§
'Where in pursuance of the arrangements referred to in section 1(2) hereof a qualified dockyard service employee ceases to be employed in the Civil Service of the Crown and becomes employed by a company all pension arrangements made by such company shall be equivalent in all respects to such pension arrangements as applied in the Civil Service of the Crown.'—[Mr. O'Neill.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. O'NeillI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)With this we may discuss new clause 4—Redundancy Fund: payments for dockyard workers—
'In pursuance of the arrangements made hereunder the Secretary of State shall out of money provided by Parliament set up a redundancy fund for the benefit of all qualified dockyard employees declared redundant after the transfer of the dockyard undertaking and payments made out of such fund shall be no less in amount and value than payments that otherwise would have been made under the Superannuation Act 1972.'.
§ Mr. O'NeillNew clauses 3 and 4 relate to the pension rights and redundancy arrangements which employees of the new contracting companies are likely to experience. We want to afford such employees the same conditions of employment as prevail in the Civil Service. We would like to think that there would be no diminution in pension rights.
For most working people, pensions are merely deferred wages. They are in many respects the only savings that many working people make. The savings are held in trust by management. It is sometimes suggested that they are provided by the grace and favour of management, but they are sometimes a substitute for pay and better conditions. People are often encouraged to accept the possibility of a pension on retirement in preference to a 1 or 2 per cent. increase in wages.
99 Pensions are often a barrier to mobility. That argument might be stronger in days of full employment, but pensions are nevertheless a consideration when a worker contemplates moving to other employment. Management are often prepared to pay in future for the advantage of lower wage bills today and a stable work force such as is established when people regard a good pension as a barrier to mobility.
The pension arrangements that have been granted to public service employees have become a right. The result of contractorisation is a denial of a right. The pension arrangements presently enjoyed by the work force in the dockyards are not privileges but rights and they should not be removed at the whim of legislators. It could be said that the removal of such basic employment rights is nothing more or less than expropriation without adequate consultation. Those who are in employment bitterly resent the fact that the terms and conditions of anybody who is recruited after contractorisation will be inferior to the rights enjoyed by those who are already employed.
New clause 4 provides for a redundancy fund for dockyard workers. If there are redundancies after contractorisation, the new clause will provide adequate financial provision for them. Anybody who is made redundant after contractorisation will be provided for at a level which is not inferior to that provided for those dockyard workers who will be made redundant in the next few weeks or months. We know that 3,000 voluntary redundancies are being sought.
When privatisation takes place, there is usually a considerable reduction in the labour force. We have discussed the savings and the costs which could be incurred after contractorisation. There is disagreement about how the savings could be achieved, but it is not disputed that if any savings are to be achieved they will probably be achieved by a reduction in the dockyard work force.
There has been privatisation in other areas of defence, most notably in the case of the royal ordnance factories. The amount of money that has been provided for redundancy payments has been almost exhausted. Additional funds will probably have to be provided from one source or another. Because of the nature of the contracting companies and their relationship with the employing organisations, if there have to be further redundancies, apart from those which have already been announced prior to contractorisation, they will probably be achieved only at the expense of the redundancy payments which are now being offered to the work force. The new clause is being moved to ensure that redundancy payments will continue to be made at the present level.
The Minister did not suggest that more money will be made available for those individuals. A fair number of the redundancies that have been called for will probably be achieved. When large numbers of redundancies are called for, many of the older employees seek what is really early retirement. However, the contracting companies could run out of older men who are prepared to take early retirement. The amount of redundancy money that is provided then becomes a critical factor in the negotiations on labour reductions. Certainly we have not yet been satisfied by the Government's remarks this afternoon. I use the word "remarks" because the Government have been extremely coy about being specific on any figures. They have said 100 that, for reasons of commercial confidentiality and for other reasons, they are not prepared to be specific as to the sums involved.
For the people who are at present employed in the firm, this must be extremely distressing, and new clause 4, in respect of a redundancy fund, is an attempt to allay the fears and anxieties of some members of the work force who believe that they could be told that their jobs no longer existed and that the rates of compensation for the service that they have given to the dockyards would not be on all fours with what is being paid at the moment.
