgen, Nick
Batiste, Spencer Burt, Alistair
Bellingham, Henry Butterfill, John
Benyon, William Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Bevan, David Gilroy Carttiss, Michael
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Chope, Christopher
Blackburn, John Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Blaker, Rt Hon Peter Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Body, Richard Colvin, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert Conway, Derek
Bottomley, Peter Coombs, Simon
Cope, John Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Cranborne, Viscount Lord, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina Luce, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen Lyell, Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. McCrindle, Robert
Dover, Denshore McCurley, Mrs Anna
Dunn, Robert Macfarlane, Neil
Dykes, Hugh MacGregor, John
Eggar, Tim MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Emery, Sir Peter Major, John
Evennett, David Malins, Humfrey
Fallon, Michael Malone, Gerald
Favell, Anthony Maples, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey Marlow, Antony
Fookes, Miss Janet Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Mates, Michael
Forth, Eric Mather, Carol
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Maude, Francis
Fox, Marcus Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Franks, Cecil Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Fraser, Peter (Angus East) Mellor, David
Freeman, Roger Merchant, Piers
Fry, Peter Meyer, Sir Anthony
Gale, Roger Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Galley, Roy Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Moate, Roger
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) Moore, John
Glyn, Dr Alan Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Goodlad, Alastair Moynihan, Hon C.
Gorst, John Murphy, Christopher
Gow, Ian Needham, Richard
Greenway, Harry Neubert, Michael
Gregory, Conal Newton, Tony
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) Nicholls, Patrick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Normanton, Tom
Ground, Patrick Norris, Steven
Grylls, Michael Onslow, Cranley
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Osborn, Sir John
Hampson, Dr Keith Ottaway, Richard
Hanley, Jeremy Page, John (Harrow W)
Hargreaves, Kenneth Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Harris, David Parris, Matthew
Harvey, Robert Patten, John (Oxford)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Pawsey, James
Hayhoe, Barney Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hayward, Robert Pink, R. Bonner
Heathcoat-Amory, David Powell, William (Corby)
Heddle, John Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Hickmet, Richard Price, Sir David
Hind, Kenneth Proctor, K. Harvey
Hirst, Michael Rhodes James, Robert
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Holt, Richard Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Hordern, Peter Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Howard, Michael Roe, Mrs Marion
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) Rossi, Hugh
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) Ryder, Richard
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Sayeed, Jonathan
Jackson, Robert Shelton, William (Streatham)
Jessel, Toby Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Soames, Hon Nicholas
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Speed, Keith
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Spencer, D.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Stern, Michael
Key, Robert Stradling Thomas, J.
King, Rt Hon Tom Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Knowles, Michael Tracey, Richard
Lang, Ian Trippier, David
Latham, Michael Viggers, Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Lawrence, Ivan Walden, George
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Lester, Jim Watts, John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Lightbown, David Winterton, Mrs Ann
Lilley, Peter Winterton, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy Tellers for the Ayes:
Young, Sir George (Acton) Mr. David Hunt and
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Marek, Dr John
Barron, Kevin Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Meadowcroft, Michael
Bell, Stuart Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Bermingham, Gerald Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Bidwell, Sydney Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Nellist, David
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Patchett, Terry
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) Pavitt, Laurie
Bruce, Malcolm Prescott, John
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Radice, Giles
Campbell-Savours, Dale Richardson, Ms Jo
Cohen, Harry Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy Rogers, Allan
Cowans, Harry Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Sheerman, Barry
Cunliffe, Lawrence Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Dixon, Donald Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Dormand, Jack Skinner, Dennis
Dubs, Alfred Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Snape, Peter
Evans, loan (Cynon Valley) Soley, Clive
Fatchett, Derek Spearing, Nigel
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Straw, Jack
Garrett, W. E. Tinn, James
Godman, Dr Norman Wainwright, R.
Hardy, Peter Wallace, James
Harman, Ms Harriet Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Wareing, Robert
Haynes, Frank Welsh, Michael
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Winnick, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Woodall, Alec
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Young, David (Bolton SE)
Leighton, Ronald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Tellers for the Noes:
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Mr. Hugh McCartney and
McNamara, Kevin Mr. Austin Mitchell.
Madden, Max

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

7.13 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As the Bill has been thoroughly and expertly examined in Committee, I need not detain the House long on Third Reading. I have, however, two pleasant duties to perform.

