HC Deb 24 July 1984 vol 64 cc940-52

Lords amendment: No. 27 in page 13, line 9, at beginning insert In section 4(1) of the 1913 Act (ballots to be in accordance with rules approved by the Certification Officer) for the words from 'every member' to the end there shall be substituted 'the requirements of subsections (1A) to (1F) below would be satisfied in relation to a ballot taken by the union in accordance with those rules. (1A) After subsection (1) of section 4 of the 1913 Act there shall be inserted the following subsections— (1A) Entitlement to vote in the ballot must be accorded equally to all members of the trade union. (1B) The method of voting must be by the marking of a voting paper by the person voting. (1C) Every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—

  1. (a) be allowed to vote without interference from, or constraint imposed by, the union or any of its members, officials or employees; and
  2. (b) so far as is reasonably practicable, be enabled to do so without incurring any direct cost to himself.
(1D) So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot must—
  1. (a) have made available to him—
    1. (i) immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours; and
    2. (ii) at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him; or be supplied with, a voting paper; and
  2. (b) be given—
    1. (i) a convenient opportunity to vote by post (but no other opportunity to vote);
    2. (ii) an opportunity to vote immediately before, immediately after, or during, his working hours and at his place of work or at a place which is more convenient for him (but no other opportunity): or
    3. (iii) as altematives, both of those opportunities (but no other opportunities).
(1E) The ballot must be conducted so as to secure that—
  1. (a) so far as is reasonably practicable, those voting do so in secret; and
  2. (b) the votes given in the ballot are fairly and accurately counted (any inaccuracy in counting being disregarded for the purposes of this paragragh if it is accidental and on a scale which could not affect the result of the ballot).
(1F) In this section— post" means a postal service which—
  1. (a) is provided by the Post Office or under a licence granted under section 68 of the British Telecommunications Act 1981; or
  2. (b) does not infringe the exclusive privilege conferred on the Post Office by section 66(1) of that Act only by virtue of an order made under section 69 of that Act; and
working hours", in relation to an employee, means any time when, in accordance with his contract of employment, he is required to be at work."—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Read a Second time.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) in line 4, leave out '(1F)' and add '(1H)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) to the proposed Lords amendment.

Lords amendment No. 28.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

We thought that it would be inconsistent to move the provision for personal ballots for the election of the national executive committees of trade unions without having a similar provision for postals ballots on whether trade union political funds should exist. All the criticisms that were made in the earlier debate about workplace ballots for places on the national executive committees apply equally to ballots on the provision of political funds. The amendments have been tabled to be consistent on the two proposals contained in the Bill.

Included in this group of amendments is the proposal to which the Secretary of State referred earlier in connection with the phrase "reasonably practicable". As the Minister knows, this matter was debated at some length in the other place and in Committee. A number of other phrases that could have been used have been suggested by the noble Lords and by hon. Members. I should like the Minister to explain to the House why the term "reasonably practicable" has been chosen, rather than some of the other terms suggested in debates in the other place and in Committee.

The basic principles involved were discussed in the debate on the first group of amendments. However, the House will see that there is an overwhelming case for having postal ballots. Given that the other place inserted that provision in the Bill more adequately than was originally intended, we believe that it should go further so that we have the same provisions as the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) proposed for executives.

I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to this suggestion, and I look forward to his explanation in support of the Government's decisions before I decide whether to press these amendments to a Division.

Mr. Blair

We now come to part III, dealing with political funds and objects. In a pernicious and partisan Bill, this is surely the most pernicious and partisan part. The first two parts provided a demonstration of the Conservative party's simple prejudice against the trade union movement. No better evidence has been provided than by the Secretary of State for Employment, who, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) to give one example of trade union malpractice in trade union elections, told the House—apparently seriously — that as people who committed these defaults were very good at covering them up, he could give no evidence of any such malpractice. It was a speech which would have done credit to the brief of a member of the department of the Soviet director of public prosecutions.

However, in part III, added to the simple prejudice against the trade union movement is a measure of party advantage. This part of the Bill is a disgrace and should be an embarrassment to any sensible, objective Government. Such embarrassment has not deterred this Government, as their ability to withstand the ordinary pressures of propriety is practically infinite, yet it has caused them embarrassment. The best proof of that is the absence from the Chamber of the most notable absentee from the Committee when we discussed part III—the Minister of State Department of Employment.

The hon. Gentleman is also chairman of the Conservative party, elected on a ballot of one and a 100 per cent. turnout — we clp not know whether it was workplace or branch—and whose embarrassment over this part of the Bill rightly and properly caused his absence from any consideration on it. That embarrassment has been caused because this part of the Bill represents the first attempt since 1927 — apart from that the first attempt ever—by one political party to pass legislation whose purpose is directly to limit and staunch the funds to a political party of opposite views — [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That is not rubbish.

Indeed, I pray in aid the words spoken when my hon. Friend who now represents Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) introduced the Companies (Regulation of Political Funds) Bill to place restrictions on company donations to the Conservative party. He was opposed by no less an alumnus than the present Secretary of State for Transport, who said: There has been a balance in the sense that, since the war, Labour Governments have done two things. One was a return to a position of contracting out for the unions and the other was to make companies publish in their accounts the amounts given to political parties. So, for two moves aimed, as it were, to the advantage of the Labour Party, I am proud that there has been no move by Conservative Governments in the opposite direction —in some way seeking to get their own back—by restricting trade union funds made available to the Labour Party". Later the right hon. Gentleman said: Over the years, over the battlefield of industrial dispute in these matters, a balance has been worked out which may not be entirely fair one way or the other, but it is a kind of rough justice solution. It would be as wrong for the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his Bill as it would be for the Conservative party to seek to limit the ability of the Labour party to raise funds from the trade unions and to upset that balance."—[Official Report, 20 June 1978; Vol. 952, c. 218–211.] That is what the Secretary of State for Transport said in 1978. What has changed since then—other than that the Government, with their majority, care less about justice, rough or otherwise, than they did then?

The reason for the embarrassment is not only that it is a deliberate attempt to injure the Opposition in their funding. It is blatant one-sidedness. Not one valid reason has been offered for the restriction on political funds and the ability of trade unions to give political funds to political parties which should not apply equally to companies and corporations.

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box. It gives me the opportunity to put to him the question which I put to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—who is not here tonight—on three occasions. By what arrogance does the hon. Gentleman suppose that this measure is an attempt to starve the Labour party Of funds? The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), in a debate long past, will recall that we discussed the possibility that trade union members might wish to contribute to a political party other than the Labour party. I have now put my question four times. I shall put it a fifth time. Why does the Labour party assume, with such arrogance, and in view of the large number of trade union members who did not support the Labour party at the last election, that they would wish to contribute only to Labour party funds and that, therefore, this measure is an attempt to starve the Labour party of funds?

Mr. Blair

I simply pose this question to the hon. Gentleman and anyone who doubts the truth of what I have been saying. Let us suppose that the trade union movement had been giving massive amounts of money to the Conservative party, or that it had supported the Conservative party. Does anyone think that this legislation would have seen the light of day? It is an affront to our common sense and common reason.

It is worth remembering that trade unions, for a long time at the end of the last century and until the Osborne case in 1908, had no restrictions on what they did with their money. They operated in exactly the same way as unincorporated and incorporated associations. It was only because of the 1908 case that restrictions were placed on the way in which trade unions handled their funds. That decision was very much criticised at the time and was sought to be reversed in the Trade Union Act 1913.

The vital point about the 1913 Act is that it was a compromise between Osborne's case and a return to the pre-Osborne days—the days when trade unions were treated in the same way as any other unincorporated or incorporated association. The argument during the passage of that measure was not about whether greater restrictions should be placed on trade unions but whether any restrictions at all should be placed on them.

I remind the alliance that at that time the liberal party spokesmen were amongst those who were strongest in favour of returning to the pre-Osborne days and freeing the trade unions from restrictions altogether.

