§ Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9 after 'banks', insert'(other than Trustee Savings Bank Scotland Limited which is hereby excluded from this Act)'.The effect of the amendment is to exclude Trustee Savings Bank Scotland Limited from the Bill. It will retain Trustee Savings Bank Scotland as a trustee savings bank, but the prime effect of the change will be to secure the independence of Trustee Savings Bank Scotland. The amendment seeks to do what a Scottish Government would have done: to veto any attempt whatsoever to take this very important banking enterprise out of Scotland and subject it to alien control.
Although the Treasury Bench cannot, for once, be criticised quite so strongly as I would normally criticise it, it should accept that there is a valid reason why in this instance it should not seek to follow the advice given to it by the Trustee Savings Bank group. Trustee Savings Bank Scotland — so far an independent banking enterprise that operates within the confederation of the TSB group—will be incorporated in the TSB Group plc. The shareholding of the TSB Group plc will be a United Kingdom shareholding and the Scottish element of control over Trustee Savings Bank Scotland will be eradicated.
The Government ought to consider the importance of Trustee Savings Bank Scotland within the Scottish financial structure. It is unnecessary for Trustee Savings Bank Scotland to be made into a limited liability company. Within Scotland's financial network there are mutual companies like Scottish Widows and Standard Life which operate very effectively as mutual combines and which are respected not just in Scotland but elsewhere. If the Government decide that the banking structure would be improved by making trustee savings banks individually as well as a whole into public limited liability companies, Trustee Savings Bank Scotland ought, by this amendment, to be allowed to retain its independence.
If doubt is cast upon the ability of the bank to stand on its own feet, let me spell out some of the information about it. Trustee Savings Bank Scotland operates about 2 million separate accounts; it has 1.25 million customers; it has 25 per cent. penetration of the personal savings market in the banking fraternity; and, unlike the other trustee savings banks in the British Isles, it has a larger proportion of AB social classifications than most. Therefore, it cannot be classified, as the TSB group might be in the English context, as a poor man's bank. It is a very big bank. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) said, it holds a substantial proportion of the banking premises in Scotland.
Moreover, nobody can doubt that, since the amalgamations, Trustee Savings Bank Scotland has been under very good and effective management. It has a good reputation. It has responded to new technology in banking. It has expanded its customer clientele and it has also been very productive. For example, on the overall working profit divided among the employees of the group, the Clydesdale bank, which is a fully owned subsidiary of the Midland bank and has no independence whatsoever within the Scottish banking context, produces a profit of only 1137 £2,600 per employee, whereas the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland alternate between £6,500 and £7,500 profit per employee.
I am told that the most recent figures show that TSB Scotland has a profit of £10,600 per employee, so it is clearly a substantial, efficient and effective bank in the Scottish financial scene. However, it seems to have made no attempt to regain some measure of independence or even quasi-autonomy. The Trustee Savings bank on the Channel Islands, perhaps because of the different taxation regime there, and certainly because of the society in which it will function, will allow 49 per cent of the shares to be taken over by local Channel Islands people. That is a formula that TSB Scotland could have adopted. However, I submit that that would not be adequate, as it would have left overall control with the TSB centre in London.
The TSB could have said that TSB Scotland Ltd., as the representative of the progenitor of the Trustee Savings bank movement in the United Kingdom—it originated in Dumfriesshire when the first bank was opened—and bearing in mind its size and success, could have remained a trustee savings bank to continue the work which it has undertaken over the years. Secondly, it could have operated as an independent unit like the Royal Bank of Scotland or the Bank of Scotland. The Bank of Scotland has been an efficient bank. It was owned partly by Barclays Bank plc until recently. The Standard Life Assurance Co. bought out the 30 per cent. share that Barclays Bank had in the Bank of Scotland, so returning the Bank of Scotland to full Scottish ownership.
The Royal Bank of Scotland is an interesting example. Three or four years ago, a tremendous fuss was kicked up when two foreign banks—the Standard Chartered Bank plc and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation — came in like predators with the aim of acquiring control of the Royal Bank of Scotland. It could be said that at that time the Royal Bank badly needed a kick in the behind, because it had slipped behind in its development. It was not showing the same degree of enterprise as the Bank of Scotland.
One of the effects of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which prevented the takeover of the Royal Bank of Scotland, was to transform the Royal Bank. It is now showing activity, energy and initiative that it failed to show hitherto. It is my contention that TSB Scotland could have filled a similar slot.
The third option is much more interesting. We have discussed the money that will be made available in the TSB Group as a result of the flotation of the shares. Apparently the flotation will realise something between £500 million and £700 million. If the Scottish bank had been floated separately, it would have had less free capital becoming available because of its size. However, it would have a considerable amount of capital arising from its deposits.
Now that Barclays bank has moved out of the Scottish banking scene, there is nothing to stop the TSB from entering into a merger or other arrangement with the Clydesdale bank, which has a low profit per employee. It should have been reintegrated into a new banking institution in the Scottish market. That is a great opportunity missed, and it will remain missed if the Government do not accept the amendment. I have no doubt that the Midland bank, which controls the Clydesdale bank, is somewhat stretched for cash because of the Crocker bank fiasco. It would do no harm if the 1138 Midland bank were to dispose of the Clydesdale bank, especially when we consider its overall activities in the rest of the United Kingdom. Those three options could still be available to TSB Scotland if the Minister were to accept my amendment.
I notice that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), is present and I am sure that he will appreciate another reason why my amendment is desirable. Hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is important to build up the financial sector in Scotland. Unlike the north of England, which used to have an independent financial sector which has been eroded and taken over by the City of London, Scotland still has a large area of financial activity which can be useful from time to time in providing investment locally.
I fear that if TSB Scotland, which already has substantial penetration in Scotland, is taken over under the Bill, which will happen if my amendment is not carried, the funds which are raised in the flotation will not be spent in Scotland through the medium of TSB Scotland, but will be used for the expansion of the TSB group in those areas where it is not strong.
Obviously, one of those areas will be the south-east of England, where the group may want to set up in competition with the other joint stock banks. Another will be taking over finance houses or becoming involved in stockbroking and other such areas. The profits that come from those areas will be available not to TSB Scotland but to the group as a whole. It will be operated from London and the employees of TSB Scotland will not see much benefit from it.
In a strange way, by taking this rather cowardly decision, in copping out and selling out, the trustees of the TSB Scotland have, in a sense, stunted the growth of the company that they themselves have built up. I should not like the House to countenance that at all.
Another factor that must be mentioned is that we are faced with encroaching centralisation in the financial markets. It does the Scottish banking sector no good whatever if a major enterprise such as TSB Scotland is to be taken out of the control of interest within Scotland. It is a weakening of the overall fabric. For the financial strategy of the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Industry Department, it would be desirable if TSB Scotland were able to retain its independence and full autonomy.
Another reason why the amendment is vital is that there is no guarantee whatever of the jobs of the headquarters and other staff of TSB Scotland. Pledges have been given before — for instance, in connection with insurance companies which were taken over. After a number of years, insurance companies that had operated in Scotland for many years lost their independence then lost their identity and the jobs that went with the head offices of those companies were obliterated. With the passing generations, the promises and pledges which had been made at the time of takeover were seen to be completely and utterly empty.
§ Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Perth and Kinross)
The hon. Gentleman talks of centralisation and the obliteration of jobs. One new independent bank has been formed in this country in the past 100 years and that is Adam and Company in Edinburgh. Several merchant banks have been formed, such as Noble Grossart and it is in 1139 Edinburgh. Far from centralisation and anglicisation, those are independent bodies. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman ever give any credit to the country that he pretends to represent?
§ Mr. Wilson
I am glad that I have prompted the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) to participate in the debate; he has been absent for most of the evening.
Some small — in United Kingdom terms — banking institutions have been established, and I congratulate those who showed initiative there, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman studies the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the attempted takeover of the Royal Bank of Scotland he will appreciate the pressures facing the financial sector in Scotland. Many of his friends in the Conservative party in Scotland will tell him about their worries. [Interruption.] The noise from the Government Back Benches reminds me that some English yobbos are present. I do not expect them to be interested in the banking scene in Scotland. They will not get directorships from it, so they are not interested in it.
We are talking about a major bank which has operated in Scotland, through independent branches, for a considerable time. It has been amalgamated into a successful unit. I have given the figures and spelt out a strategy, which is not mine alone, but is the strategy favoured by the Scottish community, which is worried about the future and sees the opportunity for jobs in the financial sector.
I am worried that, if the Economic Secretary to the Treasury does not accept the amendment, TSB Scotland will disappear from sight. If it loses its identity, jobs at the head office will be lost. We are taking out one of the props of the Scottish economy. The Bill has been reasonably uncontroversial, but it will have a serious impact in Scotland.
§ Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)
That was the most parochial and short sighted speech that I have ever heard. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) does not seem to realise, though he touched on it, that the savings movement began in Dumfries. Dr. Henry Duncan, who began it all, set up the savings movement throughout the United Kingdom. His lead in banking and commerce shows today in the great success of the TSB.
It is beyond the comprehension of most people who know anything about banking why the hon. Member for Dundee, East should wish to split up something which has been peculiarly successful. He ought to know that Scotland has led the banking and commerce world over the past few hundred years in innovation and strengthening banking through amalgamations. The amendment is contrary to movements in banking over the past 50 years.
The strength of the banks, achieved through amalgamations, has enabled them to develop banking services, aid for industrial development and commerce and banking practice. The amendment would deny those advantages to the TSBs. That shows how out of touch the hon. Member for Dundee, East is with the direction of banking today.
§ Sir Hector Monro
I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will strongly oppose the amendment.
§ Mr. Kirkwood
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The savings movement was started in Scotland in the hon. Gentleman's constituency by the Rev. Henry Duncan. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the savings movement in Scotland is light years removed from the sort of commerce and industry that pervades today's banking world. The savings movement in Scotland was unique. It was a working-class institution. People put their bawbees and shillings into bank deposits that were locked away in caskets and were not lent out at high rates of interest in the capital centres of the world. That was the unique flavour of the Trustee Savings bank, and the Bill is destroying that flavour.
The concept of mutuality is destroying the uniqueness, character, acceptability and approachability of these banks in the high streets of Scotland, and the hon. Member for Dumfries knows it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a sponsor of the Royal Bank of Scotland Bill. If that does not give his game away, I do not know what does.
§ Mr. Craigen
I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension when he says that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) knows it. The hon. Member for Dumfries would not give way when I was about to ask him whether he had read the Bill. The Bill proposes to do away with the existing TSB Scotland. It is proposed to subsume TSB Scotland within this new TSB plc. I can only assume that the man who represents Ruthwell did not read the Bill.
§ Mr. Kirkwood
Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries, I believe that that is not an unreasonable inference.
I have had experience of the Trustee Savings bank. I remember going as a schoolboy to my first secondary school in Glasgow—[HoN. MEMBERS: "When?"]—more than five years ago! Every Friday I used to buy post office stamps with my half crown. When I had saved enough half crown stamps, I took my post office book to the savings bank around the corner. In that way I built up a credit balance. It was only when I went to university and the joint stock banks got hold of my money that I started to run up an overdraft, and I am still doing it.
The Trustee Savings bank is unique, because it is a savings institution. A savings institution is not like a bank; it is supposed to promote savings actively. It is important in rural areas such as that of the hon. Member for Dumfries and mine that savings are promoted, because people are remote from the centres of commerce and the captains of industry who are the hon. Gentleman's friends. They have special needs in the savings market which have not been fulfilled in any other way. It is true, therefore, to say that in the past the Trustee Savings bank has fulfilled a need. I fear for its future. The difference between a savings institution promoting savings and the type of animal that we shall end up with when the Bill is passed is not appreciated by the Government. We shall suffer because of that.
I do not like the Bill. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation that the Government have brought forward. There is a lot of logic in the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). He said that there was no doubt about the quantitative basis 1141 on which the bank is founded. It could stand on its own with any other banking institution. It could also prosper, as it has done.
Cogent arguments can be put about Scotland's peculiar legal system and financial environment. My biggest fear—I know that this point does not apply only to this amendment—is that the concept of mutuality—the basis of the Page report—will go out the window in Scotland, as in other parts of the country.
Many of the present membership and management of the bank in Scotland are deeply worried that the concept of mutuality has been sold short. The Page committee talked about the need for the bank to be run for the benefit of its staff and customers, as opposed to the benefit of outside shareholders, for depositors to elect a board and for the bank to retain its assets. That is the essence of the matter, and the Government have got it severely wrong.
The former right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, now Lord Grimond, suggested, for the first time in my experience, that there was great scope for having local banks that invest in their local communities. In the Borders area and my own constituency, banks such as the TSB would be cheek by jowl with the people in whom they invested. The Government should be moving in that direction, but, instead, they are moving 180 degrees in the opposite direction. That is to be deeply regretted.
My experience in my constituency suggests that the TSB has been providing a unique service in such communities. The need for a bank such as the TSB as it is presently constituted in the Scottish financial services set-up is greater than ever. The Bill is bad. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East will, if necessary, press the amendment to a Division, because if he does I shall be the first to follow him through the Lobby.