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on a notable first contribution to our debates on these matters. My only regret is that there was not a fuller Chamber to hear him. Judging from the quality of his speech, my hon. Friend will not lack an appreciative audience on subsequent occasions.

Secondly, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on his assumption of the chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee. He follows in the very distinguished footsteps of Mr. Joel Barnett, the former right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton. How often we have seen them tackling the same tasks with the same zest and distinction. Our only regret on this occasion is that the right hon. Gentleman's new duties may disable him from taking as full and notable a part in our debates on Finance Bills as he has for about a decade. That marks the closing of a chapter in fiscal history, but I am sure that the whole House wishes the right hon. Gentleman well in his new and distinguished responsibilities. We hope that now and then he will spare a thought for us in our arduous task of examining subsequent Finance Bills.

I do not need to detain the House further. The general principles of the Bill are well understood and it has been thoroughly examined in detail. I commend the Bill to the House.

7.15 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for his kind comments, which I much appreciated. I agree wholeheartedly with his comments on the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). It was indeed a pity that the House was rather less full then than it is now, and it is right that attention should be drawn to the hon. Gentleman's contribution. It is rare to hear a speech of such quality and distinction from a new Member in Committee on a Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman clearly has much to contribute in Finance Bill Committees and elsewhere. We look forward to hearing from him again.

In the past week the main elements of economic policy have been before us. The Second Reading of the Finance Bill was immediately followed by the Chancellor's statement on public expenditure. In this way, we have come closest to the aims of the Armstrong committee—to consider revenue and expenditure together and to decide whether we are prepared to exchange taxes for expenditure and whether this or that expenditure is worth this or that extra tax. For the first time, both the House and the Cabinet have been able to do precisely that. When the Chancellor went to the Cabinet to bounce it for £500 million in cuts, members of the Cabinet were entitled to say that as an alternative the Finance Bill could be withdrawn, thus saving the greater part of the public expenditure cuts.

As a result of the Chancellor's action, the Cabinet and the House have been able to discuss both matters at the same time and to consider possible trade-offs. That is not the way in which we usually debate these matters and it has embarrassed the Government. The reliefs given to the well off by the Bill are in floodlit contrast with the cuts in public expenditure which hit hardest at the rest of our people. The Government's choice has been revealed for all to see. They were not considering a decision on taxation remote in time from another decision on expenditure. The choice was clearly made to reduce provision for the Health Service and other expenditure so as to reduce taxation for the well off.

The Treasury Ministers' defence is that these tax matters were decided at the time of the Budget and are merely being implemented, but expenditure was also decided at the time of the White Paper in March, when the Government decided not only the cash limits but the programmes behind them. If it is right to adjust one set of decisions in the light of subsequent events, it must be right to adjust the other. Almost uniquely through the conjunction of events Treasury Ministers have been caught with their excuses down, and very embarrassed they have been.

I had hoped that the new set of Ministers might have learned something during their sabbatical away from the Treasury. They might have learned from their past mistakes. Their initial reliance on the monetarist faith did not produce the miracles that they expected, but rather than question that faith they are now making fresh sacrifices. They hope that their new and bigger savings on public expenditure will restore the country to economic health. After all, at the beginning of the previous Parliament, in their White Paper on public expenditure, Cmnd. 7746, the Government stated that public expenditure was at the heart of our economic difficulties. It was not economic growth, industrial innovation or the creation of higher skills in management and elsewhere but public expenditure that was to blame. It is to that principle that the Government return. They believe that, if they reduce public expenditure, borrowing declines, taxes can be cut and the energies of our people can be unchained. It is no surprise that tax relief for companies and wealthy individuals forms a prominent part of this and previous Finance Bills.

