§ 'When a person employed in the Civil Service of the state is to become employed by a company and would not do so if it were not for a scheme made under section 1(1) then, before such a scheme is made, the Secretary of State shall ask the Government Actuary to establish whether or not such change of employment will cause any financial detriment to such person, in particular in respect of pension and redundancy rights and the terms and conditions of employment, and if it is established that there would be such financial detriment then no scheme shall be made until such persons have been fully compensated.'. — [Mr. McNamara.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. McNamara
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
A theme which ran through most of our debates in Committee was what will happen to the 20,000 civil servants who will suddenly lose the Civil Service status and conditions of employment which they had previously enjoyed. Seeking to allay the fears of their employees, the Government argued that there would be no detriment to them in their terms and conditions of employment under the denationalised royal ordnance factories and that they would not differ from those which exist at present in the factories operated by the trading fund.
Four issues were of concern to the employees: the indexation of pensions, redundancy, the statutory redundancy provisions, and the two different levels of treatment for those employed by the ROFs before vesting date and those taking new employment after. If I concentrate my remarks on the first two matters it is not because I regard the other two as being unimportant but because of the pressure of time.
On Second Reading the Minister gave the impression that all the terms and conditions relating to redundancy would be transferred to the new ROF plc, but he refused to write that undertaking into the Bill. The new management of the privatised ROFs are unwilling to accept that financial burden associated with redundancy terms and conditions applicable in the Civil Service scheme. Will the Government underwrite the commitment on Second Reading, which was implied throughout Committee, to guarantee to the new ROF plc that they will 549 meet that commitment to existing employees to guarantee their existing redundancy rights, no matter what happens? That is fundamental, and we regard it as being of the utmost importance. The greatest concern was expressed on pensions and the pension rights of employees in the new organisation. The Opposition alleged, and the trade unions representing the industrial and non-industrial employees of the new ROF plc claimed, that the employees would suffer positive detriment under the new pension scheme. We were told, decisively and continually, that that was not the case. The Government started to wriggle, to welsh on their commitment, to pull out and to behave in a deceitful manner.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said in Committee on superannuation:We propose in the new pensions scheme, which is specifically designed for existing employees, to continue full indexation of pensions in line with the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 on the same basis provided for by the principal Civil Service pension scheme." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 March 1984; c. 526.]
On 22 March, the Under-Secretary of State was speaking again when I interrupted him, and said:Is there or is there not a ceiling on what will happen—that is, will it be fully index-linked or will it be a limited indexing?The Under-Secretary replied:Looking back to what I said at the earlier sitting of the Committee, I said it would be fully index-linked, and, therefore, I stand by that." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 March 1984; c. 583–4.]We did not believe him, because the civil servants were saying different things to the trade unions in negotiations, and the Ministry was saying different things about how it would fund the new trust deed that would meet the interests of employees in the new ROF.
Raising the matter with the Under-Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), said:At the moment the members of ROFs have a guarantee that whatever the rate of inflation under the Government legislation they will be compensated fully. If inflation rises to 10 per cent., those on retirement pensions will get 10 per cent. Can the Minister tell me that that will automatically happen under the new regime, or is it a fact that if contributions have to be increased above 11 per cent, it will be at the discretion of the company?That is the provision in the trust deed. The Minister replied:Yes, that is the difference. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that although indexation is provided for under current legislation, in the event of inflation getting into banana republic proportions one cannot envisage a situation in which the current legislation would be allowed to remain on the statute book.My right hon. Friend said:That is a bogus point." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29 March 1984; c. 650.]The Government started to wriggle in respect of the undertaking that they had given. From the start, the members of the ROFs felt they had been promised complete protection of their interests in redundancy schemes and pensions, interests that were lost to them later.In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:There is a very thin possibility, or caveat, that there would not be total indexing." — [Official Repot, Standing Committee D, 2 April 1984; c. 656.]We know that there will not be total indexing.
We want to know from the Minister why he has deliberately misled the members of the ROFs by suggesting that their pensions would be guaranteed—
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman said "deliberately misled". That is the point about which I was concerned.
