Amendment made: No. 5, in page 6, line 45, at end insert—
'(6A) The fact that a provision relating to the constitution of a body has been added or amended by an order under this section shall not preclude its subsequent alteration or deletion in accordance with any relevant powers.'.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
§ The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have watched the progress of the Bill with interest, because when it was announced in the Gracious Speech that the Bill would proceed there appeared to be considerable hostility to it and cries of how passionately the measure would be opposed. On Second Reading we saw the decision to introduce a major amendment. As has been pointed out, it was a strange amendment, because it totally ignored most of the main clauses. Then we were told that great changes would take place in Committee. Therefore, fearing a long Committee stage with strenuous debates, I asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State if he would conduct the proceedings with his usual skill and patience. He did so, but we discovered that we had to deal with only seven minor amendments and one new clause.
Looking at the Bill in its completed stages, intact from any hostility that Opposition Members have expressed, it is interesting to recognise the positive and good things that the Bill carries into operation.
Clause 1, which was strangely opposed by the Opposition, changes the name of the organisation to British Coal. That request was made by the industry because it considered that the marketing of its product would be substantially improved by having such a title, which would appeal to people because they would know that they would be buying a product that was made in this country. That would be clearly understood and would be far better for advertising purposes than the more complicated title of the National Coal Board.
However, that request by the marketing side of the industry was, strangely, totally opposed by Opposition Members who considered that it was an extraordinary plot 443 to privatise the industry. If in the near future we were to privatise the industry, we could easily and speedily give the organisation any name that we wish. However, the title of British Coal is welcomed by the marketing side of the coal industry.
Of course, we hope that the marketing side will be extremely successful in the years to come. It is involved in a wide range of new products and technologies, especially in the domestic market. I wish that marketing drive every success. Those concerned will appreciate that my hon. Friends are sympathetic to their application that the title of British Coal should be granted, and will be appalled by the manner in which the clause has been attacked by Opposition Members.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill set out a series of financial arrangements. Once again, nobody can but claim that the financial arrangements put into place by the Bill are exceedingly beneficial to the industry as a whole, and that they express very firmly the Government's confidence in the important place that the industry will have in the future.
No other coal industry in Western Europe can look forward in the next three years to £2 billion of capital investment. While the coal industries in the rest of Western Europe have declined, especially in countries that have recently been under Socialist control, in this country the industry will enjoy £2 billion of further capital investment to improve its productivity and the way in which it can produce coal at a price that can compete with other energies and fuels in the market.
The financial background is generous in carrying on the provisions for those who have become voluntarily redundant during a period of major rationalisation of the industry. Anybody with an interest in the industry must consider the degree of rationalisation that has taken place. After the considerable change in manpower that has occurred, present levels of coal production are close to what they were before rationalisation, but are achieved at far lower cost and with far higher productivity.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
I hope that the Secretary of State will not forget that that rationalisation, which includes the closure of Whittle colliery in my constituency—which was accepted on geological grounds by the National Union of Mineworkers—involves major social problems for the areas concerned, and that he cannot leave solely to other Ministers, who decide matters such as development area status, the responsibility for the consequences in those areas.
§ Mr. Walker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that some of the financial provisions that we are making in the Bill have enabled financial support to be given to the enterprise company that has done such remarkable work in bringing jobs to coal mining areas where pits have had to close. It is a new concept. A total of 168,000 men were made redundant during periods of Labour Government and there was no such enterprise company in operation. On present trends, that enterprise company, with substantial financing, will produce, I hope, about 25,000 new jobs in mining areas. Those jobs will be far better than working in a declining mine and they may well produce expansion in the future.
The clauses of the Bill that were significant and important in every sense were clauses 5, 6 and 7. They gave the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, among others, its 444 proper right to representation on the various social funds and pension funds to which it has every entitlement. Conservative Members expressed their surprise at the negative approach taken by the Labour party when we discussed that on Second Reading. I referred to it as the "Scargill silence". I must say that the silence continued in Committee. In debate after debate on clauses 5, 6 and 7 the Opposition Members sat silent. When they were given an opportunity to vote and express their view, they decided on a policy of abstention on this vital issue. Therefore, there are tens of thousands of mineworkers who know that the Labour party had no wish for the men to have proper representation on the administration of the pension funds concerned.
The Labour party wishes to continue the ban on the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. That ban was first imposed by the Labour party, which refused to have any political affiliation with the union, and it was also imposed by the Trades Union Congress, which refused to allow it to be part of the TUC. Through the Bill's various stages, we have seen the Labour party's determination not to recognise a perfectly democratic union. In fact, it was the UDM that maintained the old tradition of the National Union of Mineworkers to have a democratic vote before taking industrial action.
I know that later today the finances of the NUM will be disclosed. That will reveal the considerable financial problems it faces. It will reveal that its own statements, made at its own meetings, show the great difficulty being experienced in meeting its obligations. There will be a suggestion that the union will need substantially increased contributions if it is to maintain solvency. The NUM's leadership did much damage to the mining industry by not giving proper democratic rights to the UDM. It was the NUM's actions that resulted in the creation of the UDM. I hope that miners throughout the country will recognise that the "Scargill silence" of the Labour party is bad not only for that party but for the NUM.
The Bill provides appropriate financial arrangements. It helps the Coal Board to provide better marketing activities and gives a democratic right to a democratic union. I believe that the coal industry and the country will judge it to be a fine piece of legislation and will be shocked at the Labour party's attitude to it.
§ Mr. Orme
Since April 1985 there have been more than 55,000 redundancies in the coal industry, 59 pits have closed or merged, and colliery capacity has fallen to 90 million tonnes of deep-mined coal. Unmployment in coalfield communities has gone sky-high, and 14 of the 22 travel-to-work areas that saw the highest rise in unemployment between January 1985 and April 1986 were coal communities. The Bill is the Government's response to that devastation. It is a pathetic and unsatisfactory response. It will do nothing for the industry. It will not improve morale or restore good industrial relations.
