§ As amended, again considered.
§ Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
§ Mr. SkinnerYou see, Mr. Speaker, we have just had a vote. The majority won. What would you say, Mr. Speaker, if I said, "I'm not having it." I would be out. The House will see what I mean. My shoulders are big enough to bear it. I would be off; I would not argue, although as we both know, Mr. Speaker, we might occasionally argue about technicalities and the fine print.
The House can just imagine the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) saying when Lord Jenkins won, "I'm not having it. I'm going to invoke clauses 3 to 5 of the new Employment Bill. I'm not going to allow him to have the job." That makes nonsense of what the Government are doing.
I call these the "Peter Wright" clauses, because the same argument applies. In that case, we have a bevy of spies. They all agree to keep their mouths shut but when they get their pensions, Peter Wright comes along and says, "I'm not bothered about that. I'm doing my own thing. I'm going to make some money on the side." The principle established in clauses 3 to 5 will give licence to all those lawyers who are in a closed shop. They all have to join, although the lawyers' union is a different union altogether. 110 The House can just imagine what will happen. Some bright-eyed lawyer will come along and say, "I'm not going along with that lot." The clauses open a big door.
On Thursday, the Prime Minister celebrates 13 years as leader of the Tory party. She became leader on 11 February 1975. She got the job because there was a vote and she won. The previous Prime Minister was caught napping and one or two Conservatives thought, "We will give her a vote or two." Most people said, "They only tried to frighten Heath." I say that in parenthesis, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister won. That is what democracy means. The Tory party and other institutions are allowed all these democratic trappings, but it is a different ball game for trade unions. They are told, "You can have your vote but woe betide the winners if they do not act to suit the Tory party." That is the truth of it. The Government say to the bosses, "It is all right. We have a different method of balloting. Don't worry."
Just imagine someone turning up and being paid to invoke the clauses. It would not be for the first time. One has only to listen to some of the things that we have heard over the years from the Economic League and other organisations. People have been implanted into areas where there has been industrial ferment and strikes. Many of us thought that that happened during the miners' strike. Under the new system one would certainly not need many such people to wreck the whole of industrial relations in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, those scabs — they could be saboteurs if they were paid — would be completely protected by the law under this undemocratic system.
I went to Manchester a few weeks ago to see some trade unionists and to speak at their anniversary rally. They were employed by Senior Colman and had been on strike for 12 months. Some of my hon. Friends know about the case. Those men got done—not for taking part in a ballot, but because they could not fill in their timesheets properly, according to the gaffers. They got sacked because they did not fill in their timesheets. Imagine if that applied in here. I told them "They don't have timesheets in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, they just nod to the bod, get their names in the book, call for a drink at the bar and go, getting £100 per day tax-free."
When I saw those 31 men and women who were still on strike after 12 months I could see all the Employment Bills in front of my eyes, and here is another to stoke up some Senior Colman-type industrial disputes, to start another Silentnight, to attack many of the low-paid workers, many of whom, after a lifetime of never having been on strike, finally have to take up the cudgels because the freedom to strike, to withdraw their labour, is the only freedom that the trade unions have. However, having had a democratic vote they are being told, "Not only will your funds be sequestrated if there is secondary action, but people can now usurp your authority by taking you to the courts." Who elected the judges? Of course, they did not have a vote. They did not have to run into that problem.
I can see a lot of difficulties ahead, yet I am an optimist. To be a Socialist, one always has to be optimistic. In this deceitful, vindictive legislation I can see the seeds of a revival among many of our people. It will not only be the blue and white-collar workers, the nurses and others who have taken industrial action recently, who will spot just what is happening now in this so-called "mother of Parliaments." The Tory Government are now trampling on freedoms in such a way as to say, "We treat you 111 working people with so much contempt that you can have a ballot but we shall give the rights to the people who have been defeated." That is contempt, but the Government will see to it. It may take a while; it may need a few more policy reviews and a bit more listening, but it will happen.
We are now reaching the point where, such is the nature of industrial relations in Britain today, exemplified by the Bill, that I almost thought that I could hear the siren calls from the Tory Benches when the nurses and ancillary workers went on strike last week. I was getting ready to hear the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and his mates talking about the nurses as the enemy within. That will come. However, because it will come, people will not stand for it.
As those people who have commented on the Bill and are not Socialists, not even trade unionists, have said, it is one Bill too many. One of my hon. Friends has referred to the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which flew in the face of the Donovan Commission report, which had been published some time before. People said then that it was not fair. The result was that the then Tory Prime Minister had to come to the House to say, and I paraphrase, "I have put the Industrial Relations Act on the back boiler".
We shall vote against the Bill in the knowledge that a lot of people believe that the cause that we are fighting is correct. The very idea that in a democractic country one can have a democratic ballot between trade unionists but because they are trade unionists no notice will be taken of it, is why we shall win in the end.
§ Mr. CryerI hesitate to follow such a powerful exposition of the tortuous nature of the Bill. [Interruption.] The more that Conservative Members suggested that I should not, the longer I will take to expound the case in detail, because they need some time to be educated.
Clauses 3 to 5 are designed to wreck the democratic provisions that the Government are imposing on ordinary workers. I thought that it might be useful to remind the House of the wage levels about which we are talking. The Low Pay Unit has done a survey in west Yorkshire and Humberside specifically about the wages of the people who want to negotiate decent terms and conditions, and the low wages that are paid to young workers.
A 20-year-old working full-time on a construction site earns £1.30 an hour. An under 21-year-old is paid £28 a week for working full-time in an estate agents' office. A 20-year-old is paid £60 to work more than 40 hours a week doing motor repairs. An under 21-year-old is paid £52 to work 37½ hours a week in a hydraulics warehouse. An under 21-year-old is paid £1.50 an hour to work in double glazing assembly. An under 21-year-old girl is paid £38 to work 44 hours a week in a stables. A 17-year-old hairdresser, a second-year trainee, is paid 85p an hour. Those wages were paid in 1987.
Conservative Members are trying to wreck the development of trade union membership and the negotiating rights for people earning 85p per hour. That is scandalous when Conservative Members are getting £22,000 a year as Members of Parliament, but most of them are also lining their pockets through parliamentary adviserships and directorships. Some of them are knee-deep in such work, yet they will vote in the Lobby tonight for a Bill to stop trade unions organising themselves and, 112 after a ballot when a majority has decided to take strike action, applying some rules that have stood the test of time and have been applied fairly over the years. They are saying that if somebody does not support strike action and goes through a picket line, or does not take part in a strike, trade unions can say, "We have taken a majority decision and we will make you subject to our rules." However, they will then be subject to the compensation provisions in clauses 3 to 7. Moreover, that compensation will be taken from the trade unions' funds. It is another attack on trade union finances.
Therefore is it not unreasonable that we should examine the matter in some detail because when the Secretary of State was defending clauses 3 to 5 against the Opposition amendment which is very reasonable he said that as a result of the legislation of Conservative Governments, industrial relations in Britain had actually improved. I intervened and said that perhaps the statistics were being fiddled again. The statistics are being fiddled in a way that I shall explain to the House.
The legislation will not improve industrial relations. It will make them worse. That was a characteristic of past legislation. The Government claimed that fewer days have been lost through strike action. The truth is that days are not counted when workers who go out on strike are subsequently sacked, even if at the end of the period those workers are reinstated. The days when they are out on strike, but which the employer counts as days when they are sacked, are not included in that total.
10.15 pm
I shall give the House an example of the way in which the statistics which are used to justify these three clauses have been fiddled. In west Yorkshire there was a two-year strike at Silentnight bedding manufacturers, the chairman of which has an abiding hatred and detestation of trade unions which equals that of the Government and would have made Adolf Hitler proud. He negotiated with the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union and they reached an agreement. In justifying these three clauses the Secretary of State said that trade unions have not been concerned about creating redundancies through high wages, but this example refutes that. The Silentnight workers said, "We won't accept a wage increase providing you don't make anyone redundant and we shall have the arrangement for a minimum of six months. We shall waive a national agreement." The workers undertook their side of the bargain, but after two months the management sacked 40, in breach of the agreement. The workers took a ballot and in both factories there was a clear majority for strike action.
These people were not high wage earners; they were relatively low wage earners. The Clarke family had been sucking the firm dry by taking a huge proportion of the profits. One third of what they took would have paid the claim for a full 12 months. That is a clear example of a parasitic employer sucking money from the firm for himself and his family and depriving workers of a decent wage.
The workers went on strike and were sacked after three months, but they stayed out for nearly two years. Of those 24 months only three were counted as strike action. Nevertheless, it remained one of the longest, most bitter disputes that west Yorkshire has seen. By manipulating the statistics the Secretary of State is claiming that industrial relations have improved. That is absolute nonsense.
113 Under clause 3 any worker at Silentnight who voted for strike action, walked through the gates to help the employer defeat the trade unions and was then subject to disciplinary action, could claim compensation from the union that took the majority decision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) so graphically and powerfully explained, it is against every basic tenet of democracy which hon. Members, the Cabinet and Conservative Members are supposed to uphold. There is not one other example—I shall be interested to hear the Minister produce another example, if he can—of where, when a majority takes a decision, a minority is not only exempt from that decision, but can claim compensation.
If the Minister says that trade unions have not applied the rules fairly—indeed, the Secretary of State gave one illustration—I am sure that hon. Members will agree that one example as a reason for legislation is a poor basis. If one used such a basis to legislate on the Cabinet, legislation would be introduced to stop Cabinet members committing adultery. The Government have not done so, but that is one powerful example—it rocked the nation—and is more important than the example the Secretary of State gave about one trade union.
If such a rule is good enough for trade unions which represent 9 million people, why is it not good enough for a handful of people in the Cabinet? Adultery is one example of something that must be stopped, so presumably legislation must be passed. The majority of the Cabinet must surely believe that, for the majority of the time, most of them behave with a certain moral standing in their private lives, but it is their public lives that worry me. Their public lives are disgraceful and are prime examples of degradation.
For years the trade unions have, with one or two hiccups, been managed well and run democratically. The notion that the one example that the Secretary of State has quoted is a justification for the vicious measure is wrong. It is a justification for every saboteur and every agent provocateur that the Tories can dig up. It is the encapsulation of the man who, in the 1960s, brought Chrysler to a halt. He was a member of a trade union, but all of a sudden he said that he had to resign from the closed shop. He had to resign because he said he was hearing the voice of God. God was telling him to leave the trade union. Some of us believe that he was either a schizophrenic, or, more likely, the voice of God was coming to him from the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation or the Tory party.
§ Mr. SkinnerOr Anderton.
§ Mr. CryerYes indeed, they may have been communicating together. Perhaps they were members of the same church — the Methodists, the Church of England or whatever it was at that time. Certainly they were moved in the same way. If someone says they are hearing voices it is difficult to disprove that. Most people put it down to sheer pretence, mischief or a mental breakdown. However, under this legislation every knave or saboteur has the opportunity of legal backing. That is the purpose of the Bill.
The Government's political philosophy and standards are much the same—they will not like this—as those displayed in Germany under Hitler before the war. That is true in every aspect, from privatisation and their concern for small shopkeepers — that is an alleged concern 114 because it is not put into much practice because they are paid more by the multinationals and they call the tune—to their vicious attacks on the trade union movement. The cumulative effect of legislation from 1980 has been to ensnare and encircle ordinary men and women in a wreath of legislation to curb their activities.
The reality is that—I have said this before but it is worth repeating again and again—more days are lost each year through industrial injury than through strikes. That is based on the Government's statistics and, if that is so, why are the Government doing nothing about health and safety at work? They are not doing very much, apart from trying to water down standards.
There have been some graphic illustrations of Government cuts in public standards having tragic consequences. King's Cross is a by-word for cuts in staff. They have all been replaced now, but it is a bit late for the 50 people who were trapped when the fire swept through King's Cross. No one can deny the facts. The answers to parliamentary questions that I have asked show that there were cuts in health and safety standards on the London underground, and they were brought into the open by a chance fire.
In all those areas, the Government could use their time to improve standards of health and safety at work. If they did that, they might achieve the Valhalla for which they constantly seek, with the Opposition agreeing to improved standards of health and safety at work and tighter controls on asbestos. Despite their claims, they have been a hit lax about asbestos. There are still cowboy operators around. No qualifications are needed to get a licence to remove asbestos in our schools, houses, hospitals and factories.
§ Mr. SkinnerThey do not have a ballot for that.
§ Mr. CryerThat is right. The cowboys simply write to the Health and Safety Executive, obtain a licence and they are in work.
The Minister has the opportunity to accept the amendment, which proposes to delete clauses 3, 4 and 5, and make the Bill a little better. They should remove this extraordinary corruption of democracy. One ray of hope is that the Bill's ideology is so corrupt as to show the Government beginning to curl at the edges. They are becoming overweening and arrogant, and their supporters are beginning to find it difficult to justify their employment legislation. The Bill is the beginning of their undoing. Their arrogance has made them think less and produce more of such ugly Bills.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, especially after the powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, so I shall make this my last point. It is ironic that, when trade unionists apply the rules that have been approved democratically by the ballot procedure and a complainant then seeks compensation under clause 3(4)(b), the compensation must be paid from trade union funds. That is a further punishment on trade unions, which are already heavily pressed by the Government's economic policies. The Government's economic and social policies have destroyed 2 million jobs and are designed to subdue the work force and make people more complacent. Many of the people who lost their jobs were trade union members, but they no longer pay trade union subscriptions. As a result, the unions were hard-pressed for cash. The Bill is another attack on their 115 funds and is an encouragement to someone who may be a bit short of cash after a dispute to take his union to court in the hope of getting a little money back.
This is a scab's charter. It is designed to encourage disaffection in the trade union movement and to encourage the saboteur. Trade unions' funds, as well as the cohesive organisation of the movement, are being attacked. This legislation finally demonstrates that old truisms still hold sway. The trade unions represent ordinary working men and women struggling to make a decent living and obtain decent standards in their environment and their working conditions and the Government represent the owners of capital trying to stop workers combining in trade unions.
The Government have not succeeded in the past, and they are not succeeding now. The Government's policies are so appalling that they have brought out on to the streets people who have never taken industrial action before. They have produced a solid mass of trade union legislation since 1980, and they have brought the angels out—men and women who agonised for months and who could see their rotten conditions, and, more important, the conditions for their patients deteriorating because of the Government's shoddy policies of deliberately running down the National Health Service so that they could argue that only private money could rescue it.
There is always hope. There is hope in the Ford workers heeding what the Prime Minister said in 1978, when she saw a political opportunity and took it. The Ford workers, the nurses and workers in all walks of life will not be suppressed. There have been too many years of organisation, aspirations and democracy for this sort of shoddy legislation to be imposed on workers.
§ The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope)My right hon. Friend set out the basic arguments for these clauses once again about two or three hours ago. I shall now try to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate since then.
It is clear that strong views are held about our proposals, and that neither those views nor the arguments advanced in support of them have changed in the course of our discussions since Second Reading, or before. Quite a few Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), seemed to think that this would be the end of trade unionism as it is known today. I can assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that we are not out to destroy the trade unions, but are out to give a small piece of extra freedom to individual members of unions.
My right hon. Friend was pressed to give examples of unions disciplining their members. Some examples were given in the Green Paper some time ago. In recent months, even while we have been discussing the Bill, there have been the examples of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers expelling 500 members, and the National Communications Union is reported as having expelled a great many more than that.
Almost no Opposition Member has picked up my right hon. Friend's point about the effect of ballots when there are subsequent changes in offers as a result of discussions, 116 as frequently happens, and about whether a ballot should be binding in those circumstances. Whatever view one takes of the proposals, it is an odd doctrine to suggest that taking action—whether by striking or some other means — should bind a trade unionist, even after there has been a further offer, or perhaps several offers before or after the action started, and sometimes both.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seemed to agree a little with that point, although he might have gone along with it only for the purposes of argument, but I do not think that he would be happy with the clause even if it applied only where there was no change in an offer between a ballot and the members' decision to return to work, or to withdraw from the action. There is an important point there, which should be taken into account by Opposition Members and those who comment on those matters.
As some other hon. Members have said, I accept that, particularly when there is a strike but also when there is other industrial action, feelings often run high. Feelings have run high this evening. Some individuals might want to take it out on those who have not supported the action or who have withdrawn their support at some stage during the action. It has been argued tonight, as it has been before, that one of the effects of the unions exerting disciplinary pressure is somehow to draw the sting of those high feelings. I believe that union disciplinary proceedings also give credence to those who try to exert other pressure on those who have withdrawn from a strike or did not support it in the first place. That can work in one way, and sometimes it can work in another, often in the same dispute.
§ Mr. CopeNo. It has been a long debate, and the hon. Gentleman made a long speech.
The central point is the clash of obligations for someone who is faced with a strike call — the clash between his obligations to his union, which we recognise, and his obligations to his contract of employment, his family, the customers of the company, and, indeed the strength of the company itself, or whoever his employer is. The Bill does not choose for the trade union member which of those obligations he should honour. It gives him the opportunity to choose for himself. In the past the Labour party has given at best half-hearted support to ballots, but now Labour Members talk as if they were the staunchest defenders of ballots that there had ever been.
My right hon. Friend was asked when Opposition Members had said that those who disagreed with unions should leave them. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said that nobody in Committee had ever argued that point. In Committee the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said:
Of course they have other obligations, and if they find membership of a trade union so damaging to those other obligations, they can leave the union."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 19 November 1987; c. 110.]On another occasion the hon. Gentleman returned to the subject and said:If a person objects profoundly to what the union is doing, his answer is to withdraw from membership of it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 24 November 1987; c. 113–14.]So that argument was used, and not only by the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)The Minister has accused Labour Members of being reluctant to accept 117 ballots. Given that in ballots the majority rule the day, why do the Government now propose legislation that will seek to destroy majority decisions in a secret ballot? Will the Minister comment on the Prime Minister's quotation from St. Francis of Assisi in 1979, which conveys the sentiment that where there is discord he shall bring harmony? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is acquainted with that. Perhaps he will relate that to the industrial action by the nurses for the first time ever — —[Interruption.] — and perhaps the Secretary of State will keep quiet or go outside the Chamber where he has been for most of the evening.
§ Mr. CopeWith regard to discord, we have already discussed the figures for strikes, days lost and the way in which the numbers have fallen. Whatever nitpicking takes place about those figures, the trend is perfectly clear.
With regard to the general argument for the clause, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend set out the argument for the clause, but he did so very clearly.
Labour Members want those who disagree with unions to leave them or for them to be driven out. They want the membership of unions to be constantly distilled. They go on about the rights of employees to belong to a union. The clause protects a person's right to remain a member even when he or she disagrees with the union on a matter. Labour Members reject that right.
These clauses are not the end of trade unionism as we know it. They are an importat piece of extra freedom for individual members of a union.
§ Mr. StrangI am glad that the House has taken time to debate this amendment fully. These clauses are among the most indefensible that have ever appeared in a Bill before the House. It is a measure of how extreme and indefensible they are that so many organisations, which normally agree with the Government, including employers' organisations, have attacked them for being extreme and for undermining the democratic process.
As Labour Members have repeatedly said, the Government have been motivated, in the Bill and in the three previous Acts affecting trade unions, by the fundamental objective of undermining the bargaining power, strength and role of trade unions in our society.
The Minister acknowledged that feelings run high in these matters. That is true, but there is no doubt in our mind, or in those or many employers, including the Engineering Employers Federation, that, far from reducing anarchy and indiscipline during industrial disputes, these clauses will make matters worse.
It is hypocritical for the Government to talk about the need to protect workers who are on strike but who feel that if they do not return to work they will lose their employment, because in the Employment Act 1982 the Government created a position whereby workers dismissed while taking part in industrial action were collectively re-engaged three months later. That legislation enables an employer to practise discrimination against strikers and dismiss them.
We have heard no justification for this draconian set of clauses. This measure is not only damaging to good trade unionism but will have an adverse effect on industrial relations in this country. I have no doubt that it will be repealed—the sooner the better.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 246.
120| Division No. 169] | [10.45 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Gordon, Ms Mildred |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Allen, Graham | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Anderson, Donald | Grocott, Bruce |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Hardy, Peter |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Haynes, Frank |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Ashton, Joe | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Henderson, Douglas |
| Barron, Kevin | Hinchliffe, David |
| Battle, John | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Beckett, Margaret | Holland, Stuart |
| Beggs, Roy | Home Robertson, John |
| Bell, Stuart | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Howells, Geraint |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Hughes, John (Coventry NE) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Blunkett, David | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Boateng, Paul | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Boyes, Roland | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Bradley, Keith | Illsley, Eric |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Ingram, Adam |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Janner, Greville |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | John, Brynmor |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Buchan, Norman | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) |
| Buckley, George | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Caborn, Richard | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil |
| Callaghan, Jim | Lambie, David |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Lamond, James |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Leighton, Ron |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Lewis, Terry |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Litherland, Robert |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Livingstone, Ken |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Clay, Bob | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Clelland, David | McAllion, John |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | McAvoy, Tom |
| Cohen, Harry | McCartney, Ian |
| Coleman, Donald | Macdonald, Calum |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | McFall, John |
| Corbett, Robin | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | McKelvey, William |
| Cousins, Jim | McLeish, Henry |
| Cox, Tom | McNamara, Kevin |
| Crowther, Stan | McTaggart, Bob |
| Cryer, Bob | Madden, Max |
| Cummings, J. | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Marek, Dr John |
| Dalyell, Tam | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Darling, Alastair | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Martlew, Eric |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Maxton, John |
| Dewar, Donald | Meacher, Michael |
| Dixon, Don | Meale, Alan |
| Dobson, Frank | Michael, Alun |
| Doran, Frank | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Dunnachie, James | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Eadie, Alexander | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Fatchett, Derek | Morley, Elliott |
| Faulds, Andrew | Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon) |
| Fearn, Ronald | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Mullin, Chris |
| Flannery, Martin | Murphy, Paul |
| Flynn, Paul | Nellist, Dave |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Foster, Derek | O'Brien, William |
| Foulkes, George | O'Neill, Martin |
| Fyfe, Mrs Maria | Parry, Robert |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Patchett, Terry |
| Garrett, John (Norwich South) | Pendry, Tom |
| Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) | Pike, Peter |
| George, Bruce | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Prescott, John |
| Primarolo, Ms Dawn | Snape, Peter |
| Radice, Giles | Steinberg, Gerald |
| Redmond, Martin | Stott, Roger |
| Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn | Strang, Gavin |
| Reid, John | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Richardson, Ms Jo | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Roberts, Allan (Bootle) | Turner, Dennis |
| Robertson, George | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Robinson, Geoffrey | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Rogers, Allan | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| Rooker, Jeff | Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N) |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Rowlands, Ted | Williams, Rt Hon A. J. |
| Ruddock, Ms Joan | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Salmond, Alex | Wilson, Brian |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Winnick, David |
| Sheerman, Barry | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Worthington, Anthony |
| Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Wray, James |
| Short, Clare | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Skinner, Dennis | |
| Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) | Mrs. Llin Golding and |
| Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) | Mr. