HC Deb 26 March 1984 vol 57 cc81-91
Mr. Penhaligon

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'voting'.

Although this amendment is designed to delete only one word, and is hence the shortest on the Notice Paper, one appreciates how significant the removal of a single word can be. The word "voting", which we propose to delete, appears in subsection (1), in which the Government give the definition of those to whom they wish the ballot procedure to apply when electing a union's executive committee. The provision describes the person as a voting member of the principal executive committee and therefore, by deleting "voting", the provison would read who is a member of the principal executive committee. We make this proposal for a number of reasons, one of which was dealt with in part by the Secretary of State on Second Reading when, questioned about whether the provision would cover those with a casting vote, he gave a clear assurance, as reported at column 159 of the Official Report, that the Bill as drafted would force the procedure on those with casting votes. However, we do not believe that the provision in subsection (1)(a), taken with subsection (7), is all that clear on the subject, and to avoid doubt the House should accept the amendment.

Subsection (7) refers to a person who attends meetings of the committee and to vote on matters on which votes are taken by the committee (whether or not he is entitled to attend all such meetings or to vote on all such matters or in all circumstances). Clearly, there is only one circumstance in which a person with a casting vote can use that vote. Therefore, while the Minister's interpretation of the provision may be correct, the amendment would clarify the point beyond doubt.

Important and significant members of the trade union movement would not be covered by the clause as drafted, because executive members without a vote would not need to submit themselves to a ballot of their members. As the Minister will be aware more than most, there is nothing more complicated than ploughing through union rule books. The NUR, NUM and ETU have executive members without a vote and they would not be covered by the procedure in the clause. We see no reason why people as important as Mr. Knapp, Mr. Heathfield and Mr. Chapple should not be subjected to a ballot if the Government believe that all others should be so subjected.

Another matter which concerns us was covered by an amendment that has not been selected — I make no complaint about that—and that would have pointed out that general secretaries, often the best-known figures in unions, are not covered by this procedure. We see no reason why they, too, should not need to be elected to the important posts that they hold.

The main argument for the amendment is that the procedure appears to contain a loophole which could enable those who wish to avoid the impact of this procedure to do so. For example, I understand that if Mr. Scargill were to give up his right to a casting vote on the NUM, or if the rules of that union were changed so that the president did not have a casting vote, there could be no insistence on the holder of that office having to submit himself to election. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. The Government may find that loophole being exploited. Some members of principal executive committees could have their right to a casting vote removed, when they could no longer be subjected to this procedure.

To sum up our case for the amendment, the provision applying to those with casting votes is not clear as the clause is drafted; it seems that some people are not covered when there is no rational reason why they should be excluded; and the Government are permitting a loophole of some significance for those who may wish to benefit from being excluded. We look forward to the Minister's reply, and especially to his explanation why the word "voting" was included in the provision in the first place.

Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

I oppose the amendment because it is clear that Liberal Members, like Conservative Members, know nothing about the way in which an executive committee of a trade union operates. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) would know, if he had knowledge of the way in which local government works, that every council committee meeting is attended by people who, while they do not vote, play a major part in the proceedings. People from the town clerk's department and financial, planning and other officers give legal and other advice when guiding the various committees of the local authority to their decisions.

A similar procedure is followed by executive committees of major trade unions. When we talk about the executive of a union, we are not speaking of a body comprising 16 or 17 people who meet every month in a conference room in, say, London attended by delegates from all over the country. Often, executives meet and split into sub-committees. Unions have sub-committees dealing with property, administration, education and research and many other subjects. Each sub-committee has executive powers and when a decision is made it will probably be approved on the nod at the following meeting of the full executive committee. That is the only way in which an organisation of national importance can operate.

If the members of a union decide that their general secretary shall not have a vote, I see no reason for him to have to be elected. Indeed, there may be reasons why such a union official should not be elected. Many unions regard their general secretaries in the way town clerks are regarded by local authorities. NALGO and other white-collar unions could probably not find general secretaries from among their lay members if there had to be a ballot, for the result of stipulating a ballot would be that only members of the union would be eligible to stand for office.

White-collar unions would not be able to recruit from outside the union. Bearing in mind some of the high salaried professions involved, many people would not be prepared to stand for election as the general secretary of their union because it would entail a drop in salary. There is a chance of recruiting from outside, but the person appointed would clearly want some security of tenure. That can be provided only if the employing authority—in this case, the executive—can draw up a contract and conditions of employment. That would not be possible under the election system proposed in the amendment.