These two new clauses deal with the problems that have occurred with previous privatisation. So far the Government have said that, by and large, they hope that there will be no deterioration in the working conditions enjoyed by workers after the protection of, in this case, the Civil Service is removed. Frankly, we are not reassured by the Government's remarks on these matters. We feel that, if they mean what they say, they ought to be giving effect to their words by having far stiffer provisons in this piece of enabling legislation.
The absence of these provisions and commitments required us to place new clauses 3 and 4 on the Amendment Paper, and we hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House will support them. They have been welcomed by the representatives of the work people, who see them as filling a gap in the present proposals. I believe that they will go some way towards alleviating the difficulties which any contracting company will have to face. As we have said, many costs can be calculated, but one of the major difficulties which a contracting company will face is resentment, and the suspicion that it will be trying to make savings and profits not just out of more effective and efficient work practices but out of the work people themselves.
It is for these reasons that we believe that it would make a substantial contribution to improving industrial relations if there were adequate provision for pensions and redundancy arrangements in any future contractorisation scheme. We are not confident that the existing financial framework within these companies will provide anything like the opportunities for profit which the Government are suggesting. We fear that these opportunities for profit, if they are to be created, will be created at the expense of the wages, conditions, redundancy arrangements and pensions of the work force.
I therefore commend these new clauses to the House in the hope that, in the interest of better industrial relations, they will be accepted.
§ Mr. HancockIn Committee, when this part of the Bill was discussed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that the Government intended to set up arrangements which mirrored the existing pension and redundancy arrangements. That sounded very good at the time, but we have yet to get clarification of exactly what he intended to do. The new clause gives an opportunity for the House to give the reassurance which is undoubtedly needed by the work force both in Rosyth and in Devonport.
The Minister should accept the new clauses because he has already committed the Government, if we are to believe what he told us in Committee, to maintaining a pension scheme that is the same as the Civil Service scheme that operates at present and that dockyard 101 employees are now in, so that there should be no detrimental effects upon them. I think that we have to insist that we get clarification of exactly what will happen.
New clause 3 simply guarantees that the pension rights of dockyard employees transferred to a new company will remain the same as they have been in the Civil Service. That is not too much to ask for anybody who has given dedicated service to the Government in the dockyards. I hope that we can consider that, not with sympathy but with realism, and agree that that sort of assurance about protected pension rights is essential. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said, for many people the pension at the end of a working career is critical when considering employment. Many people would like the norm in Government service to continue, and have a right to it.
9.15 pm
As they stand, the conditions of service for dockyard workers transferred to a new company will not be adequately protected. That applies particularly to pension arrangements, and we seek to clarify that today. Time and again the dockyard unions have spouted out to Opposition Members, and, indeed, to every member of the Committee, information about their anxieties over the future pension rights of their members.
New clause 4 follows the same line, and guarantees redundancy payments equivalent to the present arrangements funded by the Government under the Superannuation Act 1972. The Government intend to negotiate with the contracting companies arrangements which are as good as those applicable under the personal Civil Service pension scheme. Again, we seek assurance that that is exactly what will happen, and that the contracting companies will accept that, not as a negotiating right, but as a built-in part of contractual arrangements, and will guarantee the rights and future redundancy payments of the work force.
Earlier, we heard of the problems that could occur if a sizeable percentage of the company was taken over by foreign interests. When we asked the Minister what action the Government would take if that happened, he said clearly that it would mean termination. If termination means redundancy, as I fear it undoubtedly will in some cases, the House has an obligation today to ensure that the redundancy payments due to those people are no different from what they are today.
I hope that the House sees the logic and sense behind that, and the need for fair play in guaranteeing the work force their pension rights and redundancy payments. There can be no alternative. The House must accept the two new clauses and vote for their inclusion in the Bill.
§ Mr. DouglasIt is difficult for the House to realise what is involved in the passage of the Bill. This is the first time in any form of privatisation that, not the physical assets of the dockyards, but the labour force is being transferred from the Ministry of Defence. The concept involves a managing company with the dockyard companies' only assets, to use the word loosely, the employees. The managing companies will take over the dockyard companies as wholly owned subsidiaries.
When we probed the Minister in Committee about pensions, and particularly redundancies, he gave us the impression that the financial background of any consortium taking over the dockyard companies and its ability to fund any subsequent redundancies would be 102 carefully examined. There is no evidence in the tendering documents or from inquiries that that sort of searching investigation has taken or will take place.
In relation to what the companies are asked to do in terms of redundancies, I quote from the invitation to tender and main annexes:
Details of redundancy provisions which were transferred under TUPE '81 and which should be taken into account by tenderers … are in annex 6/4.Annexe 6/4 uses a startling phrase in relation to new entrants:The level of redundancy scheme benefits shall be consistent as far as possible with that applicable to other employees of the contractor and with good practice within related sectors of industry.What exactly does that mean in terms of the redundancy scheme? The first blow, as it were, can be taken by the public purse. We understand that. We understand in relation to Rosyth and Devonport that the redundancy payments are those expected by Civil Service employees.The next tranche theoretically would be taken by the public purse because the sums passed on in terms of the Bill would be passed on in one way or another to the dockyard employing companies, although the dockyard employing companies would have a shareholding of only 50,000 plus one golden share. However, assuming that some of these companies employ individuals, there is no obligation to have these redundancy provisions for the new entrants on all fours with the existing employment of the dockyard company. All that is understood by the contractor is that the redundancy provisions for the new entrants would be consistent as far as possible with those in his employment, not with those employed by the dockyard company.
This is an important distinction. There is a possibility under the tender documents of having two classes of employee. We must decide whether to take these documents seriously. We got them only this afternoon and, because we have to read them quickly, we may get the wrong idea. Earlier this evening, I alluded to the DGSR being responsible for day-to-day project management, and the Minister of State, in his wisdom, shook his head and said that that would not happen. Should we take these documents seriously or not?
I put it to the Minister that under the tender documents it is possible to have two classes of employee. Such a situation will certainly produce many effects, but it will not produce harmony in the dockyards. The Minister of State is obligated at this late stage of the Bill to give us some assurances. He must give the employees some assurances about the long-term prospects in relation to pension rights and redundancy payments.
If there are to be two classes of employee, let us hear about it here and now; let us not have any pussy-footing about. Let us hear that this House is passing an enabling Bill to give the Government some authority to say to contractors, "The first time around, be good boys and everyone must be on all fours with the existing Civil Service arrangements but later, even during the period of the seven-year contract, you could have two classes of employee.". The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raised an important point about the next round. The same contractor might not be fortunate—or unfortunate—enough to bid in terms of continuity. What happens then to the redundancy scheme? Do we then have to accept a redundancy and/or pension scheme that is consistent with the best practices within industry? The 103 Government are trying by sleight of hand to make savings through cheeseparing with pension arrangements or redundancy provisions. We are dubious about those savings.
I support the thrust of the two new clauses. The Minister of State has the opportunity to clear the air now before the Bill goes to the other place.
§ Mr. Norman LamontThe criticisms of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) were essentially the same, although in a slightly lower key, as the criticisms made in Committee. I cannot satisfy hon. Members in every respect, but I believe that the anxieties and fears expressed in Standing Committee were exaggerated. Much of what was said about the possibility of worsening conditions of employment was unfounded. I did not and I do not want to give rise to unnecessary fears.
In providing for the introduction of commercial management in the dockyards, the Bill treats the transfer of employees to the dockyard companies as a transfer to which the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply. Those regulations essentially safeguard employees' rights when a business or undertaking is transferred to a new owner—thus the new owner takes over the contracts of employment of all the employees. There is no picking and choosing. All the collective agreements are in force. It is as though the contracts of employment with the previous employer had from the start been made with the new employer. This means, for individual dockyard employees, that, on their first day of employment with the new dockyard company, with the exception of some aspects deriving directly from Crown service, their terms and conditions of service will be the same as if they were in the Civil Service.
This has led some hon. Members to see TUPE as something of a qualified blessing. It provides protection on the first day but offers no kind of guarantee thereafter. I do not think it should. That would be absurd. [Interruption.] I shall spell out in more detail precisely what we are doing. Hon. Members are either interested in these points or they are not. It would be absurd if the effect of the regulations were to continue to apply permanently to a new employer criteria deriving from his predecessor. All employers at some time wish to prepare and negotiate changes to terms and conditions. It is the essence of the Bill that it enables the dockyards to be managed outside the Civil Service in a commercial environment with the commercial manager accepting the full responsibility for managing the terms and conditions of his company.
It was pointed out in Committee that TUPE does not apply to pensions. We intend to set up pension schemes, one at each dockyard, for transferred employees to reproduce —hon. Members objected when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement used the word "replicate"—as closely as possible the provisions of the principal Civil Service pension scheme. It is not possible—this was explained in Committee but was not fully taken on board—to reproduce the PCSPS in its entirety.
The PCSPS is statutorily based and certain payments can be made out of it which private sector schemes, set up as they are under trustees and governed by Inland Revenue regulations, cannot parallel. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) accepted this with respect to 104 redundancy payments, but it is not just a matter of redundancy payments. There are certain other types of provisions. For example, the way widows are treated is something that could not be mirrored in an Inland Revenue approved scheme. That is why we have used the words, both now and earlier on in Committee, "reproducing as fully as possisble".
§ Mr. Douglasrose—
§ Mr. LamontWith regard to pensions, we intend to see that schemes are set up which embody the same calculations of retirement benefits, reckonable service and pensionable pay as the PCSPS. The scheme would allow, for the same index-linking and retirement age, all the same factors.
Shortly, we will be issuing a consultative document about pensions, which will set out the scheme that we envisage. It will describe the nature of the transfer scheme and the options open to civil servants transferring to the dockyards in regard to their accrued benefits. It will describe the actions that will have to be taken to set up the funds. The question of contributions will be discussed with the trade unions and contractors. The initial contribution rate is likely to be about 16 per cent. of the pensionable pay of the members of the schemes. We will obviously discuss this with the trade unions when we have issued the consultative documents.
§ Mr. DouglasI am grateful to the Minister, and I apologise for interrupting him. These are very complicated matters. Am I correct in assuming that the employing company would, at all times, be the dockyard company? That is the company with which, at the end of the seven years, the Secretary of State or whoever would renegotiate terms of contracts. Why are the Government implying that there may be variations in TUPE over the period if the employing company is the permanent employer of the dockyard employees? Why should there be variations over a seven-year period or several seven-year periods?
§ Mr. LamontI am sorry—would the hon. Gentleman repeat his question on variations?
§ Mr. DouglasI accept that these are complicated matters. If the employer of the dockyard employees is the dockyard company plc, that is a continuing entity. The contractors are not continuing entities. Why should there be provision for variations in either redundancy payments or pensions throughout the period? Why should there be differences for new entrants? Why can we not have consistency in relation to the TUPE regulations throughout the period?
§ Mr. LamontI think I have explained the philosophy. If a company is in the private sector, it would be inappropriate to embody in law something that is going on in perpetuity. It is as simple as that.
There will be a legal safeguard as regards TUPE. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is quite right in what he says about the distinction between new entrants and existing employees. That is not to say that people will automatically make a distinction between new entrants and existing employees, but it is something that, theoretically, could happen. That is the simple reason why we would not put in the Bill the sort of provision enshrined in the amendment.
105 The pension schemes will be funded schemes. The Government will pay a transfer payment in respect of the past service of those employees who elect to transfer their past service rights into the scheme. Thereafter, contributions will be made from employer and employees and the assets will be invested. The funds will have trustees who will be independent of the dockyard companies. They will be managed by a trustee body whose board will include persons nominated by the dockyard company, the commercial manager, the Government and the members of the scheme. Those trust funds will be a secure basis for the future of the pensions of the ex-civil servants employed by the dockyard companies.
Given all that, one could argue that the amendment is a worthwhile addition to the Bill. Placing a statutory guarantee over the pension arrangements would be a suitable reinforcement of the intentions inherent in setting up the schemes. But, as I have explained, such an argument would be misguided. The management of the funds will rest with the trustee boards, which will have the same responsibilities, such as investment, as any pensions trustee board in the private sector. Just as it is appropriate to ensure that the commercial manager has responsibility for the terms and conditions of service governed by the TUPE regulations, so it would be inappropriate to superimpose on the trustee boards a requirement in law to maintain benefits which permanently tie the schemes to the PCSPS and would be incompatible with the trust fund arrangements.
The Government are determined that the arrangements for the initial funding, benefits and management of the scheme will be secure, but the ongoing management of the scheme lies properly with the trustees. The object of the Bill is to enable the dockyard to be run in a commercial manner outside the Civil Service. In that sense, the amendment goes against the overall aim.
New clause 4 is not dissimilar in its intentions, in particular on the funding of redundancy compensation. Procedures for declaring and managing redundancies in the Ministry of Defence follow the overall Civil Service pattern and are set out in the Ministry's staff manual. They cover such matters as the order in which staff are made redundant, fields of redundancy, length of notice and so on. Again, under TUPE, those proceedings will transfer to the new employer with such changes as are necessary to reflect the fact that the dockyards will then be two separate and independent commercial companies rather than part of the Civil Service. But overall they will be largely unchanged and the new employer will operate those procedures until change is negotiated. Redundancy compensation in the Civil Service is calculated on a basis related to length of service and levels of pay. The benefits are set out as a chapter of the PCSPS rules.
I have previously referred to the Inland Revenue rules governing private sector pension schemes and to the factor, which the right hon. Member for Llanelli acknowledged, that the rules do not allow for redundancy compensation levels as set out to be paid out of pension funds. That means that compensation for any staff who are made redundant after vesting day will, in the new companies, have to be paid out of company funds. That is the point to which right hon. and hon. Members objected in Committee. It is the standard practice in the private sector. However, just as redundancy procedures will 106 transfer to the new company, so will the need to provide levels of compensation as good as those in the Civil Service.
Here again, there are some areas where precise resolution will have to be discussed with the unions, the contractors and the Inland Revenue. But the overall intention will be to set up a scheme paying redundancy benefits either exactly the same or of equivalent value, and reckonable service accrued under the Crown will not be lost. An ex-civil servant made redundant by the dockyard company after vesting day will be paid compensation calculated on the total length of service with the company and with the Civil Service.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about redundancy having to be borne by the companies. I made the point that that was what normally happened in the private sector. As I am sure right hon. and hon. Members are aware, under the rules for winding up a company, a certain priority is given to redundancy payments. But if the astonishing happened and the contractor, who had been awarded the contract, went bankrupt, the Government would be taking over the assets and the labour force would transfer back. I think that that is an extremely unlikely contingency but that the answer I have given meets it.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesI understand the Minister's point. The contingency may well be unlikely. However, our concern is not what happens if the company goes into liquidation but what happens if, after vesting day, the company declares redundancies. I think that the Minister has said that there will be negotiations to try to provide a level of redundancy payment more or less comparable to the present Civil Service scheme. We understand that, but we want to know where the money is to come from. There will be a company with one contract. In the case of pensions, the money will come in the end from the Ministry of Defence, by way of an extra charge. Will the money for future redundancies also be added to the bill and come, in effect, from the Ministry of Defence?
§ Mr. LamontThe right hon. Gentleman has quickly summed up the situation. We have never disguised the fact that the cost of any redundancies, if there are any, will have to be funded by the contractor. Prior to vesting day, they would be paid for by the Government; after vesting day, by the company.
The right hon. Gentleman is moving on to a different point of concern. I have answered his previous point. He said in Committee that the real danger was that the company would not be able to meet—
§ Mr. Daviesrose—
§ Mr. LamontI will answer the second point too. I am only pointing out that when I answer one point, the right hon. Gentleman dances round to another one. Both points are serious, and there are answers to both.
The right hon. Gentleman's original point was about the viability of the company. As regards the level of benefit after the transfer of the employees, TUPE applies, and the company will have to pay the same levels of redundancy benefit. It may subsequently negotiate with the trade unions again. However, many of the benefits—not necessarily the level of redundancy pay—have been negotiated. They are not all built into statute.
§ Mr. DaviesLet us suppose that, a year after vesting day, one of the two companies declares 1,000 people 107 redundant, and that there has been no renegotiation of redundancy payments. The Minister says the TUPE applies and that the level of redundancy payments made to the 1,000 people will be more or less equal to what they would have received from the Civil Service pension scheme.
My question is simple. Where will the company find the money? The problem is the same as the problem of funding pensions. The company has nothing except a contract. Will that contract contain an extra increment to cover such an eventuality?
§ Mr. LamontI answered that point quite directly. The money comes out of the company's income—its cash flow. I repeated that a few moments ago. I admitted the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman had said. That has been taken account of in the costings. It is taken account of in the global figures that I gave on the first new clause.
I am trying to calm down some of the fears about lack of adequate benefit. Some of the comments made in Committee, which have not been repeated, I am glad to say, on the Floor of the House—
§ Mr. Hancockindicated assent.
§ Mr. LamontI see that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) realises that what I say is realistic. The cost will fall on the company. That is entirely in line with the practice in industry. Any employer must assess the economic implications for the company of declaring staff redundant. So will the dockyard company. Companies bidding for the contract will have to estimate the need for, and cost of, any redundancy and include that in their business planning. They will have to meet those costs from their own income and funds. That income will come from the customers, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli pointed out.
The proposed new clause also seeks statutorily to impose the same levels of redundancy compensation on the company. The same amendments have been tabled to this clause as for that on pensions. For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot accept them, but I stress once again that the Government have been mindful of the interests of the employees in the dockyards. We are concerned to see dockyard companies set up which safeguard continuity of employment and employees' interests in respect of conditions of service, redundancies and pensions. I do not believe, despite what was said in Committee, that there is any real ground for anxiety. Therefore, I invite the House to reject the new clauses.
§ Mr. O'NeillThe Minister gave the game away in the last couple of minutes when he said that the income to meet the cost of redundancies will have to come from the customers. The customer in this case is the Ministry of Defence. At present, the money comes not from the Ministry of Defence but from the principal Civil Service pension scheme which, as I understand it, is funded by the Exchequer. Therefore, if the Government are telling us that they are making alternative arrangements for post-vesting day, we have to conclude that they have made some calculation of likely redundancy figures in the early years after vesting day. We know that those figures have 108 been surmised and suggested. It is a measure of the Government's lack of confidence in the proposals that they are refusing to let us know those figures today.
It is clear that these two clauses are necessary, because we do not share the confidence of the Government that everything will eventually be all right. We do not share their view that there is some prospect that, after vesting day, the legislation which these two new clauses will provide in perpetuity will be to the disadvantage of the working people who are employed in the dockyards at present.
We have been told repeatedly that the Government do not want the hands of the new employers to be tied. We do not share that view if it means that the wages and conditions of the pension and redundancy arrangemens of the employees of the new organisations will be deleteriously affected by the process of privatisation. It is for those reasons that I call on my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clauses.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 214.
110| Division No. 122] | [9.48 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Dixon, Donald |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Dormand, Jack |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Douglas, Dick |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Eadie, Alex |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Eastham, Ken |
| Barnett, Guy | Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Evans, John (St. Helens N) |
| Beith, A. J. | Ewing, Harry |
| Bell, Stuart | Fatchett, Derek |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Faulds, Andrew |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Flannery, Martin |
| Blair, Anthony | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Forrester, John |
| Boyes, Roland | Foster, Derek |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Foulkes, George |
| Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) | Fraser, J. (Norwood) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | George, Bruce |
| Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) | Godman, Dr Norman |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Golding, John |
| Buchan, Norman | Gould, Bryan |
| Caborn, Richard | Gourlay, Harry |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Hamilton, James (M'well N) |
| Campbell, Ian | Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Hancock, Michael |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Cartwright, John | Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Haynes, Frank |
| Clarke, Thomas | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Clay, Robert | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Clelland, David Gordon | Home Robertson, John |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heatn) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S) | Howells, Geraint |
| Cohen, Harry | Hoyle, Douglas |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Corbett, Robin | Hughes, Roy (Newport East) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Craigen, J. M. | John, Brynmor |
| Crowther, Stan | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Kennedy, Charles |
| Dalyell, Tam | Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Lambie, David |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Lamond, James |