§ Mr. McNamara
The Minister gave that impression —I am sure that he was not deliberately misleading—to the Committee and to all the employees of the ROFs, who believed that there would be full indexation. That is what he attempted to do consistently. On every occasion that the departmental team went to the factories, it said this repeatedly. On every occasion that my right hon. Friend and I and our colleagues in the trade unions asked whether this was guaranteed, the answer was yes. But the Government are not doing that. They are giving 6 per cent. to meet what would have been the wages complement, arid they will give another percentage up to a maximum of 17 per cent., including the wages element. If it goes above that, there will not be full indexation. Questions can be raised as to whether that percentage is a proper funding for the scheme, but I do not know that we would wish to go into that kind of argument now. However, I do know that the Government and the Ministry are not accepting the responsibilities of the undertaking that they gave to the unions and to the employees.
Although it may not be deliberately misleading, a letter of 24 April, signed by the Minister of State, to my hon. Friend the Member for Burney (Mr. Pike) states:In addition the Transferred Scheme will provide benefits that are fully indexed-linked.He did not say partially index-linked, or linked only up to 17 per cent., but fully index-linked. The Government are now pulling back from their precise commitment.
We have tabled the clause to enable the Government, if they do not believe us and the unions when we say that this will be detrimental to the employees, to go to the Government Actuary, and to have a proper appraisal.
I refer next to clause 13 of the trust deed which was sent to members of the Committee. One rather strange clause says:The Employer may at any time terminate the liability of the Employer under the Scheme by giving notice in writing to the Trustees indicating its reasons. Upon receipt of such notice the liability of the Employer shall be terminated except in respect of payments due on or before the date of such notice.
A situation is being created in which the new ROF plc, as employer, can chicken out from its direct responsibilities, if it so wishes. That is surely detrimental to the employees, however one looks at the matters affecting the ROFs.
I refer next to the undertaking given by the Minister of State for Information Technology at the time that the Telecommunications Bill was debated on Report. He said—and I paraphrase—that existing pension obligations would be fully honoured, and that even if British Telecom went out of business the liability would go to the Secretary of State.
I ask the Minister whether he will give the same undertaking that, if the ROF plc, any of its successors or any of its hived-off companies go out of business, the Secretary of State will pick up the tab for the present pensions obligations. If he will do that, it will help to alleviate the fears of some Opposition Members, and of the present employees of the ROFs.
A strange argument was put forward by the Minister as to why the benefits of the 1971 Act and full index linking 551 should not be covered in the Bill. He said that if things got out of hand, the Government would have to chicken out of all their commitments to the public service and alter the legislation if necessary. However, he said that we would be safe with the trust deed. That is nonsense, and the Minister knows it. A trust deed is just as susceptible to legislation as an Act. It is ridiculous to suggest that one will stand where another will not. The Minister should realise that and should ensure that whatever happens the Government will underwrite any schemes that apply to current ROF employees. That is no less than the Government promised during discussion of the Telecommunications Bill.
Although I have tried to be as brief as possible, I hope that I have shown how the Government have wriggled and twisted, thinking that people could not see the difference between the two sets of documents. In doing so, they have let down both the employees and themselves. They gave an undertaking and commitment, and they should be prepared to keep it. No matter how much wriggling they may do about 16, 17 or 18 per cent. or what strange phrases they may use in debate—such as the comment about banana republics—Ministers gave a commitment which they have not honoured. We expect it to be honoured, and we expect them to give proper copper-bottomed guarantees now on the question of redundancy payments. If the firm cannot guarantee them the Treasury should do. We hope that the Government will give the same undertaking on the trust document as was given to British Telecom's employees.
Mr. Bowen-Wells (Hertford and Stortford)
I share many of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee that discussed the Bill, so I am not aware of the details of the argument that he put. However, there is no doubt that employees at all levels of the ROFs are exceedingly worried and concerned about the copper-bottomed nature of the undertakings given by Ministers on pensions and redundancy payments. The commitment on pensions has been given at a time when the Government still own the ROFs. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, the Government should honour that commitment for all existing employees, and I trust that the Minister will give such an undertaking when he replies to the debate.
Several factors need to be examined with regard to redundancy payments. I have no reason to believe that the Royal Ordnance Factory plc will be unsuccessful, but during a period of change there will obviously be doubts and difficulties in the minds of existing employees. They may be worried that the new company will not be successful, and that raises the question of redundancies. The Government are under an obligation to make clear to those employees that the redundancy payments in the new company will be the same as those that existed under the old company.
I do not for one minute believe that such undertakings should apply to new employees of the new company. They should have totally different schemes of remuneration and conditions of service. However, other problems face the existing employees. The ROFs are to be reorganised into several different divisions, and that means the redeploy- 552 ment of those in very senior positions. They will have family commitments, mortgages, and so on. At a very difficult time in their personal circumstances they may have to move to other areas of the country. If they now work in London, they will suffer a reduction in their salaries, because they will no longer enjoy London weighting. Of course, they may enjoy a much higher standard of living as a result of moving, because of the lower cost of living there, but in cash terms they will be worse off. They may not be able to move house and may have to travel from London to the new location. They may even have to stay there during the week and return home at the weekend because of their commitments to their children's education, and so on.
No undertaking has been given by the management, the Treasury or Ministers that those who have to move will be fully compensated by the new company. Thus those people are being asked to make a very difficult decision right now as to whether to join the new company or to move to the Civil Service under the preference scheme. However, there is some doubt as to how many people the Civil Service can employ when the company is privatised, so those involved do not know whether they will be taken on. In addition, because they have asked to stay in the Civil Service, they may sacrifice the possibility of preferment within the new company. Accordingly, they are frightened to do that. They are being asked to make such choices long before the facts on how they will be affected by their new terms and conditions have been made clear to them, and so they are unable to make any rational choice.
Furthermore, people have to make such choices although they cannot get in to see the management, which could give them the answers to their questions. The Minister kindly facilitated my seeing the chairman-designate of the new company, who said that he was hamstrung. He said that he could not give undertakings or make clear to each employee what his pension entitlement was, whether there would be any compensation for moving, or whether any redundancy money would be available if they had opted for the Civil Service, but were not taken on and so made redundant.
I understand that in those circumstances people may lose their entire pension rights, built up, say, over 40 years, their redundancy money, and may find themselves out on the street, looking for a job at 50, without any compensation for having been employed by the ROFs. That is not the way to handle people, and it is not the way that anyone should try to handle them. We would be highly critical of any private company or employer that behaved in that way. In my view, this matter has been conducted insensitively and without enough forethought. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House and the employees, and so ensure that the new company retains its best employees to give it the best chance of making money and expanding its activities in the private sector.
§ Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau,, Gwent)
I understand that there is a strong desire to compress this debate, and I fully understand that. However, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in strongly urging the Government to accept the new clause. Some of my constituents are among those who have been treated as insensitively as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said. The ROF at 553 Glascoed has had a fine record for many years of decent industrial relations. Yet all that is being disturbed by the Government's proposals.
We on these Benches are, of course, opposed—as most of those at Glascoed and in the ROFs are—to the Government's general proposition. But if they are determined to go ahead with it, it is all the more necessary that they should protect the redundancy and pension rights of those who have given long service to those factories. That is the very least that could be demanded, but it is not what the Government have done. Even at this late stage, they could try to remedy the situation, and could lessen the sense of distress that prevails by accepting the new clause. I urge the Government to say "Done!". Why do they not accept the new clause and determine to carry it into operation? If any part of it is badly drafted, that can be dealt with.
I urge the Government to deal with the unrest that they have created. They should accept the clause and introduce some fairness into the way in which they deal with the people who work in the ordnance factories.