On Second Reading and in Committee, we argued that this is a pit closure Bill. We maintain that that is the case. The Bill sets the pre-conditions for a further round of pit closures and redundancies. The financial provisions are totally inadequate to provide a secure and expanding future for the industry. Indeed, they are mainly to cover redundancy, redeployment and pit closures.
The Government have no vision of an expanding British economy. Therefore, they have no vision of 445 increased electricity demand. They are sanguine about the run-down of a basic British industry that provides the fuel for manufacturing, hospitals, schools, heating homes and electricity generation. The Government's complacency, so vividly shown in yesterday's debate, is once again reflected in the financial provisions of this Bill. We have received no satisfactory answer to our anxiety that the provisions will not even cover those categories for which it is designed. We remain unconvinced that the Bill does not pave the way for the privatisation of the industry. We have just had an interesting debate on that point. Privatisation is certainly popular among Government Back Benchers, as we have witnessed, and Ministers' denials have become increasingly vague, not least the reply that we have just heard from the Under-Secretary of State. Already, ancillaries such as Associated Heat Services have been sold off in what can be only a trimming exercise. The accelerated sale of NCB houses at auctions at the Kensington Hilton has not provided the NCB with a vast amount of revenue and it has caused great distress and confusion in many coalfield communities. I understand that even today many of my hon. Friends have been to see the NCB about those outrageous sales.
The Bill will do nothing to restore morale in the industry. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in Committee we did not argue or vote against clauses 5, 6 and 7. However, we did argue that they would not solve the very real industrial relations problems throughout British coalfields. To rectify that, we introduced a new clause to cover every pit in the coalfields. The Secretary of State did not even mention that clause in his speech. We believe that trade unions have a right to recognition and that they must have the right to represent and negotiate on behalf of their members. That is currently being denied to minorities in British coalfields.
In Committee, the Minister seemed to be under the impression that members of minority unions were not discriminated against and, in some cases, victimised when carrying out legitimate union activity. In Committee, I gave some specific examples of that. I should like to put on record a letter that has been sent to me by Mr. Richardson of the Nottinghamshire area NUM. It is a copy of a letter that was sent by Mr. A. A. Searle of the NCB, who is the manager of the Bolsover pit. The letter states:Dear Mr. Wright, I refer to your interview in my office on Wednesday 17th December 1986 and write to confirm the remarks I made at that time. You were observed in the Colliery Canteen on the evening of Tuesday, 16th December, 1986 between 9.30 pm and 10 pm talking to the night shift. I warned you that you must not repeat this exercise at any time in the future and any recurrence will lead to your instant and summary dismissal. You must not, either during or outside of your shift, conduct NUM business on British Coal premises whilst the union is not recognised at the Bolsover colliery.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
It is worth recording that at the Bolsover colliery the NUM has the majority membership. The incident mentioned in the letter followed the one in which Geoffrey Poulter, the branch secretary of the NUM at Bolsover, was sacked only a week or 10 days before the letter went to the branch delegate, Stephen Wright, who is one of my constituents. This smacks of a big brother attitude by the management at Bolsover, and it is being supported by those Ministers who are happy to 446 talk about minorities, freedom and justice, provided it is for one particular section. They are quite happy to see the thought police of the Coal Board operating against the NUM.
§ Mr. Orme
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes the case for our new clause. We put it to the Under-Secretary in Committee that that sort of victimisation and discrimination was taking place, and he denied it. Here is an instance of trade union members being denied basic human rights within the mining industry at present.
§ Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South)
I appreciate that some words and phrases are unparliamentary. However, will the right hon. Gentleman dispel the impression that we had upstairs and say something downstairs, if he is allowed to use the phrase, about the Union of Democratic Mineworkers?
§ Mr. Orme
We said that we were moving the new clause, and that if the Government accepted it we would accept without qualification clauses 5, 6 and 7. This clause—this is the important point—will give minority rights not only to the NUM in Nottingham or elsewhere, but also to UDM members in other parts of the British coalfields. Examples such as the one I have just given led us to introduce our new clause in Committee—a new clause that would ensure fair play for all unions. The Government's response proved that that is the last thing that they are interested in.
We are opposed to the terms that the Government have put forward. They would not accept a democratically drawn up new clause. It is upon that basis that we are right in our opposition and right in the case that we have put for the British coal industry. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight.
§ Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood)
I support the Third Reading of the Bill. This 18th Coal Industry Bill will have greater significance in terms of future security and prosperity for the industry and its employees than all its predecessors. I include the original nationalisation Bill of 1946. That Bill heralded so much promise for the country and its miners. In hindsight, we know that it failed on both counts. The coal barons were replaced by a highly motivated political trade union, more interested in political domination than in its duty to ensure its members' continuing prosperity.
This Bill, by comparison, brings the coal industry ultimately into the 20th century and sets the course to make it one of Britain's most successful industries in the 21st century. British coal is a sunrise industry with reserves that will last almost 300 years. The usage of coal will gradually change from mainly power station burning and domestic use to replacing our oil and gas requirements, whose known reserves will last no more than 25 years. To replace today's oil and gas requirements from coal, we will need to mine 180 million tonnes. Our European partners have few workable coal reserves left, so there is also an export potential. Derivatives from coal will be used for the raw stock of many of our chemical manufacturers. At the moment, 25 derivatives are used, and in time this number must rise.
447 During the passage of this Bill, like its predecessors, we heard more of the history of the coal industry than its future from the Opposition. Let the past be a guide to the future, but do not let the Opposition's political dogma cloud the prospects of the exciting future of this great industry.
What some people describe as "blighted reserves" will in time be gasified underground for direct use, leaving the more accessible seams to be brought to the surface. This Bill will guarantee not only the miners' prosperity, but also their security of employment for years to come. Accepting the scientific evidence available, no miner need fear the competition from nuclear energy. There will be no conflict, because coal will be required for other purposes, and in the not too distant future will be too valuable to contemplate burning. That is why I am confident of the long-term prospects for the coal industry. That, coupled with the other clauses in this Bill, will give the Union of Democratic Mineworkers its rightful place in representing its members' interests socially and industrially.
In my maiden speech I said that I was proud to be the Member of Parliament for Sherwood, Britain's largest mining constituency. That is nothing compared with how I feel towards my mining constituents and their families today. Their fight for survival during the year-long dispute, and the birth of trade union democracy, was won through their determination and guts for survival, despite the collusion between the Labour party and the NUM for their destruction. The UDM is here to stay. Its leaders' professionalism and adherence to democratic principles will ensure that, and in time it will be the only union representing mineworkers, because the ramshackle organisation in Sheffield called the NUM is bereft of principles and money.
I can speak only for my own constituents. I do not speak for the miners of Ashfield, because the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is in the Chamber. Nevertheless, I hope that I speak on this occasion for all the other Nottinghamshire miners in thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), for bringing this Bill forward, guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of the UDM, and securing the future of British Coal. So far the Labour party has not recognised the UDM. Do you intend to do so today? I shall give way——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not bring me into these matters. He is bringing the UDM into these matters a little too much. On Third Reading we must confine ourselves to what is in the Bill. I do not find any reference to that organisation in the Bill.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will neither give way nor find it necessary to invite anyone to give way because the Bill is not about the matters to which he is addressing himself.
§ Mr. Stewart
Will the Opposition recognise both trade unions working in the mining industry?
I remind the House and the country that there is no substitute for coal, but coal can be substituted for any other fossil fuel and its derivitives. That is the long-term guarantee of security for Britain's greatest industry.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
We have about 50 minutes left and about 15 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The difficulties will be obvious.
§ Mr. Wrigglesworth
May I begin by picking up two points made by the Secretary of State? First, he referred to the opposition to the Bill from the Opposition Benches. For the record, I think that he will concede that that is not entirely accurate. The Opposition on the Benches occupied by my right hon. and hon. Friends have given the Bill fullhearted support from Second Reading through Committee and will do so again on Third Reading.
Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. I do not want to pursue the point at any length, but he will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), myself and others pressed him to establish that body for a long time before he eventually got round to doing so. We are delighted that it is succeeding in the way that it is, and we are delighted that he has increased its funding so that it can carry out the excellent work that it is doing in the areas where collieries have been closed. I only wish that even more could be done.
We support the Bill because it continues to give the financial support which the industry rightly deserves and needs.
§ Mr. Wrigglesworth
I must not give way to the hon. Gentleman, otherwise I shall prevent others from speaking.
The Bill gives much needed financial support to the industry and therefore deserves the support of the House. It also deserves support for the rights which it gives to the UDM to be represented in the trusts and welfare bodies from which it has been excluded by the NUM. Despite the efforts that have been made and the negotiations that have taken place, the union has not been able to obtain the places which any reasonable person would accept were its right. Substantial bodies of workers are represented by the new union and they have every right to be represented on the bodies that are there to serve the people in the mining industry.
§ Mr. Thompson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When the hon. Gentleman says "we", is he describing the Social Democratic party or the alliance?
§ Mr. Wrigglesworth
I am speaking for the alliance in this debate as, indeed, in other debates.
If the Labour party has the true interests of the mining industry at heart, it will reject the dog-in-the-manger attitude which the NUM's leadership has adopted since the strike ended. The sooner the divisions that exist within the mining industry are overcome, the better for everyone. They will not be overcome—they would take a long time to be overcome in any case—unless there is an attempt by those within bodies, not only in the mining industry but outside, to help to bring about reconciliation.
If the Labour party continues to give Canute-like support to Mr. Scargill and the NUM's leadership, there 449 will never be any move in the direction of reconciliation between the warring factions in the mining industry. It is in no one's interests that that battle should continue for ever and a day. It will be impossible to overcome the fierce antagonisms and feelings that arose from the violence and intimidation that occurred during the dispute. I have condemned many times the lack of criticism during the dispute from the Labour Benches of the violence and intimidation that took place at that time.
But life goes on, and if we are to have a successful industry and prosperity in the mining areas, it is in everyone's interests, and in the national interest, that attempts should be made to achieve reconciliation. That will not be achieved by excluding the UDM and hoping that it will go away. It will not. It will continue to represent, courageously and well, its members, not only in the Nottinghamshire area, but in many other areas. Undoubtedly, if it continues with the guts and determination that it has shown since it started, it will go from strength to strength. The sooner that the Labour party acknowledges that fact, the sooner there will be a hope of some reconciliation and change in the future.
I hope that the more sensible Members of the House will acknowledge that view. My hope may be in vain. Indeed, if the Bill's proceedings have been anything to go by, I certainly do hope in vain. The Labour party sat on its hands and said nothing on the relevant clauses in Committee. As has been said, it is disgraceful that Labour Members made no comment whatever.
Finally, I want to pay, as will all hon. Members, a great tribute to the management and workers, both in the NUM and the UDM, in the mining industry for the way in which they have worked and succeeded since the strike ended. I hope that the Bill will enable them to build on the success that they have achieved—productivity levels that have never been achieved in the coal mining industry before. I hope that the Bill will help to bring about even further success in the industry and that is why we shall give it our full support tonight.
§ 6.5 pm
§ Mr. Richard Ottaway (Nottingham, North)
I start by expressing my thanks to the Government for fulfilling their pledges in introducing the Bill. Those thanks come not just from me, but from the miners of Nottinghamshire, whose pensions, welfare and social rights are so much affected by the Bill, and also from the residents of Nottingham who experienced many difficult months during the miners' strike.
The need for the Bill came about when the UDM split from the NUM in 1985 because it could not accept the new rule book which it had supported for 40 years before the split. It was simply because the NUM became undemocratic. The NUM had ignored the role of the ballot box during the miners' strike and had changed the majority which was needed for a strike from 55 per cent. to 50 per cent.
The changes in the rule book also removed autonomy from certain areas. A disciplinary rule was brought in and in Durham 400 men were expelled, many of whom were members of the UDM. All those changes were introduced in one block vote at the NUM conference in 1985. As a 450 result of that, from which came the need to introduce the Bill, the UDM decided to split from the NUM in the summer of 1985——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have been tolerant and flexible about the debate so far, but the hon. Gentleman is really going too far. None of those matters is germane on Third Reading.
§ Mr. Ottaway
I am only trying to demonstrate why we have the Bill and why I am grateful to the Government for introducing it.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That might have been appropriate on Second Reading, but not on Third Reading. We have the Bill and it has been debated by the House.
§ Mr. Ottaway
The truth of the matter is that the TUC is not prepared to recognise all the miners' unions in Britain——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have been tolerant and we have had a wide debate, but, as far as I can see, there is no reference in the Bill to the TUC. It really is going too far to start bringing it in. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal more closely with what is in the Bill.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am trying to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is departing from what is permissible on Third Reading. If he persists in doing so, I shall have no option but to instruct him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. Ottaway
I shall abide by your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Opposition opposed the Bill on Second Reading and that is an affront to democracy and the mining unions in the Nottinghamshire area. The Opposition have sought to deny the UDM's participation in the pension, social and welfare funds of the coal industry.
The only contribution made by the Opposition in this debate about the other union in the industry was an amendment in Committee which the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) spoke about on Third Reading. He said that he was prepared to barter across the Dispatch Box certain rights affecting representation and contributions in the various British Coal committees. For him to say that is a disgrace, and the people of Nottinghamshire will find it a disgrace. The only objective of the new clause was to give rights to the NUM in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.
Apart from 30 seconds from the right hon. Member for Salford, East on Second Reading, we have had complete silence from the Opposition. That silence has spread from the House. Just the other day I received a challenge from my opposition, the Labour party candidate in the forthcoming general election. He challenged me to a debate on any issue that I cared to name. I said to him, "There is a brave lad." I challenged him to a debate on the future of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. I found that the disease of lockjaw which has hit the Opposition in this debate had spread to Nottinghamshire, because since I accepted his challenge I have not heard a word from him. This demonstrates the Labour party's hostility to the people of Nottinghamshire and the UDM.
This is almost certainly a general election year, and I do not deny that I will have a difficult time in that election 451 because mine is a marginal seat. Whatever the outcome of that election, as I campaign in the streets in Nottinghamshire and in Bulwell in the weeks leading up to the election at least I will be able to hold my head high and say that, unlike the Labour party, I was prepared to stand up for the people of Nottinghamshire. This is a sorry episode for the Labour party and I can assure Opposition Members that their actions will not be forgotten in Nottinghamshire.
§ Mr. Skinner
I am pleased that my hon. Friends raised the matter of minorities as it affects the NUM in the Nottinghamshire coalfield. I should like to put on record the fact that the NUM has been making a great impact on that coalfield and the minority is getting larger all the time. To that extent I have no doubt that they will find some favour with the Minister.
I am worried that this Bill could be regarded as a prelude to privatisation and has nothing to do with the cries that we have heard in this debate. We heard cries from Conservative Members, some of whom have now left the Chamber, when debating new clause 1 and the Minister found himself in something of a quandary in responding to the catcalls. If the Government are reelected, the National Coal Board, or British Coal, as it is soon to be called, would be a prime object for privatisation.
The Tory Government are hell bent on destroying British Coal and on attempting to destroy the NUM in the process. The Government have been engaged in that exercise for the past two or three years and are now getting the industry ready for the spivs and racketeers.—[Interruption]—most of whom are represented on the Government Benches. The matter of privatisation has already been touched upon in the debate.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Privatisation was debated in the course of our earlier proceedings when there was an amendment before the House. At that time it might have been appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make the speech that he is seeking to make now. However, we are now on Third Reading.
§ Mr. Skinner
We are on Third Reading of a Bill containing sums of money to enable British Coal to operate. Many of us think that that sum is insufficient to meet the needs of the industry on a long-term basis. If that is our argument, it follows that that shortage of money can lead to a change in ownership of British Coal. That could mean privatisation and we say strongly that we are against that. The road that I have just trod was long and tortuous, but it has brought me to anti-privatisation. If the smart Alecs on the Government Benches had been sharp enough to understand that, they too might have been able to prepare better speeches than the ones from which they read.
§ Mr. Skinner
I am not reading, I have had to sort out my speech on my feet and that is not always easy.
We are worried about the future of the industry and this Bill does nothing for its long-term future. It is all about doing something for today, for the moment, to try to get this Tory Government over another hump for another 12 months. We have argued throughout the passage of the 452 Bill and before that our aim for the industry from which we come is to see our 300-year supply of coal developed in a way that maximises its potential energy.
§ Mr. Ottaway
On a point of order. Is there any difference between what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is saying and what I was saying? You told me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was out of order.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not challenge my ruling in that way. I am listening carefully to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I am glad that his latter remarks were a little nearer to the substance of what is proper in this debate than were his earlier remarks.
§ Mr. Skinner
If we argue that in the Bill insufficient money is being allocated to the mining industry, then we can argue that from a long-term point of view the money is insufficient to meet its needs. We argue that there should be no redundancies and that mines should be kept open. Some of us would argue that some of the mines that were closed ought to be reopened. A future Labour Government will exploit those 300 years of reserves and produce the money that is lacking in this Bill in order to ensure that more people are employed.
With a view to dealing with the after effects of this Bill and other Bills, this morning some of us went to see British Coal about the scandalous way in which it is selling off houses in which many miners with more than 40 years experience of working underground live. [Interruption.] Housing is mentioned in the Bill. At that meeting the British Coal representatives were as hard and stony faced as Conservative Members. They do not care about the housing of those miners and are not worried about the pensioners. Their only concern is to sell off the houses to the spivs and the Rachmanites and the racketeers who sit like leeches on the periphery of the coalfields waiting to make a big fat killing. Many such people are represented by Government hon. Members. We want to put that right and when we get back to government we will change that part of the Bill because it is obnoxious to those who have served the industry so well.
The Bill provides insufficient money to meet the needs of widows and others who still do not receive concessionary coal, even though some pits were closed before 1968. I notice that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) is missing. I have raised this matter time and time again. The Bill does not provide compensation for those people, and the Opposition want to have the opportunity to put that right.
§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)
During the passage of the Bill many of my colleagues and I have been puzzled about the Labour party's ambivalent attitude towards those provisions that would lead to fairness in representation on the superannuation schemes and in the industry's institutions. I refer in particular to the provisions of clause 7.
I suspected during the passage of the Bill, particularly in Committee, that we were hearing not about the real reasons for opposition but about a cover-up being perpetrated by the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers. My fears have been fully vindicated. A document has come into my possession that arouses real concern for all those pensioners in the industry who have 453 been represented thus far by the NUM in the industry's superannuation schemes. Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that clause 7 will protect adequately the rights of individuals and that it will ensure that unsuitable people are not appointed as representatives on the boards of superannuation schemes?
I refer to the financial report that was presented to the finance and general purposes sub-committee of the NUM on 13 November 1986. Its implications are stunning. As time is short, I shall refer only to short extracts, but I shall make a full copy of the document available as soon as the debate is over. It reveals that the NUM has a deficit of nearly £1.85 million and that it has no resources with which to meet it. The report is relevant to clause 7, because it reveals that the NUM is about to default on its superannuation schemes. These passages must be brought to the attention of the House so that my hon. Friends——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is difficult to see how the internal finances of the NUM are relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
§ Mr. Batiste
This is a matter of the gravest importance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From the brief extracts that I wish to read to the House, it is quite clear that the NUM is about to default on its superannuation payments and that it has no money with which to make them.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must tell me why that is relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
§ Mr. Batiste
I shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clause 7(4) of the Bill says:References in this section to participation by an organisation include participation by any person as a nominee or on behalf of the organisation.There may be grave cause for investigation of the way in which certain persons have exercised their judgment in relation to the NUM's superannuation scheme. I am not sure that there are sufficient powers in the Bill to prevent such unsuitable persons from being nominated by the trade union as representatives on the boards of the industry's superannuation schemes.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. These are factors that the Secretary of State will undoubtedly take into account when exercising the discretion that the Bill confers upon him, but I am not sure that it is appropriate for the House to go into the internal affairs of another organisation.
§ Mr. Batiste
I raise the matter now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am not at all clear, having read the clause, whether the Secretary of State has such a discretion. I seek that assurance by raising these very important matters, albeit very briefly. One brief passage will give you clear evidence of my concern and why I think that the matter is relevant. It says:The National Union has an obligation to pay approximately £450,000 per year to the Officials and Staff Superannuation Scheme.Unless action is taken, the superannuation scheme could be in very serious difficulties. The report states specifically that the union's ability to operate is threatened and that it is not in a position to meet its continuing obligations. The union is in arrears to the superannuation scheme and is unable to fulfil its financial commitments to its retiring officials and staff.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not clear whether the references that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw to the attention of the House are references to the internal superannuation scheme of that organisation or whether they refer to the scheme that is dealt with in the Bill. I suspect that they are different schemes.
§ Mr. Batiste
In that respect you may be right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is an internal scheme, but there may be people who are involved with both and the rights of those people will be intertwined.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The House is discussing a Bill that refers to a statutory scheme for the industry. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw the attention of the House to a scheme that relates entirely to the staff and members of the NUM, that has nothing to do with the House and it is out of order.
§ Mr. Batiste
I was not seeking to do any such thing. However, I am trying to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill must provide some interpretation of what is meant by clause 7(4). I repeat that it says:References in this section to participation by an organisation include participation by any person as a nominee or on behalf of the organisation.If a person under the general law of trust is unfit as a trustee to run one superannuation scheme, there has to be a power——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to show that there are internal developments within an organisation that is entitled to nominate people under the Bill that make that organisation unsuitable. That is not an argument to which the House can listen on Third Reading. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get away from that point.
§ Mr. Batiste
Without in any way wanting to challenge that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I fully accept, the fact remains that as it stands the Bill contains powers to permit the appointment to the boards of the industry's superannuation schemes of people who, by virtue of the points that I should like to raise, if I were permitted to do so, would be manifestly unsuitable. Can any organisation nominate whomsoever it wishes, irrespective of investigation——
§ Mr. Barron
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I pass to you a copy of the notes on clauses that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was given at the Committee's first sitting? Clause 7 says nothing about who will represent the organisations.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is not being as helpful as he wished to be. However; the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is straining the patience of the House. He is certainly straining mine and he is abusing the limits of the conventions of debate on Third Reading. I hope that we can get away from the internal affairs of an organisation and discuss the Bill. If not, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will resume his seat, because in the very limited time that is available a large number of hon. Members wish to make a contribution to the debate.
§ Mr. Batiste
I shall not intrude upon the patience of the House, because I shall release this document and will not quote further from it. I have already made the points that I wished to raise.
§ Mr. Batiste
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not doing so, as time is short.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on hoard the point that it is necessary to have the power to prevent unsuitable people from being appointed by organisations to these boards. I am not sure whether the Bill contains that power. I seek guidance on that point.