8 pm

I cite the example of research. If the executive wishes to know, for example, the proportion of women in membership and whether they prefer shift working, part-time or full-time working, more holidays or whatever, the only way to obtain that information is through a good research department. I see no reason why the head of research or his representative should not participate in executive meetings, although he would be excluded from voting after he had imparted his advice to the executive or its sub-committee. The same applies to legal officers. Many head office staff carry the title of assistant general secretary because the wage structure gives them a certain salary, but in fact they are legal officers, accountants and so on. If that were changed, salaries would have to be renegotiated and considerable confusion would arise.

The Government and the Liberals constantly refer to trade unions taking legal advice. They should, therefore, not prevent legal advisers taking part in the executive business of the union. To protect the contract of employment given by the union to a legal officer, a financial officer or a research officer, the union should be able to decide that that person does not have a vote and therefore does not have to stand for election. It is not a matter of being democratic or undemocratic. If we want trade unions to be efficient, in many instances they will have to recruit officers from outside.

Mr. Penhaligon

The hon. Gentleman's comparison with the town clerk is interesting, but so far as I know the town clerk in not a member of the executive committee.

Mr. Martin

When local government reorganisation took place in Scotland, Lord Wheatley put forward the concept that the executive should consist of officials taking decisions, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because in many local authorities the officials are involved in decision-making although they are not entitled to vote.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the executive committee should reach its conclusions without any professional advice from anyone and that only the executive should make decisions?

Mr. Martin

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not taken the trouble to read the amendment. I am saying exactly the opposite.

I belong to the National Union of Public Employees, which employs nurses and hospital porters.

Mr. Holt

On a technical point, the hon. Gentleman's union does not employ the nurses.

Mr. Martin

I apologise. The employees in membership include nurses, porters, sometimes doctors, school caretakers and cleaners but very few research workers, lawyers and accountants. One of the largest unions in the country, with almost 1 million members, clearly needs legal, financial and research expertise at head office, and the only way to obtain it is to recruit from outside the union membership. Even if we balloted the membership to allow lawyers to participate in the executive committee, we would probably not find any lawyers in membership. They have to be appointed from outside.

It is nonsense to suggest that researchers, accountants and legal advisers cannot participate in executive meetings, but that would be the effect of the amendment as it provides that people who are not elected cannot attend executive meetings even on a non-voting basis. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) shakes his head, but he is the only Conservative Member to do so. The others have clearly cottoned on to the difficulties posed by the amendment. It is nonsense to expect trade unions to be expert and professional in the way in which they conduct their business and seek to prevent the experts whom they appoint from participating in executive committee meetings on a non-voting basis.

Mr. Reg Prentice (Daventry)

From what I have heard so far, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has had the best of the argument, although there are clearly problems of definition, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springbum (Mr. Martin) has drawn attention to some of them.

The Bill as it has emerged from Committee is still too narrowly drafted. We seek a situation in which the officials who have real power in the trade unions should be elected and subject to re-election at intervals of five years or less. The Bill, as drafted, will not achieve that. Therefore, some of the most powerful figures in the trade union movement will either not be elected or will be elected for life.

I cite as an example the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I have been a member since 1950. The general secretary of that union is potentially the most powerful trade union leader in the country. One has only to look back over the list of people who have occupied that position almost since the union was founded — Ernest Bevin, Arthur Deakin, Frank Cousins and Jack Jones—to appreciate the power that goes with the job. The general secretary of the TGWU is elected. An election is shortly to take place for Mr. Moss Evans' successor. The general secretary can then stay in office until retirement. A strong case can be made for the holder of that office — this is an especially powerful example, because of the power that goes with that post—to come up for re-election at intervals of not more than five years.

When the constitution of the TGWU was drawn up in the 1920s—it has not been altered greatly since then—it provided for a complex and elaborate pyramid of elected committees whose power, on paper, rested with their lay members. There is a trade group committee in each region. The pyramid then goes up to national trade group committees and regional committees, and at the top of the pyramid is the general executive council. Neither the general secretary nor any of the other officers of the union has a vote on those committees. Those officers give crucial advice and, generally speaking, leadership.

In 1955, a tremendous change occurred. At a May Day meeting Arthur Deakin—who was due to retire within a few months — died. His immediate successor, Jock Tiffin, was a sick man and could not effectively do the job. He died later that year. In a short time, Frank Cousins became deputy general secretary, acting general secretary, and then general secretary. The change from Deakin to Cousins meant a complete reversal of the union's policy —from Right wing to Left wing in terms of TUC and Labour party policy; from supporting NATO and collective defence to supporting unilateral disarmament; and from involving itself in a great deal of co-operation in industry to being more militant. That occurred because of the change of general secretary. I suggest that the Bill, as drafted, does not deal with that situation.

What I have said about the leadership of the TGWU would apply to a number of other senior union officers and, therefore, to a large proportion—I do not know how many, because I have not done the research—of the general council of the Trades Union Congress. The people who become the leaders of their individual unions make up the membership of the general council. If the Bill is passed in its present form, quite a few of the members of the general council will either not need to be elected or will be elected on terms that enable them to go on until retirement without being regularly re-elected.

The Government should look at this matter again. If they cannot accept the amendment— I believe it is a good idea—they should introduce further amendments in the other place to deal with this gap in the Bill.

Mr. John Smith

No hon. Member would be surprised that the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) should try to be more royalist than the King on this matter.

Mr. Prentice

More democratic.

Mr. Smith

I shall deal later with the right hon. Gentleman's addiction to democracy. He was not keen on democracy when he crossed the Floor of the House and did not submit himself to election by the people who had elected him in the first place. He continued to represent those people after he changed from the political affiliation on which he was elected. I shall not take sedentary lectures from the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said that his amendment would clarify some legal ambiguities about the exercise of a casting vote. I do not believe that there is an ambiguity. The answer given in Committee by the Government was correct. Therefore, there is no need for an amendment on that basis.

The main reason for the amendment, although it was not stated by the hon. Member for Truro, was advanced by the right hon. Member for Daventry. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposition was that in all cases general secretaries should be elected, whether or not the unions wished it. One of the crucial points in the Bill—this is the Labour party's contention — is that trade unions should make up their own minds on this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for elections goes wider than the trade union movement. He wants other people to be elected periodically every five years. From time to time, the right hon. Gentleman should examine his new party and suggest some reforms.

8.15 pm

Hon. Members, including the Under-Secretary of State, should consider the practical aspects. In many trade unions, the general secretary, or the chief official, is in a different position from the traditional general secretary in the older trade unions. It is the practice in many of the new white-collar unions to recruit the general secretary, like a career civil servant, from the market place in the same way as a company recruits a chief executive from the market place.

Mr. Mikardo

Or a permanent secretary of a Department.

Mr. Smith

As my hon. Friend reminds me, he is recruited in the same way as a permanent secretary of a Department.

The unions see the chief official as the chief executive, carrying out the union's decisions, whether made by the executive at annual conference or in other decision-making processes. His principal job is more that of a civil servant than anything else in implementing the union's policy. That is the case with the Engineers and Managers Association, the British Air Line Pilots Association and, I believe, the National and Local Government Officers Association.

There is a great deal of sense in that development. For one reason or another, the unions believe that they are likely to be better served by a chief executive recruited from the market place who is more sympathetic to the union's general objectives and policies than by someone produced from within the union by election. The unions go to their members for the governing body, but they prefer to go wider for their chief official. There is nothing reprehensible in that attitude. If unions were forced to desist from that policy by the Bill's provisions, that would not be in the public interest. NALGO, for example, should not be forced to change the way it runs the union because of the changes proposed in the Bill.

I will be told that there is a way around that difficulty —that the unions could continue to have an appointed chief official, provided he does not sit on the executive. Does it make sense for the chief official not to sit on the executive when it takes its decisions but instead to be told of the executive's decisions in some other manner? Should he not be on the executive, without a vote, as are the chief executives of other elected bodies, so that from time to time he can give his advice? The union should not need to exclude him from its considerations.

This is a practical proposition. We know that many trade unions — this was noted in the Green Paper published before the Bill was drafted — follow that practice. Will those hon. Members who proposed the amendment tell the House why BALPA, NALGO, the Engineers and Managers Association and many other professional groups which are classified as trade unions should be stopped from following that practice? I believe that the hon. Member for Truro would concede that, if the amendment is carried, we would need to stop that practice or stop the general secretary or chief official from attending executive meetings. As neither of those measures is desirable, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Alan Clark

The aim of part I is to ensure that the union executives accurately reflect the views of ordinary members. Hence, the balloting requirement applies to those, and only those, who can vote on the executive and thereby commit their union to a course of action. Like so much of the Bill, as the House has already been told and will be told again later in our discussions, that is a simple and readily understandable principle which commands widespread support, not least among trade union members.

It is usual for unions to divide their executives between voting and non-voting members. The non-voting members tend generally to be union employees. That was the point developed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). In other words, they are the union officials—the treasurer, who can be a qualified accountant, the general secretary and often his assistants, the union's trustees and possibly even the union's solicitor.

It should not be suggested seriously that professional employees of that kind, who have no votes on the executive, although they may be members of it, should all be subject automatically to election. That is what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is asking the House to accept. The points that he made about casting votes were correct. If one has a casting vote, one has it as of right, as provided in subsection (7), and that means that one would have to be elected.

The hon. Member gave the example of Mr. Arthur Scargill and his casting vote. I doubt whether he would give up his casting vote. The voting strength of his executive is crucial at present. All kinds of arguments are imminent, and the power struggle over the strike ballot might go in a different way to that which he intends if he gave up his casting vote.

The hon. Member for Truro was all too glib when he said that the subsection would be used as a loophole, that various distinguished and prominent union members would give up their voting right to avoid subjecting themselves to the scrutiny of regular election, and that they may stay on the executive with some nominal power, which would be less real than if they were voting members of the executive.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) referred to the officials who hold real power in the union. That echoed the adjectives used by the hon. Member for Truro when he described members of the union as leading and important. We have to decide how to measure that importance and that power. The only way in which it can be specifically and factually measured is to gauge their ability to commit the unions to certain courses of action and to determine what happens to their members by casting their vote following discussion.

Those other powers to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry alluded depend upon the personality and the technique for self-publicity, and may depend on skill on the television screen, but judgments as to whether the member is important are essentially subjective. Our business is to measure that precisely. The only way we can do that is to decide whether the member has a vote on the executive. The hon. Member for Truro gave the example of the National Union of Railwaymen, whose general secretary was dismissed by his executive.

The officials who are appointed or who do not have votes on the executive are, in the last resort, servants of the executive and can be dismissed by it. That is the difference in the power of those who have a vote on the executive and those who do not.

The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) paid me a compliment which I much appreciate. When I was welcomed to the Chamber by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I distinctly heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that I was the best of the Ministers. That is something that I cherish, but I fear that that spirit may evaporate when we come to part III next Monday.

The point raised by the right hon. and learned Member is important, because the amendment would inhibit the ability of unions to recruit in the market place. That applies to the newer and white-collar unions particularly. They wish to recruit, on the basis of professional expertise, those who might be appropriate for official and administrative roles in the union. For all those reasons, I believe that the amendment is impractical and imprecise and I advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)

The Minister has shown that there is a fundamental difference between his position and that of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and between his position and that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). We say that this provision should cover people who are members of the principal executive committee, as laid down in the Bill, or the union's chief executive officer.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) pointed out, that is one leg of our amendments. There is no criticism of Mr. Speaker, but our amendment which dealt with the position of general secretary has not been selected.

We want to try to ensure that the principal executive officer of the union is periodically elected by the membership as a member of the executive committee or is periodically re-elected by the elected executive. If he is the type of person who has been referred to, as in the case of BALPA—I rather favour that type of administration in unions — he should, as do many company chief executives, have a five-year contract. The principal executive committee of the union then has an opportunity to review that contract to decide whether it wants to keep him. in office.

That means that those people elected by the union membership under the provisions of the Bill have a say. That applies in the case of the general secretary, if he is appointed by the executive, once every five years or, if he is a member of the executive, he is re-elected, like other members of the committee, by the full membership of the trade union. That is the principle that we are trying to incorporate into the Bill. The amendment goes part of the way towards achieving that aim.

Other officials who attend meetings—the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)—are a cause of anxiety, but I do not see why there should be any difficulty. I have attended union executive meetings at which the union's solicitor and the heads of various other departments have addressed the executive committee and given their advice, but that does not make them members of the executive committee. Similarly, in local government, various officials of various departments can speak at committee meetings, but that does not make them members of the council.

We say that members of the executive committee—usually principal executive officers of unions are ex officio members of committees—or those who have some other role which makes them members of the principal executive committee under the rules — and should be re-elected periodically.

Mr. Evans

Was the gentleman who performs the task of chief executive officer or general secretary of the Social Democratic party elected by the whole of the membership, and will he be subject to re-election?

8.30 pm
Mr. Wrigglesworth

He was elected by the elected executive committee of the Social Democratic party. He had a short-term contract, which came up for review, in exactly the same way trade union chief executives—

Mr. Evans

But he was appointed, too.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

I have made the position absolutely clear. He is elected in exactly the same way as trade union chief executives are, by the elected committee of the union. In our case, the gentleman was elected by universal franchise — one member, one vote — of the national executive committee of the party.

There is no inconsistency in our position. I think that the amendment would ahieve the aim referred to by the right hon. Member for Daventry. It gives the opportunity for those important people, the chief executive officers of the trade unions, to come up for periodic reappointment or re-election. If they are reappointed, it is by a body elected under the provisions of the Bill.

This is only a modest amendment. It will ensure that the people who have enormous influence and power in the trade union movement are periodically re-elected or, under the other amendment that I described, reappointed. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about the matter and that we shall have the support of the House in ensuring that this further extension of democracy in the trade union movement is put into the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes, 241.

Division No. 202] [8.31 pm
AYES
Alton, David Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Ashdown, Paddy Steel, Rt Hon David
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) Wainwright, R.
Howells, Geraint Wallace, James
Johnston, Russell Wrigglesworth, Ian
Kennedy, Charles
Kirkwood, Archibald Tellers for the Ayes:
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Mr. John Cartwright and
Penhaligon, David Mr. A. J. Beith.
NOES
Aitken, Jonathan Brinton, Tim
Alexander, Richard Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ancram, Michael Brooke, Hon Peter
Arnold, Tom Browne, John
Ashby, David Bruinvels, Peter
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Buck, Sir Antony
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Budgen, Nick
Baldry, Anthony Burt, Alistair
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Butterfill, John
Batiste, Spencer Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Bellingham, Henry Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Bendall, Vivian Chapman, Sydney
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) Chope, Christopher
Benyon, William Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Berry, Sir Anthony Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Best, Keith Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Bevan, David Gilroy Clegg, Sir Walter
Biffen, Rt Hon John Cockeram, Eric
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Colvin, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Conway, Derek
Boscawen, Hon Robert Coombs, Simon
Bottomley, Peter Cope, John
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Corrie, John
Braine, Sir Bernard Couchman, James
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Cranborne, Viscount
Bright, Graham Currie, Mrs Edwina
Dickens, Geoffrey Knowles, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen Knox, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Lamont, Norman
Dover, Den Lang, Ian
Durant, Tony Latham, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) Lawler, Geoffrey
Eggar, Tim Lawrence, Ivan
Emery, Sir Peter Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Evennett, David Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Eyre, Sir Reginald Lester, Jim
Fallon, Michael Lightbown, David
Favell, Anthony Lilley, Peter
Fletcher, Alexander Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Fookes, Miss Janet Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Forman, Nigel Lord, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Lyell, Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman McCrea, Rev William
Fox, Marcus McCrindle, Robert
Fraser, Peter (Angus East) McCurley, Mrs Anna
Freeman, Roger Macfariane, Neil
Fry, Peter MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Galley, Roy MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Maclean, David John.
Garel-Jones, Tristan McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Glyn, Dr Alan McQuarrie, Albert
Goodhart, Sir Philip Major, John
Goodlad, Alastair Malone, Gerald
Gorst, John Maples, John
Gow, Ian Marlow, Antony
Grant, Sir Anthony Mather, Carol
Greenway, Harry Maude, Hon Francis
Gregory, Conal Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Grist, Ian Merchant, Piers
Ground, Patrick Meyer, Sir Anthony
Grylls, Michael Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Gummer, John Selwyn Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Hampson, Dr Keith Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Hanley, Jeremy Miscampbell, Norman
Hannam, John Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Hargreaves, Kenneth Moate, Roger
Harvey, Robert Montgomery, Fergus
Haselhurst, Alan Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Hawksley, Warren Moynihan, Hon C.
Hayes, J. Mudd, David
Hayhoe, Barney Murphy, Christopher
Hayward, Robert Neale, Gerrard
Heathcoat-Amory, David Nelson, Anthony
Heddle, John Newton, Tony
Henderson, Barry Nicholls, Patrick
Hickmet, Richard Norris, Steven
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Onslow, Cranley
Hind, Kenneth Osborn, Sir John
Hirst, Michael Ottaway, Richard
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Page, John (Harrow W)
Holt, Richard Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Hooson, Tom Paisley, Rev Ian
Hordern, Peter Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Howard, Michael Patten, John (Oxford)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) Pattie, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) Pawsey, James
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hubbard-Miles, Peter Pink, R. Bonner
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Pollock, Alexander
Hunter, Andrew Porter, Barry
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas Powell, William (Corby)
Irving, Charles Powley, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Price, Sir David
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey Proctor, K. Harvey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Raffan, Keith
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Renton, Tim
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Rhodes James, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Rifkind, Malcolm
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Roe, Mrs Marion Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shersby, Michael Viggers, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H. Walden, George
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Soames, Hon Nicholas Ward, John
Stanbrook, Ivor Warren, Kenneth
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Watts, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) Wood, Timothy
Stokes, John Yeo, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J. Young, Sir George (Acton)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Taylor, John (Solihull) Tellers for the Noes:
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Mr. Michael Neubert and
Thurnham, Peter Mr. Archie Hamilton.
Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Back to
Forward to