§ Mr. George Walden (Buckingham)
I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but in my constituency there is a small but excellent establishment at Westcott. I support the Government's privatisation policy, not out of dogmatism, but because I believe that it will give the people who work in my constituency a more secure and promising future in the long term. However, if the Government wish to edge people out into the crisp, cold climate of commercialism they should give them some warm clothes to put on.
It would he wrong to hide the fact that nearly all the people to whom I have spoken at the establishment in my constituency are worried on one score or another. They are worried that the whole organisation will be sold off in bits. They are worried about whether the funding for research will continue during the interim before privatisation.
The workers are also worried about pensions and terms of redundancy. The Government have a duty to be as generous as possible on pensions and redundancy terms, but I do not believe in the bottomless pit theory and I doubt whether many people who work in the ROF establishments believe in it.
Some of the employees at Westcott have asked me about what will happen if they opt for the second pension scheme and whether that will make them new entrants in the privatised firm. They wonder whether their redundancy terms will then automatically be based on the new entrant qualification. They believe that if that happened a redundancy payment could, for example, be reduced from £26,000 to £3,000. That is a drastic reduction. I should like clarification and the Minister's assurance that he will do his best to secure the most generous terms possible within the realms of financial prudence. The new company must not be overloaded with unrealistic obligations.
§ Mr. Leo Abse (Torfaen)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I have heard about anxieties among workers at the Glascoed factory. At first I thought that I could reassure the workers after what appeared to be unequivocal comments by the Minister. However, confusion and alarm have been caused by contradictory statements made since.
In an endeavour to maintain industrial peace, some of us have tried to allay fears. The Government, resiling from 554 that position, have placed some hon. Members in an impossible position. Repugnant as we find the whole privatisation scheme, some of us feel that we have a duty and obligation to allay anxieties, if there are well founded reasons to allay them, rather than to incite the workers. Like all those who work in the ordnance units, we feel let down. Ministers have an obligation to weigh their words carefully. When new problems occur or new thoughts arise Ministers must take responsibility for making adjustments instead of tearing up obligations which they have entered into publicly.
In south Wales the problem is not academic. The unemployment figures are appalling. People are sometimes unemployed for years. The threat of redundancy has a special meaning not known in areas with full employment. The threat of redundancy is bound to cause an enormous amount of anxiety. The threat of redundancy without adequate payment subverts the whole family life of a constituency. It is not good enough for the Government to treat people almost as chattels by transferring them from one factory to another and telling them that they have little alternative but to enter into the new agreements.
§ Mr. Abse
In a sense it is medieval. The Government seem to have decided that they will take that course and throw people around as if they are mere assets of a unit. That is irresponsible behaviour. How can one expect people to feel confident that all will be well when we see such a miserable picture of moving one foot forward and one foot back. How can the Government expect the morale of a company to be maintained?
How can the Government expect people who decide to purchase the units to pay the price which the Government want them to pay when they know that they are purchasing a disaffected, disgruntled and demoralised work force? That is what is happening.
The Government must have second thoughts. We should be able to say to the workers that they need have no fears. The Government response is that it is unlikely that some of the awful events imagined will occur. They say that it is unlikely that the fear that the pension schemes cannot be index-linked will be realised. They say that that is highly improbable. If it is so improbable, why are the Government not prepared to underwrite the commitment contained in the new clause?
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is entitled to a satisfactory answer about the details of redundancy and pension terms. The workers at Glascoed and elsewhere fear that rationalisation will take place as a result of the scheme. Not only will the management have to move from one area to another, with all the problems that that will bring, but the men will be expected to move. The men will not be able to move. They will not be able to sell their houses because the market is clogged in areas of high unemployment. They will have no alternative. Rationalisation will mean that hundreds may become redundant. They are talking about the end, and perhaps the extinguishing of their working lives. There is no alternative work and their houses will be unsaleable.
I hope that the Minister will behave as a responsible employer. I hope that in this crazy, ideological urge to break up all the units there will be at least some element 555 of common sense and a recognition of the normal obligations of any reasonable employer to employees. Up to now that obligation has not been acknowledged. I hope that it will be later today.