I am not sure of the theory behind the tax reductions for the wealthy. It is, at best, suspect. However, it is an unchanging part of Tory philosophy and, more importantly, of Tory practice. The practice is that taxation of the wealthy is reduced, the theory being that incentives are thereby increased. I have long held doubts about tax reliefs of all types that are designed to improve incentives. Many tax reliefs are inevitably complex in their legislative form, as the hon. Member for Elmet rightly said. It is not easy to demonstrate subsequently the beneficial effect that is claimed for them, whether they be on companies or on individuals. One can say with certainty that tax complications may not do much for incentives but, my goodness, they do an awful lot for tax avoidance. It is tax avoidance that will thrive on the complications in this Bill and the hurriedly passed Finance Act 1983.

Throughout the previous Parliament I desperately hoped, despite my expectations, that the Chancellor would succeed in what must be the aim of anyone with his responsibilities—increasing the prosperity of our people. I have always felt that any Chancellor of the Exchequer should have two overriding objectives — first, the prosperity of the nation, and, second, the proper division of that prosperity between the different parts of our society. On the second point, there must always he a great gulf between the two major parties. We have different attitudes on care, welfare, equality and incentives. We present clear-cut issues to the electorate for it to resolve.

There ought to be broader agreement on prosperity. We should agree about the encouragement that we should give to industry and the wealth creation process in general. It is a pity that doctrine should play so dominant a role in dividing the major parties. Some of us thought, with the Bank for International Settlements, that the laboratory test of monetarism would have proved conclusive by now. The country has to carry a great extra burden in the form of the errors that still find conviction in the minds of Treasury Ministers. In the next few years, those Treasury Ministers will have a difficult time with the decline of North sea oil output and as our balance of payments position worsens.

It is indeed a pity that the House has not been presented with a Finance Bill that is more suited to our real problems than the irrelevant and divisive measure that we are offered.

7.23 pm
Mr. Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West)

I am aware that the House wants to move quickly to vote on Third Reading. However, there is an amendment on the Order Paper which, alas, because the Bill has been drawn in exceptional circumstances—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but, on Third Reading, he must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Grylls

Alas, the new clause to which I am not allowed to refer was not reached. I hope that the Government will remember that, in the next Finance Bill, they must look to including a clause that deals with unitary taxation that is being applied in the United States on British companies in a grossly unfair way. It is extremely damaging to British industry and it is crucial that the problem be resolved quickly. I hope that the House will send a warning to the United States Administration and Congress that the British Government want the matter to be resolved in the next few months; otherwise a new clause such as we have not discussed today will emerge in the next Finance Bill and force the American Administration to resolve that unfair and damaging practice.

7.25 pm
Mr. Richard Wainwright

I, too, shall be brief, but not so brief as to fail to congratulate the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who has the good fortune to represent part of the ancient kingdom of Elmet, on his accomplished and cogent maiden speech. Nor do I want to be so brief as to fail to associate myself with what has been said about the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), to whom the House owes a special debt. By sticking to this one important subject through many Parliaments, he seems to many of us to have been an anchor man in Budget and Finance Bill debates. We simply rejoice at his promotion to an even more responsible and important task.

For my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Bill marks a watershed because for those who, like us, have always wanted a radical reform of capital taxes there has until now been the balancing argument that we might disturb capital transfer tax which, for all its maladroitness and deficiencies, was working. The Bill marks a point at which we can ignore those disadvantages because it is plain that capital transfer tax has almost disappeared. It is becoming a voluntary tax and generally nugatory in effect. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will have no inhibitions in future in presenting the case for an accessions tax—that is the rather more correct term than an inheritance tax. We propose a tax on the recipients of gifts as well as on the recipients of bequests. It will be a tax on those who receive accessions of wealth, not on the donor or testator.

As the Budget proposals on public expenditure and public revenue, which the House received sceptically in March, have now been admitted by the Chancellor to have broken down because of the hopelessly optimistic and grandiose allowance for shortfall and the absurdly small contingency allowance, it would appear that the Government should have revised the Finance Bill in addition to having revised sharply their public expenditure plans. Because the Government have stubbornly pressed ahead with the Finance Bill against all the danger signals which are so plainly showing themselves, we shall vote against the Bill receiving a Third Reading.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 72.

Division No. 24] [7.28 pm
Alexander, Richard Harris, David
Arnold, Tom Harvey, Robert
Ashby, David Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Hayhoe, Barney
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Hayward, Robert
Baldry, Anthony Heathcoat-Amory, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Heddle, John
Batiste, Spencer Hickmet, Richard
Bellingham, Henry Hind, Kenneth
Benyon, William Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Bevan, David Gilroy Holt, Richard
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Hordern, Peter
Blackburn, John Howard, Michael
Blaker, Rt Hon Peter Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Body, Richard Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Bottomley, Peter Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Jackson, Robert
Bright, Graham Jessel, Toby
Brinton, Tim Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Brooke, Hon Peter Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Bruinvels, Peter Key, Robert
Buck, Sir Antony King, Rt Hon Tom
Budgen, Nick Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Burt, Alistair Knowles, Michael
Butterfill, John Lang, Ian
Carlisle, John (N Luton) Latham, Michael
Carttiss, Michael Lawler, Geoffrey
Chope, Christopher Lawrence, Ivan
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Conway, Derek Lester, Jim
Coombs, Simon Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Cope, John Lightbown, David
Cranborne, Viscount Lilley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Dorrell, Stephen Lord, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Luce, Richard
Dover, Denshore Lyell, Nicholas
Dunn, Robert McCrindle, Robert
Dykes, Hugh McCurley, Mrs Anna
Emery, Sir Peter Macfarlane, Neil
Evennett, David MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Fallon, Michael Major, John
Favell, Anthony Malins, Humfrey
Finsberg, Geoffrey Malone, Gerald
Fletcher, Alexander Maples, John
Fookes, Miss Janet Marlow, Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Mates, Michael
Forth, Eric Mather, Carol
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Maude, Francis
Franks, Cecil Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Fraser, Peter (Angus East) Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Freeman, Roger Mellor, David
Fry, Peter Merchant, Piers
Gale, Roger Meyer, Sir Anthony
Galley, Roy Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Moate, Roger
Glyn, Dr Alan Moore, John
Goodlad, Alastair Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Gorst, John Moynihan, Hon C.
Gow, Ian Murphy, Christopher
Greenway, Harry Needham, Richard
Gregory, Conal Newton, Tony
Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds) Nicholls, Patrick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Normanton, Tom
Ground, Patrick Norris, Steven
Grylls, Michael Osborn, Sir John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Ottaway, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith Page, John (Harrow W)
Hargreaves, Kenneth Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Parris, Matthew Speed, Keith
Patten, John (Oxford) Stern, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Stradling Thomas, J.
Pink, R. Bonner Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Powell, William (Corby) Tracey, Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Trippier, David
Price, Sir David Viggers, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey Walden, George
Rhodes James, Robert Waller, Gary
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Watts, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W) Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Roe, Mrs Marion Wilkinson, John
Rossi, Hugh Wood, Timothy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Yeo, Tim
Ryder, Richard Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan Tellers for the Ayes:
Shelton, William (Streatham) Mr. David Hunt and
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Mr. Michael Neubert.
Soames, Hon Nicholas
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) McNamara, Kevin
Barron, Kevin Madden, Max
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Marek, Dr John
Bell, Stuart Meadowcroft, Michael
Bermingham, Gerald Mikardo, Ian
Bidwell, Sydney Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) Nellist, David
Bruce, Malcolm Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Pavitt, Laurie
Campbell-Savours, Dale Richardson, Ms Jo
Cohen, Harry Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Rogers, Allan
Corbyn, Jeremy Ross, Ernost (Dundee W)
Cowans, Harry Sheerman, Barry
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Cunliffe, Lawrence Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Skinner, Dennis
Dixon, Donald Snape, Peter
Dormand, Jack Soley, Clive
Dubs, Alfred Spearing, Nigel
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Evans, loan (Cynon Valley) Straw, Jack
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Tinn, James
Garrett, W. E. Wainwright, R.
Godman, Dr Norman Wallace, James
Gould, Bryan Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Hardy, Peter Wareing, Robert
Harman, Ms Harriet Welsh, Michael
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Winnick, David
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) Woodall, Alec
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Young, David (Bolton SE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Leighton, Ronald Tellers for the Noes:
McCartney, Hugh Mr. Frank Haynes and
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Mr. Austin Mitchell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Forward to