§ Mr. Ian Stewart
I should state my credentials by saying that when the Trustee Savings Bank movement was founded in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir. H. Monro), my family lived in Fife. I took the opportunity recently to return to Scotland with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) and to visit TSB Scotland. We found, not a declining organisation, in which jobs were being threatened, but an expanding bank, which embodied both some of the best traditions of the TSBs and the particular independent strain in the financial field which Scotland has contributed.
The complaint made by Opposition Members, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) in part admitted, should be addressed, not to me, but to those who are responsible in the TSBs for the arrangement made possible by the Bill. The arrangement was not forced on the TSBs by the Government. The TSBs in Scotland amalgamated in 1983 to form TSB Scotland, and it was their wish then to join the other TSB bodies in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands. The Bill makes their plans possible.
§ Mr. Wilson
Does the Minister accept that just as the Bank of England has the duty of supervising the banks overall in the United Kingdom, so the Treasury, in promoting this legislation, is doing so because it does not run foul of public policy? In other words, if the Government had disagreed with the intention of privatising or changing the status to plc, they would not have produced the legislation, even if the TSB group had 1142 requested them to do so? If that is the case, and given the fact that in Scotland there are good public policy reasons why TSB Scotland should be excluded, would the Minister agree to accept the amendment?
§ Mr. Stewart
It is not a matter of public policy whether TSB Scotland is excluded or separated from the rest of the group. If the amendment were to be accepted, TSB Scotland would be left in an entirely separate form from any other bank. It would be maintained under the old constitutional arrangements.
Having brought TSB Scotland into the group with the other trustee savings banks, there is nothing to stop it continuing its own independence to whatever degree it cares to negotiate and arrange with the central board and management to which it has contributed. Nothing in the Bill will stop TSB Scotland from seeking such a form of separate activity or independence.
§ 12 midnight
§ Mr. Wilson
If the Minister studies the White Paper he will find that after the date upon which the Bill becomes an Act the TSB Scotland is subsumed into the TSB group. Its board of trustees is extinguished from then on. The local board of TSB Scotland will be appointed by the TSB group centrally. Any vestige of independence there might be virtually disappears from then.
§ Mr. Stewart
The arrangements were known a long time before the amalgamation took place in 1983. Those plans were put forward in 1982. All the arrangements that have taken place in the past couple of years and the future plans for TSB Scotland have been known and agreed by those involved. If it were otherwise, I am not saying that I would have tried to force a monolithic structure on the TSB. It is not for me to do that.
§ Mr. Michael Forsyth (Stirling)
I understand my hon. Friend's point. The Scottish TSB will continue its tradition within the context of the group, but if he believes in that why did he not seize the opportunity presented by the Bill to allow it to have its own note issue in Scotland? That would have underlined its status within the context of the group.
§ Mr. Stewart
The Government are not doing that, because they are not extending the right of note issue to any further banks. Those who possess it do so by virtue of a historical right which has not been removed. It has not been the policy of successive Governments for many years to extend the right of note issue.
§ Mr. Craigen
I am puzzled by the Minister's line of argument. The implication is that we, as Members of Parliament, are wasting our time tonight. We might as well have accepted the TSB's proposals in their entirety, but the purpose of the debate is to scrutinise and amend proposals if need be. That is why we suggest that there should be an autonomous TSB Scotland.
§ Mr. Stewart
I understand the hon. Gentleman's view, but, as I explained on Second Reading, the Bill is most unusual in that it contains some matters of public policy such as the vesting of assets which cannot be done in a group without ownership and the supervision and tax implications. That can only be done by a Minister on behalf of the Government through Parliament. The Bill also has, in many respects, the characteristics of a private Bill when Parliament is approached for legislation by a banking group which wishes to rearrange its structure.
1143 It would not be proper for Ministers to come forward with legislation forcing bodies to reorganise themselves in a way which the Government or Parliament might think right but which those bodies do not wish. We do not have an autocratic system of that kind for bodies in the private sector. It would not be right to apply that to a TSB any more than it would be—
§ Mr. Stewart
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish my sentence? It would not be right for us to single out the TSB for that type of treatment.
§ Mr. Bruce
If the argument is as the Minister states it, why is it that in the last year we have had the Royal Bank of Scotland Bill, the Barclays Bank Bill and the Lloyds Bank (Merger) Bill? Is it not because the Treasury recognises its responsibility in regard to banks and, indeed, if it wished to do so, it would support the amendment?
§ Mr. Stewart
Those are private bank Bills. I tried to explain, but I think that the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening, that this is a Government Bill because there are matters of public interest separate from private interests. The public interest matters are not those parts which are the internal interests of the TSBs, and it has never been suggested that they should be. Some Opposition Members wish that that was the case, but I do not think it would be proper for Government to decide what sort of internal reorganisation the TSBs or any other banking group ought to have forced upon them. Therefore, the Bill deals with those matters which are of direct concern of Government such as supervision, tax and the question of vesting and ownership, which can be resolved only by Parliament.
On that basis, I recommend the Committee to reject the amendment.
§ Mr. Wilson
I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the amendment. He admitted that the Bill affected the public interest. He may well argue that point, although I think not very successfully, in relation to the Royal Bank of Scotland Bill and the other Bills to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred.
In this case, however, we have to put it clearly on record that we are dealing with a request from people who do not own the bank. There is no ownership of the bank; it is mutually owned by the depositors. The people who have come to this decision are the trustees and managers who are culpable in selling out what is the heritage of the Scottish people. They were given a trust in this matter, and they have not observed it.
We have a role to scrutinise and criticise legislation and to try to amend and improve it. If we think that there is a fundamental flaw in any legislation, it is not for the Minister, for me or, indeed, for any other hon. Member to accept that what we are told we have got to do.
I was elected to Parliament to use my own judgment in these matters, as are all hon. Members. The judgment I make is that the Bill is wrong, particularly in relation to the Scottish element within it.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to change his mind.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 137.1145
|Division No. 121]||[12.07 am|
|Alton, David||Loyden, Edward|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Maxton, John|
|Barron, Kevin||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Beith, A. J.||Nellist, David|
|Bruce, Malcolm||Parry, Robert|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)||Penhaligon, David|
|Clay, Robert||Pike, Peter|
|Cohen, Harry||Rogers, Allan|
|Craigen, J. M.||Skinner, Dennis|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Snape, Peter|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Faulds, Andrew||Welsh, Michael|
|Home Robertson, John|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Kennedy, Charles||Mr. Gordon Wilson and|
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)||Mr. Archy Kirkwood.|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Alexander, Richard||Lilley, Peter|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Lord, Michael|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Luce, Richard|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Budgen, Nick||MacGregor, John|
|Burt, Alistair||Maclean, David John|
|Butcher, John||Major, John|
|Chope, Christopher||Malins, Humfrey|
|Cockeram, Eric||Maples, John|
|Conway, Derek||Marland, Paul|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Mather, Carol|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Mayhew, Sir Patrick|
|Dunn, Robert||Mellor, David|
|Durant, Tony||Merchant, Piers|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Favell, Anthony||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Forth, Eric||Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)|
|Freeman, Roger||Mitchell, David (NW Hants)|
|Gale, Roger||Moate, Roger|
|Galley, Roy||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Gregory, Conal||Murphy, Christopher|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Neale, Gerrard|
|Ground, Patrick||Newton, Tony|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Norris, Steven|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Onslow, Cranley|
|Hargreaves, Kenneth||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hayes, J.||Page, Richard (Herts SW)|
|Hayward, Robert||Portillo, Michael|
|Henderson, Barry||Powley, John|
|Hickmet, Richard||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Hind, Kenneth||Raffan, Keith|
|Holt, Richard||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Howard, Michael||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)||Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)||Rowe, Andrew|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Hubbard-Miles, Peter||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Hunter, Andrew||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Jones, Robert (W Herts)||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Speed, Keith|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Spencer, Derek|
|Key, Robert||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'field)||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|Knight, Gregory (Derby N)||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Knowles, Michael||Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)|
|Lang, Ian||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Sumberg, David|
|Lester, Jim||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Lightbown, David||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Terlezki, Stefan||Whitfield, John|
|Thomas, Rt Hon Peter||Whitney, Raymond|
|Thompson, Donald (Calder V)||Wilkinson, John|
|Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Thurnham, Peter||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Tracey, Richard||Wolfson, Mark|
|Twinn, Dr Ian||Wood, Timothy|
|Walden, George||Yeo, Tim|
|Wardle, C. (Bexhill)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Watson, John||Mr. Tim Sainsbury and|
|Wells, Bowen (Hertford)||Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.