§ Mr. Ashdown
I support the new clause. It is, as most hon. Members will agree, somewhat inelegantly drafted, as was the previous new clause, but at least this one makes some sense. The new clause has two qualities—first, no detriment, and, secondly, an objective system of judging that detriment. The Minister must admit that he has frequently and consistently conceded the concept of no detriment. He did so on Second Reading, repeatedly in Committee and in certain documents. The Minister has sought, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, unsuccessfully to reassure the work force at the royal ordnance factories by the concept of no detriment. The Minister is widely regarded as an honourable man who means what he says. On this issue he means that there shall be no detriment. I suggest that he cannot question that element of the new clause, and I am sure that he will not seek to do so. He must concede that point.
The Minister's opposition to the amendment must be on the ground that it seeks to establish a more objective system of judging the question whether detriment will be caused than what is in the Minister's or the Government's mind's eye. As an honourable man, the Minister will no doubt wish his undertaking about no detriment to stand even after he leaves his present exalted position and perhaps passes to an even more exalted one or after another party comes to power. I ask him to recognise that he has nothing to fear by allowing the question of no detriment to be judged objectively rather than in the eyes of the Government of the day. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that not just this Government but any Government face the irresistible temptation to make loose statements, such as on detriment, to their advantage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the element in the new clause providing a degree of objectivity about the judgment of no detriment places the possibility in his hands of establishing a precedent which, in the Government's privatisation programme, will be deeply reassuring to other work forces that the Government seek to privatise.
The new clause honours the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, and he has nothing to fear from it. I hope that, in those circumstances, he will accept it.
§ Mr. Pike
I, too, recognise the constraints of time and shall keep my remarks to a minimum. I regret that it is necessary to speak in support of a new clause such as this which has had to be moved at this stage. After more than 20 sittings in Committee we are still not guaranteed that no detriment in conditions of service and employment will be suffered by employees of the royal ordnance factories after privatisation. If the Government genuinely wish to meet the undertaking they gave on many occasions, they would, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, be prepared to accept the new clause.
The employees of the royal ordnance factories are opposed to privatisation and they have clearly shown their view. It is, of course, purely because of Government dogma and for political reasons that the factories are to be 556 privatised. The profitability, improvements in productivity and exports of the royal ordnance factories show that there is no good reason to remove the factories from the public sector. They have an excellent record of service to this country and should continue in the public sector. The income that the Government will receive from the sale of those factories will be extremely low, and, therefore, no detriment should be caused to the employees. We hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will give that assurance by accepting the new clause.
Differing answers were given in Committee on the especially difficult and complex matter of pensions. Various letters were written on the subject. During the 20th sitting of the Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said:The assessment by the actuaries is that in normal circumstances those three different sources of revenue"—income from the investments, the employer and the employees—will ensure that there is enough money in the fund to meet the liabilities — the liability to pay in the first place and the liability to index-link that payment. Understandably, the Opposition queried what I mean by 'normal circumstances' . I can best explain that by saying that we and the actuaries believe that circumstances when inflation is running in the long term—I emphasise that-at say, 25 per cent., 35 per cent. or 50 per cent. a year, would not be normal." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 April 1984; c. 656.]I am sure that every hon. Member would agree that inflation at those levels, even in a short period, would not be normal, and it would certainly not be normal in the long term. The Government, whichever party were in office, would be forced to take action because we would be facing a crisis. Not only the royal ordnance factories, but the Civil Service, local government and other areas where pensions are index-linked would be unable to meet that commitment. The new clause could be accepted because I am sure that, in all reasonable and foreseeable circumstances, the Government would genuinely wish to follow that commitment, and we welcome that approach.
§ Mr. Pattie
I listened carefully to the speeches, and I recognise fully the strength of feeling displayed on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) raised detailed questions about moving allowances and such matters, and I shall see what I can do if he cares to make individual reference to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made a specific point, and I realise that the difficulty of PERME employees differs from the difficulties of other royal ordnance factory employees. I assure the House that the entitlement of existing employees to redundancy benefits and compensation will not be affected if they choose—they have the option—to join the new entrants pension scheme as opposed to the transferee scheme. In this sense there is no linkage between pensions and redundancy benefits, and I hope that my hon. Friend will convey that point to his constituents.
We have stated many times that it has always been our intention that employees will not suffer detriment by reason of the transfer. Terms and conditions of employment, other than pensions, will be the same immediately following the transfers as they were immediately before it. This is secured, not by the Bill, but by the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE 81. These regulations effectively continue the contract of 557 employment from the one employment to the other, as though the contract had been made with the new employer and not with the old one. In this respect, therefore, there cannot possibly be any detriment. It could be argued that there will be some marginal improvement, because some of the more restrictive aspects of employment within the Civil Service will not apply to employment in a private company.
Pension schemes, however, do not come within the 1981 regulations, and transferring employees will have to leave the principal Civil Service pension scheme and join a new scheme to be set up by the company. Some worry has, understandably, been expressed concerning the provisions of the new pension scheme and about redundancy compensation. The Government have given an unequivocal commitment that redundancy benefits payable by the company will be exactly the same as those that would have been paid by the PCSPS. It follows that there will be no detriment in respect of redundancy benefits.
The benefits to be paid under this pension scheme will be equal to those payable under the PCSPS, and will be index-linked in line with PCSPS benefits. The pension scheme has been a focus of concern about detriment. The trade unions representing those employees to be transferred have been given all the essential details of the new pension scheme, and discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the unions are going on now with a view to agreeing the company's proposals. I saw some of the unions this morning and I am to see the others next Tuesday. It is our intention and expectation that the discussions will result in an agreement that is satisfactory to all parties.
The Opposition queried in Committee what the Government said about index linking. The Government explained fully how the company scheme, including index linking, will work. The pension scheme has been carefully costed under independent actuarial advice. We are satisfied that it is within the company's ability to maintain the contributions necessary to provide for the index-linked benefits. In all foreseeable circumstances there will be no problem for the company in meeting its commitment. We do not believe, therefore, that the new scheme will be detrimental in any way to transferring employees.
The clause that we are being asked to accept would require the Government Actuary to consider individually each of the 20,000 or so transferring employees and to make his calculations according to their individual circumstances. That would be an impossible task, and even if it could be carried out the Actuary would not be able to say for certain that any detriment would arise.
In the Government's view, the clause is unworkable as it stands. Rather than attempting to devise some machinery for the assessment of a hypothetical situation, it would be better to leave the issues to the discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the trade unions, which are now in progress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already confirmed to the unions that if they can establish detriment in the pension scheme there will be adjustments to remove it. If it proves impossible for the Department and the unions to reach a satisfactory accommodation, there is machinery for assessing issues of this sort, in the form of industrial tribunals.
558 The clause would add nothing useful to the Bill It could not assist the resolution of the delicate matters that are involved or help to reassure the transferring employee. It is the considered opinion of the actuaries who have advised the Government that the limits of contribution which have been set will cover all foreseeable circumstances based on known experience. We are convinced, therefore, that there is no detriment. The clause is unnecessary and I ask the House to reject it.