§ Mr. Brandon-Bravo
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is not referring to a commercial organisation, but, if he were, would he be using the word "bankrupt" in this context?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Again I must remind the House that we are discussing the Third Reading of the Coal Industry Bill. This is an inappropriate time to discuss matters that may or may not have been included in the Bill and that are not relevant to the Third Reading debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Elmet will either deal with relevant Third Reading points or allow other hon. Members who are anxious to take part in the debate to do so.
§ Mr. Batiste
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will intrude no further on your patience in this matter, save to make what is a perfectly germane and proper point in the context of the debate on Third Reading. One of the most important things that any person who has worked hard throughout his life is concerned with is that, in the management of his pension fund or superannuation scheme, he will be properly represented. That lies at the core of what we have been proposing in clause 7 of this Bill.
I am seriously concerned that this Bill—and it is on this that I seek advice—may not have sufficient powers within it to ensure that the Secretary of State can reject nominees who are, by any reckoning, unsuitable on the basis of the way in which they have managed other superannuation schemes. That concerns the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House and it is a matter to which I shall return in great detail as this document is made public later.
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
I shall be both brief and relevant. That will be quite refreshing after the speeches that we have heard from hon. Members on the Government side today. From the beginning of this afternoon's consideration of this Bill, we have heard dogma and attempts to fuel division. Remarkably little attention has been paid to the coal industry about which we are supposed to be concerned. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) seeks to extract himself from criticism, but when he looks back at his speech he will see that he has sought to capitalise on division rather than pursue a course which would serve the future of the industry and promote healing within the industry. I accept that the hon. Member did refer to the important markets which must exist for coal, and it is that to which I wish to draw attention.
The Minister will accept that the answer that he gave me today to a question that I put down because of the Third Reading of this Bill is a cause for enormous concern, a concern which I hope will be shared by every hon. Member on the Government side. After the serious consideration that the Government are supposed to have given to the Bill I get this answer to the question that I asked today.
I asked the Minister to say 456from which countries coal has been imported during the past 12 months; and what information he has in each case as to the extent to which the United Kingdom price of that coal properly reflects the cost of the production, marketing and distribution.The answer is that we have imported coal in the past 12 months not only from Australia and the United States but from South Africa, Poland, Canada, West Germany——
§ Mr. Hardy
It has a lot to do with the Bill, as will demonstrate. Coal also has come from the Netherlands, Belgium and Colombia.
The Minister will argue that the Government have put money into the industry. The Minister will argue that the Government have provided money for the industry to meet national need. Yet we are paying not the slightest attention to whether our industry is exposed to unfair competition because of dumping by other countries. These countries include South Africa, which allows mining activities that are grossly unsafe. I hope that in the next few days the Minister will look at the example set by West Germany, where the Government and the mining trade unions appear to be moving towards concerted action to respond to the grossly unsafe activity at collieries in South Africa. It would be rather nice if the European response was one of unity.
A few months ago—and this is very relevant to the Third Reading because it follows a point made by the hon. Member for Sherwood—the Minister said that Sleipner gas should not be landed in Britain because we had discovered more gas offshore and could maintain our self-sufficiency. The other reason was that the Government did not want to be in a position of having to pay good money to foreign countries to import gas. Although some Government Members believe, and have said several times recently, that we can easily import cheap coal over the next 20 or 30 years, I suggest that it would be as foolish for us to get into a position of dependence on imported coal as it would have been to get into a similar position with imported gas. We have a great opportunity to build on the reserves to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If we are to do so, the Government must go further and recognise the logic of the enormous increases in productivity that have been achieved in recent months. If those increases in productivity are to have any logic, if the Government are to pursue any degree of consistency, they should make it clear to the country that our future is based on British coal rather than on developing the level of imports which some hon. Members on the Government Benches might like to see.
§ Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark)
I intervene in the debate briefly and, I hope, relevantly to underline one point, which is that the Bill recognises that there is now more than one major union in the mining industry. It is significant that it took the Government and this Bill to enable this to be done. It is significant that the Opposition have denied that it should be done. I tried to intervene earlier during the speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) to ask him his intentions as regards the union which we are not allowed to mention because it is not in the Bill. I asked whether he and his 457 party believed that it had a right to democratic decisions on matters in that industry. I have so far heard nothing from the Opposition to indicate that they are supportive of people's democratic rights in the industry.
Listening to the barracking of some of the Opposition Members, who suggested that my hon. Friends were spivs or city slickers or somehow in the pay of dishonourable people, I found it a little rich, coming as it did largely from hon. Members who themselves are paid and sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. They did not declare their interests when they spoke for the mining industry, and I find it a bit thick that they should unjustifiably accuse my hon. Friends of being dishonourable in the things that they said and wanted to do.
If Opposition Members believe in democracy, I hope that their spokesmen will say so in the few moments left for the consideration of this Bill. The Bill is designed to give greater democracy. We on the Government side believe in democracy. We have yet to hear anyone on the Opposition Benches say that this is what the Bill is about and that they support it.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford)
This Bill is purely a stage in preparation for the privatisation of the mining industry. At no time during the Second Reading or in Committee or today has anyone flatly denied that. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State take his place again. Earlier on he seemed very pleased about the achievements of the mining industry in recent months. If people want to crow about 59 pit closures, about 55,000 redundancies since the miners' strike, about wiping out mining communities, they can do so, but I do not believe that these can be called successes. Whatever they are, the Government have created on this run-up to privatisation, on the run-up to this Bill, unemployment and misery in these communities.
The Secretary of State referred to the enterprise scheme. I do not wish to knock that scheme and I never have done, but it is a fact that in my own area, which has suffered severely through the pit closure programme, I have been able to indentify only two jobs created by the Coal Board's enterprise scheme. After my speech during the Second Reading of the Bill, a high-ranking official of the Coal Board took it on himself to write to the local press and question my figures. It was obvious that he had not read my speech. Would I investigate with that senior official? Because, he said, his figures differed from mine: he thought that there were four jobs, 100 per cent. more.
The Government have continued to pile on the agony. To enable the industry to break even by 1988 they are savagely attacking the housing stock of the Coal Board. I went recently to the Kensington Hilton when houses were being auctioned. What I saw was repulsive. There were racketeers and property speculators; you name it, they were there bidding. I recognise that the Government have done all this to the mining people in an attempt to run down the industry rapidly so as to prepare for privatisation.
§ Mr. Barron
On the housing stock, I understand that the Coal Board has temporarily suspended sales. This morning I received a letter sent on behalf of a Mr. T. Ward, 21 Coronation Avenue, Kiveton Park, whose house 458 was sold late last year. It has now been resold to someone in London. Utter confusion has been created because people do not know from one month to the next who their landlord is or what protection they have.
§ Mr. Lofthouse
That is the case. One lady, the wife of a disabled miner, attempted to purchase her property but could not get a mortgage before the closing date. She then went to the auction to try to buy the house. She was unsuccessful because a speculator or racketeer bought the whole block. Within two days someone was knocking at her door, offering her the house for a profit of over 30 per cent. That is what the Government have done to the mining community, the miners and their families.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) talked about 300 years of reserves. If the Government continue to rape the mining industry, the reserves will be down to 50 years.
§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)
I welcome the Bill, which will be particularly welcome in south Derbyshire and to the UDM at Rawdon and Ellistown collieries. The most amazing thing has happened. We have heard a great deal of opposition to the Bill on Second Reading, on Report and now. It is said that the reason for the opposition is that the Bill is a prelude to the privatisation of the Coal Board. Of course, the true reason for the opposition has been exposed today. A rearguard action is being fought by Opposition Members with close affiliations to an association which we now know to be bankrupt. We know that people in that organisation have been acting in breach of trust and that the organisation should be the subject of an inquiry. The funding of the NUM should be inquired into. The Labour party has tried desperately to keep the NUM as the sole and supreme union in the mining industry and to exclude the UDM. That is why it has opposed the Bill.
The local leader of the UDM in my constituency, someone by the name of Horace Sankey, has been trying to do a deal with the local Labour party which has said that it is not opposed to the Bill nor to the UDM. I have said several times that the miners are being misled by the local UDM leader because he has close affiliations with the Labour party. The true picture is that the Labour party is opposed——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member has heard me chide other hon. Members for straying beyond the limits of a proper debate on Third Reading. There is nothing in the Bill about the Labour party. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get back to what is in the Bill.
§ Mr. Ashby
There is opposition to the Bill from the major Opposition party, which I believe is known as the Labour party. People in my constituency should know the reason for that opposition. The opposition relates entirely to the fact that the Labour party knows the precarious state that the NUM is in and is trying to maintain a bankrupt union.
We heard the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) who has been fighting a long action in support of the extension of the concessionary coal allowance, an action on which I have supported him. Not for the first time have we heard the hon. Member for Bolsover try to claim for himself a campaign in which he 459 had no interest. Time and time again I have challenged him to say that he was in the least bit interested in concessionary coal allowances. Belatedly, realising his position, he has started to claim for himself something that he has no right to claim. I notice that he is not in the Chamber now. He made his allegation and disappeared, which is typical of him.
§ Mr. Walter Harrison (Wakefield)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not right that, when an hon. Member intends to attack another hon. Member, he gives notification to that hon. Member that he will do so?
§ Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)
Does my hon. Friend agree that to be railed at and insulted in such a way by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is probably the surest sign that a Member is an honourable Member and is doing his duty properly?
§ Mr. Ashby
I agree with that observation.
I end my speech as I began. I welcome the Bill which introduces a large measure of democracy and which will give the UDM a voice in areas where it has a right to be heard. Indeed, it is essential that the UDM should have a voice in those areas because of the revelations we have heard about the NUM.
§ Mr. Alexander Eadie (Midlothian)
On Second Reading we warned the House of the great difficulty we would have in Committee of trying to make a job of the Bill because of its political and electioneering aspects. We should not be cynical about it. In Committee we did the best job we could.
When the Secretary of State opened the debate he referred to clause 1. It was right that the House should have some discussion as to why the name of the National Coal Board has been changed to British Coal. We understand that there was no consultation about that. However, we understood from clause 1 that the Government were changing the name and that was that. We therefore had a debate on the subject.
We had a very long debate in Committee about housing. The importance of that topic has been borne out by the scandals that have been revealed about the sales of National Coal Board housing. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) raised the subject in an Adjournment debate in which he exposed the scandal about the sale of National Coal Board houses. We had a worthwhile discussion in Committee on that subject.
We have heard little today about the financial provisions in the Bill. Some hon. Members will know that when a money resolution is moved in the House it is very difficult to discuss the financial provisions. Nevertheless, we did as well as we could in Committee on that topic. We tried to warn that even within the NCB there is doubt as to whether the financial provisions in the Bill will be adequate to deal with the problems in the coal industry. 460 The Opposition must place a marker on that. We have grave doubts as to whether the financial provisions in the Bill will meet the problems in the industry.
The Secretary of State referred to clauses 5, 6 and 7 and how the Opposition sat on their hands and allowed Government Members to articulate their case about giving rights to minority unions. We had good reason to do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) made it perfectly clear that we would cover that point in a new clause. We would test whether Conservative Members were democrats and libertarians like the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), who represents the alliance. We proved that they were not libertarians. Under the new clause, all registered trade unions in the mining industry would have rights to bargaining, conciliation and consultation. We received a strange reply from the Minister. He said that it was a Scargill type of amendment despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said that the amendment was based on the convention of the International Labour Organisation. It stretches the imagination to claim that Mr. Scargill drafted the ILO convention. We won the argument and the debate in Committee. I invite any hon. Member to read the reports of the Committee stage. We wiped the floor with the Government. We emerged as the libertarians and democrats because we wanted rights for all, not rights for one particular section.