| Deakins, Eric | Leighton, Ronald |
| Dewar, Donald | Lewis, Terence (Worsley) |
| Litherland, Robert | Robertson, George |
| Livsey, Richard | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Rogers, Allan |
| McCartney, Hugh | Rooker, J. W. |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Ross, Ernest (Dundee W) |
| McKelvey, William | Sedgemore, Brian |
| McNamara, Kevin | Sheerman, Barry |
| McTaggart, Robert | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Madden, Max | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Marek, Dr John | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE) |
| Martin, Michael | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Skinner, Dennis |
| Maxton, John | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E) |
| Meacher, Michael | Snape, Peter |
| Meadowcroft, Michael | Soley, Clive |
| Michie, William | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Mikardo, Ian | Stott, Roger |
| Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Strang, Gavin |
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Nellist, David | Tinn, James |
| O'Neill, Martin | Torney, Tom |
| Owen, Rt Hon Dr David | Wallace, James |
| Park, George | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Parry, Robert | Wareing, Robert |
| Patchett, Terry | Weetch, Ken |
| Pavitt, Laurie | White, James |
| Pike, Peter | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) | Wilson, Gordon |
| Prescott, John | Winnick, David |
| Radice, Giles | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Randall, Stuart | |
| Redmond, Martin | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) | Mr. John McWilliam and |
| Richardson, Ms Jo | Mr. Mark Fisher. |
| Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| NOES | |
| Ancram, Michael | Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) |
| Arnold, Tom | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Ashby, David | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Gorst, John |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Gow, Ian |
| Best, Keith | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Body, Sir Richard | Grant, Sir Anthony |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Gregory, Conal |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Griffiths, Sir Eldon |
| Brinton, Tim | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Grist, Ian |
| Burt, Alistair | Ground, Patrick |
| Carlisle, John (Luton N) | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Chope, Christopher | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Coombs, Simon | Hannam, John |
| Cope, John | Hargreaves, Kenneth |
| Couchman, James | Harris, David |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Harvey, Robert |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Hawksley, Warren |
| Durant, Tony | Hayes, J. |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Favell, Anthony | Heddle, John |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Henderson, Barry |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Hickmet, Richard |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Hill, James |
| Forth, Eric | Hind, Kenneth |
| Fox, Marcus | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Franks, Cecil | Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Holt, Richard |
| Freeman, Roger | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Fry, Peter | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Galley, Roy | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N) |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Jessel, Toby | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Jones, Robert (Herts W) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Key, Robert | Rowe, Andrew |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Ryder, Richard |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Knowles, Michael | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Lamont, Norman | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Lang, Ian | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Latham, Michael | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Shersby, Michael |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Silvester, Fred |
| Lester, Jim | Sims, Roger |
| Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Lilley, Peter | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Spencer, Derek |
| Lord, Michael | Spicer, Jim (Dorset W) |
| Luce, Rt Hon Richard | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Stanley, Rt Hon John |
| MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) | Steen, Anthony |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Stern, Michael |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Madel, David | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Major, John | Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N) |
| Malins, Humfrey | Stokes, John |
| Marlow, Antony | Sumberg, David |
| Mather, Carol | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Merchant, Piers | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Moate, Roger | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Trippier, David |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Moore, Rt Hon John | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Viggers, Peter |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Waddington, David |
| Mudd, David | Walden, George |
| Neale, Gerrard | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Nelson, Anthony | Wall, Sir Patrick |
| Newton, Tony | Waller, Gary |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Ward, John |
| Onslow, Cranley | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Warren, Kenneth |
| Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. | Watts, John |
| Ottaway, Richard | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Wells, Sir John (Maidstone) |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Wheeler, John |
| Parris, Matthew | Whitfield, John |
| Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Whitney, Raymond |
| Pawsey, James | Wilkinson, John |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Pollock, Alexander | Wolfson, Mark |
| Porter, Barry | Wood, Timothy |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Woodcock, Michael |
| Powley, John | Yeo, Tim |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | |
| Price, Sir David | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Mr. Michael Neubert and |
| Rathbone, Tim | Mr. Gerald Malone. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.