§ Mr. McNamara
The Minister's reply was thoroughly unsatisfactory, especially on index linking. If the scheme covers all foreseeable circumstances, there is no reason why the new clause should not become part of the Bill and be enacted. If the Government do not like the wording of the new clause and wish to introduce a similar clause in another place, we shall accept that. They are unlikely to do that, and so we must press the new clause to a Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second t ime:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 193.560
|Division No. 305]||[7.02 pm|
|Abse, Leo||Hughes, Roy (Newport East)|
|Alton, David||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Kennedy, Charles|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Kirkwood, Archibald|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Lamond, James|
|Barnett, Guy||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Barron, Kevin||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Bell, Stuart||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Bermingham, Gerald||McCrea, Rev William|
|Blair, Anthony||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Caborn, Richard||McNamara, Kevin|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Madden, Max|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Marek, Dr John|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Clay, Robert||Maxton, John|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Michie, William|
|Cohen, Harry||Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Corbett, Robin||Nellist, David|
|Craigen, J. M.||O'Brien, William|
|Crowther, Stan||Park, George|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Parry, Robert|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)||Patchett, Terry|
|Deakins, Eric||Penhaligon, David|
|Dormand, Jack||Pike, Peter|
|Dubs, Alfred||Prescott, John|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Randall, Stuart|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Redmond, M.|
|Eastham, Ken||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Fatchett, Derek||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Fisher, Mark||Robinson, P. (Belfast E)|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Rooker, J. W.|
|Forrester, John||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Foster, Derek||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Skinner, Dennis|
|Freud, Clement||Snape, Peter|
|George, Bruce||Soley, Clive|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Spearing, Nigel|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Straw, Jack|
|Hardy, Peter||Warden, Gareth (Gower)|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Wareing, Robert|
|Haynes, Frank||Welsh, Michael|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Wilson, Gordon|
|Home Robertson, John||Winnick, David|
|Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Woodall, Alec|
|Young, David (Bolton SE)||Mr. Allen McKay and|
|Mr. Don Dixon.|
|Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Hunter, Andrew|
|Alexander, Richard||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Arnold, Tom||Jessel, Toby|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Baldry, Anthony||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Batiste, Spencer||Key, Robert|
|Beggs, Roy||Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Lang, Ian|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Bottomley, Peter||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Lester, Jim|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Lightbown, David|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Lilley, Peter|
|Budgen, Nick||Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Lord, Michael|
|Carttiss, Michael||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Cash, William||McCrindle, Robert|
|Chapman, Sydney||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Chope, Christopher||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Cope, John||Maclean, David John|
|Couchman, James||Major, John|
|Crouch, David||Malins, Humfrey|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Malone, Gerald|
|Eggar, Tim||Maples, John|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Mates, Michael|
|Evennett, David||Mather, Carol|
|Fallon, Michael||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Mellor, David|
|Forman, Nigel||Merchant, Piers|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Forth, Eric||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Fox, Marcus||Moate, Roger|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Freeman, Roger||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Gale, Roger||Moore, John|
|Galley, Roy||Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Murphy, Christopher|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Neale, Gerrard|
|Gow, Ian||Needham, Richard|
|Greenway, Harry||Nelson, Anthony|
|Gregory, Conal||Neubert, Michael|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Ground, Patrick||Onslow, Cranley|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Ottaway, Richard|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Page, Richard (Herts SW)|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Harris, David||Parris, Matthew|
|Harvey, Robert||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Pollock, Alexander|
|Hawkins, C. (High Peak)||Porter, Barry|
|Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hawksley, Warren||Powley, John|
|Hayes, J.||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Price, Sir David|
|Hayward, Robert||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Raffan, Keith|
|Heddle, John||Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)|
|Henderson, Barry||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Hickmet, Richard||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Hill, James||Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|Hind, Kenneth||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Hirst, Michael||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Rowe, Andrew|
|Holt, Richard||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Hooson, Tom||Ryder, Richard|
|Hordern, Peter||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Hubbard-Miles, Peter||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Silvester, Fred|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Sims, Roger|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Waddington, David|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Speed, Keith||Walden, George|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)||Waller, Gary|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Ward, John|
|Steen, Anthony||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Stern, Michael||Watson, John|
|Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)||Watts, John|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)||Wheeler, John|
|Stradling Thomas, J.||Whitfield, John|
|Sumberg, David||Whitney, Raymond|
|Taylor, John (Solihull)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)||Wilkinson, John|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Wolfson, Mark|
|Terlezki, Stefan||Wood, Timothy|
|Thomas, Rt Hon Peter||Yeo, Tim|
|Thompson, Donald (Calder V)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Thurnham, Peter||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Townend, John (Bridlington)||Mr. Archie Hamilton and|
|Tracey, Richard||Mr. Tim Sainsbury.|
|Twinn, Dr Ian|
§ Question accordingly negatived