The Government are impaled to some extent on a Bill that has great political content. It is an electioneering Bill and a pit closure Bill. It will do nothing for the mining industry, and I invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to vote against it.
§ Mr. David Hunt
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has made many contributions in coal industry debates over the years. However, on reflection, he will consider the contribution he has just made as his worst. He in no way addressed the important issues of the industry. In many ways his spech followed that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who went over the top almost in his first sentence when he described the financial provisions of the Bill as a pathetic response. If he deems as pathetic a Bill that provides at least £1.1 billion for the future of the coal industry, but, much more important, a three-year investment programme of £2 billion following on from an investment programme under this Government of £5 billion, his use of the English language is to be greatly deplored.
We should not just deplore the way in which the right hon. Member for Salford, East used the English language. His lack of use of the English language in Committee is also to be deplored. He and his hon. Friends sat silent on the crucial clauses 5, 6 and 7. That must attract the condemnation of this House.
In relation to the financial provisions, I can tell my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway), Elmet (Mr. Batiste), Newark (Mr. Alexander) and Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) that they are correct to recognise that morale and productivity in this great industry are high as the men look to the future with greater confidence than ever before. It is far better for the future of this great industry for us to look to the future now and grasp the opportunities.
461 The past few years have not been easy for the industry. At least now the possibility exists for the first time of ending the long-standing preoccupation with pit closures and manpower rundown and of replacing that with optimism for the future. I readily grasp that opportunity and, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am proud to be the Minister responsible for coal with such exciting opportunities lying ahead.
However, I want to return to the points made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) which were ignored by so many Opposition Members—the provisions for fair representation in the industry. As my hon. Friends have explained, unlike the Labour party and like on this occasion the alliance, the Government are committed to the basic principles of democracy that led to the birth of the UDM during those dark days of the miners' dispute. The successful efforts of the working miners to sustain the coal industry——
§ Mr. Hunt
The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the successful efforts of the working miners to sustain the coal industry through that evil and unnecessary strike must never be forgotten. I am afraid that Opposition Members too readily pretend that the efforts of the working miners, now represented through the UDM, will be forgotten. They hope that the UDM will go away. As other hon. Members have stressed, the UDM will not go away.
§ Mr. Hunt
I will give way in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet has revealed the scandalous state of affairs that will need urgent examination, in particular, by the miners in the industry. The report to which my hon. Friend referred—and of which the hon. Member for Midlothian is aware—states that those dominated by Scargill have done tremendous damage not only to their industry but also to their union. It is important now to preserve and enhance democracy in the mining industry. Sadly, in Committee, the Labour party was silent and running scared of Scargill. I described Labour Members politely as parliamentary puppets on the Scargill string. By opposing the Bill on a three-line Whip on Second Reading, and by failing to support the vital clauses on fair representation, the Labour party has reneged on the basic principles of union democracy on which the trade union movement was founded.
There is only one explanation for the silence of Labour Members—subservience to Scargill and opposition to the UDM. Of course there is a great future for all those working in the coal industry. However, it must be a fair future—fair for the industry and for its employees.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 126.464
|Division No. 54]
|Goodhart, Sir Philip
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael
|Grant, Sir Anthony
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
|Gummer, Rt Hon John S
|Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
|Hampson, Dr Keith
|Beith, A. J.
|Biffen, Rt Hon John
|Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John
|Boscawen, Hon Robert
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
|Brooke, Hon Peter
|Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
|Buck, Sir Antony
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)
|Carlisle, John (Luton N)
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
|Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
|Jones, Robert (Herts W)
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda
|Kershaw, Sir Anthony
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
|King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
|Knight, Greg (Derby N)
|Lee, John (Pendle)
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
|Currie, Mrs Edwina
|Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
|McCurley, Mrs Anna
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John
|Emery, Sir Peter
|MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
|MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
|Eyre, Sir Reginald
|Maclean, David John
|Farr, Sir John
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
|Fletcher, Sir Alexander
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
|Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
|Fox, Sir Marcus
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus
|Moore, Rt Hon John
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
|Osborn, Sir John
|Glyn, Dr Alan
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
|Stradling Thomas, Sir John
|Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey
|Tapsell, Sir Peter
|Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
|Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
|Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
|Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
|Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
|Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
|Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
|Roe, Mrs Marion
|Twinn, Dr Ian
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
|Waddington, Rt Hon David
|Rossi, Sir Hugh
|Wakeham, Rt Hon John
|Waldegrave, Hon William
|Sackville, Hon Thomas
|Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
|Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
|Shelton, William (Streatham)
|Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
|Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
|Skeet, Sir Trevor
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
|Soames, Hon Nicholas
|Winterton, Mrs Ann
|Steel, Rt Hon David
|Young, Sir George (Acton)
|Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
|Tellers for the Ayes:
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
|Mr. Francis Maude and
|Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
|Mr. Richard Ryder
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)
|Atkinson, N (Tottenham)
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
|Clelland, David Gordon
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
|Bray, Dr Jeremy
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
|Craigen, J. M.
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
|Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
|Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
|Richardson, Ms Jo
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
|Godman, Dr Norman
|Golding, Mrs Llin
|Rooker, J. W.
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
|Shore, Rt Hon Peter
|Heffer, Eric S.
|Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
|Home Robertson, John
|Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
|Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
|Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
|Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
|Janner, Hon Greville
|Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
|Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
|Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
|Thorne, Stan (Preston)
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)
|Williams, Rt Hon A.
|Marek, Dr John
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)
|Young, David (Bolton SE)
|Maynard, Miss Joan
|Tellers for the Noes:
|Mr. Frank Haynes and
|Mr. Sean Hughes.
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.