The only reason that has been advanced for the difference between companies and trade unions is that a shareholder may sell his shares and leave the company. Therefore, it is said, the shareholder is able to put himself out of a company which has contributed to a political party which he does not support. Surely that is answered by the simple point that the shareholder has only the drastic option of selling his shares and leaving the company altogether, but a trade unionist can opt out of paying the political levy and still retain all the benefits of the trade union. The only point that is made to show that restrictions can also apply to companies on analysis supports my case.

Mr. Penhaligon

I would happily support an arrangement whereby the ballot as a necessity was abolished but everybody opted in. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?

Mr. Blair

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will vote against the amendment. This part of the Bill imposes such restrictions. There must be parity of treatment. When the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) talks about wanting the money, I recall not so long ago that the hon. Gentleman was perfectly willing to take the money of the trade union movement. We shall look for something based a little more on principle than simply a change of party allegiance to justify his switch of vote on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to reply, but we are dealing with the conduct of the ballot.

Mr. Golding


Mr. Deputy Speaker

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention is related to the amendment.

Mr. Golding

When I sent the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) a cheque from the political fund of the POU he thanked me for it, with no reservations at all.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is an hon. Member allowed to make inaccurate and untrue statements in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Any hon. Member is responsible for the statements he makes in the House. We should return to the amendment.

Mr. Ron Davies

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that I heard the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) refer to my hon. Friend the member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) as a liar.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Hon. Gentlemen do not need the Chair to tell them that if such a statement is made it should be withdrawn, but I did not hear it.

Mr. Blair

It is only a trade union which must have a separate political fund, which must apply that fund in respect of specified political objects, which must permit those who wish not to abide by the resolution of that trade union to have a political fund to opt out, and which is circumscribed by special rules in the litigation of grievances under that political fund. Only a trade union is treated in that way. Other unincorporated institutions such as a women's institute can give as much money as they like without restriction. The Bill represents a further tightening of the screw in that matter.

To avoid the charge of engaging in a piece of deliberately political legislation, the Government have sought to argue—I am sure that they will not maintain it—that part III merely updates the Trade Union Act 1913. That is the Government in their role as modernisers of antiquated legislation. It was never a convincing role. It is plain that the 1913 Act dealt with the issue of further ballots on trade union funds and, therefore, there was no reason to have periodic ballots. It is clear that the political objects of the Bill will be much enlarged to strike at political parties and sources of opposition to the Government within the trade union movement. It is the amendment which gives the final lie to any lingering illusions about the intentions of part III.

Under the 1913 Act there is adequate provision for the certification officer to ensure that a political ballot on the political fund is conducted in a fair manner. He must be satisfied of that before he can allow the ballot to go ahead. There is no reason to think that there has been dissatisfaction with the way in which the ballot procedures have worked. Only two complaints have been made about breaches of ballot rules. That being so, what reason can there be for the new balloting procedure?

Two consequences flow from the new procedure. Instead of the certification officer having a general discretion on the method of balloting for the political fund, there will be the strict method that is set out in the Government's proposed procedures. Under the new procedures, any counting inaccuracy is to be disregarded except in so far as it affects the result. But any other inaccuracy of however small an amount could upset the entire political fund. That is the importance of the amendment. Any act of negligence on the part of a branch official in giving out the ballot papers could invalidate the political fund.

The second consequence, which is linked to the first, is that the challenge to the political fund could be made at any time. A ballot could take place after the enactment of the Bill, and in the run-up to a general election an application could be made to the courts alleging failure to adhere to the ballot rules. In the midst of an election the certification officer could be dragged into the dispute to decide whether the money given by a trade union to the Labour party, for example, pursuant to the resolution of a political fund, could be set aside.

There is only one amendment that is more extreme than that which has come from the other place, and that is the responsibility of the alliance. The Government have had the sense to realise that the words so far as is reasonably practicable have to be introduced in some way to the communication of the ballot paper, but the alliance has sought to withdraw them. If the alliance's amendment were to be accepted, the duty placed on the political fund would be absolute. If anyone is in any doubt about the attitude of the alliance towards the trade union movement, he should consider its amendment carefully.

The amendment is a recipe for mischievous litigation. Anyone who doubts that should pay careful regard to the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at (a meeting which is a monument to democracy) the Conservative party conference. In encouraging people to take action against the trade unions in relation to the political fund, he said: All that you have to do is to give the money that will enable them to do it. That is what the Secretary of State wishes to force on the trade union movement.

If Conservative Members think that now that they have broken the compromise that was arrived at with the 1913 Act the issue of political funding is no longer on the agenda, or can be concluded by the Bill, they are much mistaken. In seeking to end the compromise, they are reopening the whole issue of political funding. The political funding of their party by companies is something to which the next Labour Government will turn their attention. This is a partisan and prejudicial measure. It is a disgrace for the House to debate legislation that is plainly designed to inhibit the effectiveness of another political party. The House should reject the measure conclusively.

12.30 am
Mr. Golding

The Post Office Engineering Union has had a political fund since the early 1960s, not because its members wanted to affiliate with the Labour party but because they clearly believed that it was in their interests to secure a voice in Parliament and representation in Parliament. Why did they want that? They saw that many interests opposed to their interests were represented in the House of Commons.

Recently, much has been made of the way in which those Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill all represented commercial interests.

Mr. Gale

Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement? That is incorrect. I am one Member who has no commercial interest whatsoever.

Mr. Penhaligon

What is wrong with the hon. Gentleman? Everyone else did.

Mr. Gale

I was offered it, but I turned it down.

Mr. Golding

I think that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has made the point. Certainly, the majority of Conservative Members who served on that Committee were representing commercial or other interests. I am one of those Opposition Members who have said, "I do not think that the representation of interests is necessarily bad."

If manufacturers are entitled to have spokesmen in the House, so too, are workpeople. If merchants are entitled to have spokesmen in the House, influencing Ministers and speaking for the merchant class, so too are craftsmen. It is apparent that not only has the direct representation of interests grown on the Tory Benches in recent years, but Conservative Members have been making substantial sums from running consultancy services providing a wide range of parliamentary facilities to outside commercial interests. That fact is well-documented.

If Conservative Members can, for money, provide a voice in Parliament for private industrial concerns, why cannot workpeople be so represented? That is an issue. To workpeople, Parliament can be important not only in the obvious subjects, such as health and safety and basic trade union legislation, but in the settlement of certain aspects such as pensions, pay and pay policy. The standard of living of workers is determined as much by what happens in Parliament as by negotiations between trade union officials and employers. In so far as the trade union movement is concerned with the protection of and improvement in the conditions of work for working people, there is no way in which trade unions can secure their objectives just through industrial bargaining between employers and trade union officials. To protect themselves they must ensure that their interests are represented in Parliament. It will be a sad day for trade unions if they lose the representation in Parliament that they have had during this century, at least.

Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)

No one would deny trade unionists the right to have representation in the House if they so wish. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the members of that trade union should be given the choice in a ballot as to whether they wish it?

Mr. Golding

Trade unions cannot have a political fund unless there has been a ballot. The Government are saying that there must be regular ballots in the trade unions.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle)

Why not?

Mr. Golding

The hon. Gentleman says "Why not?" Perhaps the same argument should apply to industrial companies, and the same principles should apply to the institutions to which Conservative Members belong. Conservative Members have one rule for themselves and another for our institutions. They intend to apply different special rules because we represent working people. That we resent deeply.

If this amendment becomes part of the legislation, Opposition Members will have an obligation strongly to argue the case for parliamentary representation for trade unions.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

As no one party appears to remain in power indefinitely, is not the argument that the hon. Gentleman is advancing one in support of unions such as the National Union of Teachers which supports members in several political parties?

Mr. Wrigglesworth

Why the Labour party?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am listening carefully and trying to relate what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is saying to the particular amendment. We are now becoming wide of the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) will bring us back.

Mr. Golding

I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the difficulty with a debate like this is that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who should be on the Conservative Benches, asked "Why the Labour party?" The Conservative and Liberal parties decided in the 19th century that they did not want to be contaminated by working-class methods. Hon. Members below the Gangway and Conservative Members decided that there should be no organised trades union involvement in their parties. That is true today.

Mr. Best

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if it were not for the Conservative party and Benjamin Disraeli in 1875 there would be no trade unions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That shows how the House can go astray when we get away from the particular amendments. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme must bring us back to the amendment.

Mr. Golding

My Front Bench will want me to close as quickly as possible, but I make no apology, because for almost 20 years I have been in charge of the administration of a union political fund. I strongly believe that that fund has done—with some exceptions—a useful job.

There is one reason why one must all the time put a question mark against relying solely on postal ballots. We are not elected to this House by postal ballot. Electors must attend a polling station to cast their votes. One thing that is missing from an entirely postal balloting procedure is debate. Democracy is as much about debate as about voting and trade unionism is as much about discussion of the issue as about the final casting of votes. It is important that the case should be made and argued within the union before the vote is taken. I have no doubt that if that is done members of the trade unions will choose to keep their political funds so as to keep their parliamentary representation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark)

The amendments alter the Trade Union Act 1913 to bring the arrangements for political fund ballots laid down in section 4(1) of that Act into line with clauses 3 and 11 of parts I and II of the Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on his maiden appearance at the Dispatch Box, to which I attribute the rather excitable and fairly orthodox Second Reading speech that he dealt out and his tendency to avoid the detail of the amendment. I have no desire to raise the temperature of the House, so I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman very far in his assertion that the proposals constitute an attack on trade union funds. I merely remind him, as he has been reminded so many times in the 160 hours or so of debate on the Bill, that if union members wish to contribute to political funds the Labour party has nothing to fear. If union members do not wish to contribute to political funds, I am sure that Labour Members would not wish their party to be supported by contributions that are not voluntarily subscribed.

Mr. Blair

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clark

No, I shall not give way. I have made the point so many times that I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, even in the somewhat excitable and enthusiastic atmosphere of his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, should have overlooked the frequency with which that curious anomaly had been pointed out to him.

The simple object of the Lords amendments was to ensure that ballots held under the 1913 Act could not slip below the minimum standards that Parliament has deemed it right to set for trade union ballots in the Bill. I am surprised that Labour Members quarrel with that as they recognise that the 1913 Act provides for union members to be given an equal right and a fair opportunity to vote as well as providing for secrecy to be properly secured. It says nothing explicit about the conveninece of voting arrangements. Crucially, therefore, it does not preclude the possibility of political fund ballots being held at branch meetings away from the workplace.

Mr. Sheerman

Who wrote this?

Mr. Clark

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has played a significantly low-key role in the debates on the Bill. He is occasionally wheeled out to shadow the renewal of orders, but otherwise his profile in employment matters has been minimal. Nevertheless, I would claim that the text that I am reading, to the extent that I am reading at all, relates to the amendments rather than to the rather wide and excitable Second Reading context of most of the other contributions to the debate.

The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred to the test of practicability, and to whether it was appropriate in this context. I have a note for him that will, at this 11th hour—indeed, well past it —elucidate the problem that he raised.

The test of reasonable practicability is necessary to cater for things that may go wrong in a postal ballot but which are clearly beyond the union's control. In a ballot of several hundred thousand union members there will inevitably be cases where a voting paper simply cannot be got to a member, or cannot be got to him in time. It may be that there is a postal delay, the member is away or there is some other mishap. It is not the Government's intention that the union should be liable in such circumstances, but the test of reasonable practicability will not remove liability from the union in any circumstances where failure to meet the test in the Bill results from failure within the union.

Mr. Blair

As the Minister wishes to be textual, perhaps I can be textual with him for a moment. If he says that the Government's intention is that any error in a union ballot paper will make the union liable, does he mean by "liable" that the political fund resolution is null and void? I assume that that is what he means by "liable". That is the only sanction. Am I right in thinking that if any mistake is made deliberately, by negligence or inadvertence by the union in dealing out the ballot papers, unless that mistake is referable simply to inaccuracy in counting, it will render the political fund resolution as being of no effect?

Mr. Clark

Where an error was deliberate, it would have that effect, but where it was inadvertent or accidental, it would not.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

My particular interest in questioning the term "reasonably practicable" was that I wondered why the Government were relying upon the use of both those words. Alternatives might have been "practicable measures" or "with reasonable care", but to rely upon both reasonableness and practicability seems to be laying it on rather heavily. I know that that has been discussed elsewhere.

Mr. Clark

That may be the case in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, but I am afraid that he will have to be content with the wording as it stands.

It would be a distortion of democracy if decisions on the future of political funds were taken on 2 per cent. turnouts at branch ballots. We would be failing in our duty were we to ignore the statements of leaders of unions such as ASTMS that they will win political fund ballots because only the activists will bother to vote.

There is absolutely no reason why unions should not operate political funds, but not on the say-so of a tiny minority of so-called activists. The Government's position is perfectly respectable, midway between the laissez faire of the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the extreme posture of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I am confident that the Government's position will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

In view of the lateness of the hour, and the fact that we have discussed these matters on previous occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 155.

Division No. 430] [12.49 am
Adley, Robert Butterfill, John
Aitken, Jonathan Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Alexander, Richard Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Carttiss, Michael
Amess, David Cash, William
Ancram, Michael Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Arnold, Tom Chapman, Sydney
Ashby, David Chope, Christopher
Aspinwall, Jack Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Cockeram, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Colvin, Michael
Baldry, Anthony Conway, Derek
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Coombs, Simon
Batiste, Spencer Cope, John
Bendall, Vivian Corrie, John
Benyon, William Cranborne, Viscount
Berry, Sir Anthony Crouch, David
Best, Keith Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bevan, David Gilroy Dicks, Terry
Biffen, Rt Hon John Dorrell, Stephen
Biggs-Davison, Sir John du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Durant, Tony
Body, Richard Dykes, Hugh
Bottomley, Peter Eggar, Tim
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Emery, Sir Peter
Bowden, A: (Brighton K'to'n) Evennett, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Fairbairn, Nicholas
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Fallon, Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Farr, Sir John
Bright, Graham Favell, Anthony
Brinton, Tim Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Browne, John Fletcher, Alexander
Bruinvels, Peter Fookes, Miss Janet
Bryan, Sir Paul Forman, Nigel
Buck, Sir Antony Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Budgen, Nick Forth, Eric
Bulmer, Esmond Fox, Marcus
Burt, Alistair Franks, Cecil
Butcher, John Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Butler, Hon Adam Freeman, Roger
Fry, Peter McCurley, Mrs Anna
Gale, Roger MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) Maclean, David John
Garel-Jones, Tristan McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Glyn, Dr Alan McQuarrie, Albert
Goodhart, Sir Philip Madel, David
Goodlad, Alastair Major, John
Gorst, John Malins, Humfrey
Gower, Sir Raymond Malone, Gerald
Grant, Sir Anthony Maples, John
Greenway, Harry Marland, Paul
Gregory, Conal Marlow, Antony
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Mates, Michael
Ground, Patrick Maude, Hon Francis
Gummer, John Selwyn Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Hampson, Dr Keith Merchant, Piers
Hanley, Jeremy Meyer, Sir Anthony
Hannam, John Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Hargreaves, Kenneth Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Harris, David Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Harvey, Robert Miscampbell, Norman
Haselhurst, Alan Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Moate, Roger
Hayes, J. Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Hayhoe, Barney Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Mudd, David
Heddle, John Murphy, Christopher
Henderson, Barry Neale, Gerrard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Needham, Richard
Hickmet, Richard Nelson, Anthony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Neubert, Michael
Hill, James Newton, Tony
Hind, Kenneth Nicholls, Patrick
Hirst, Michael Norris, Steven
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Onslow, Cranley
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Oppenheim, Philip
Holt, Richard Osborn, Sir John
Hordern, Peter Ottaway, Richard
Howard, Michael Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Parris, Matthew
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Patten, John (Oxford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Pattie, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew Pawsey, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Pollock, Alexander
Jackson, Robert Powell, William (Corby)
Jessel, Toby Powley, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Proctor, K. Harvey
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Raffan, Keith
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Rathbone, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
King, Rt Hon Tom Renton, Tim
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Rhodes James, Robert
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Knowles, Michael Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Knox, David Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Lamont, Norman Roe, Mrs Marion
Lang, Ian Rossi, Sir Hugh
Latham, Michael Rost, Peter
Lawler, Geoffrey Rowe, Andrew
Lawrence, Ivan Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lee, John (Pendle) Ryder, Richard
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Sackville, Hon Thomas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lester, Jim St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) Sayeed, Jonathan
Lightbown, David Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Lilley, Peter Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lord, Michael Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lyell, Nicholas Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McCrindle, Robert Shersby, Michael
Silvester, Fred Twinn, Dr Ian
Sims, Roger van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Skeet, T. H. H. Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) Viggers, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Waddington, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Speed, Keith Waldegrave, Hon William
Speller, Tony Walden, George
Spencer, Derek Waller, Gary
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) Ward, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Squire, Robin Warren, Kenneth
Stanbrook, Ivor Watson, John
Steen, Anthony Watts, John
Stern, Michael Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) Wheeler, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) Whitfield, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) Whitney, Raymond
Sumberg, David Wiggin, Jerry
Taylor, John (Solihull) Wolfson, Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter Wood, Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Woodcock, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Yeo, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) Younger, Rt Hon George
Thurnham, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) Tellers for the Ayes:
Tracey, Richard Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Trippier, David
Trotter, Neville
Ashdown, Paddy Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Eadie, Alex
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Eastham, Ken
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Barnett, Guy Ewing, Harry
Barron, Kevin Fatchett, Derek
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Faulds, Andrew
Beith, A. J. Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Bell, Stuart Fisher, Mark
Benn, Tony Flannery, Martin
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Bermingham, Gerald Foster, Derek
Blair, Anthony Foulkes, George
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Boyes, Roland Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Bray, Dr Jeremy Garrett, W. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) George, Bruce
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) Godman, Dr Norman
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Golding, John
Caborn, Richard Gould, Bryan
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Hancock, Mr. Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale Hardy, Peter
Canavan, Dennis Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Clarke, Thomas Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Clay, Robert Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Cohen, Harry Hoyle, Douglas
Coleman, Donald Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Conlan, Bernard Janner, Hon Greville
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) John, Brynmor
Corbyn, Jeremy Johnston, Russell
Cowans, Harry Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Craigen, J. M. Kennedy, Charles
Crowther, Stan Leadbitter, Ted
Cunliffe, Lawrence Leighton, Ronald
Dalyell, Tam Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Litherland, Robert
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Deakins, Eric Loyden, Edward
Dewar, Donald McCartney, Hugh
Dixon, Donald McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Dobson, Frank McGuire, Michael
Dormand, Jack McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Dubs, Alfred McKelvey, William
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Rost, Peter
McNamara, Kevin Rowlands, Ted
McTaggart, Robert Ryman, John
Madden, Max Sheerman, Barry
Marek, Dr John Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Maynard, Miss Joan Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Michie, William Skinner, Dennis
Mikardo, Ian Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Snape, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Soley, Clive
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Spearing, Nigel
Nellist, David Straw, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
O'Brien, William Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Tinn, James
Park, George Wallace, James
Parry, Robert Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Patchett, Terry Wareing, Robert
Pavitt, Laurie Welsh, Michael
Pendry, Tom Wigley, Dafydd
Penhaligon, David Williams, Rt Hon A.
Pike, Peter Winnick, David
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) Woodall, Alec
Prescott, John Wrigglesworth, Ian
Redmond, M. Young, David (Bolton SE)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Richardson, Ms Jo Tellers for the Noes:
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Robin Corbett.
Rogers, Allan
Rooker, J. W.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 35 agreed to.

Forward to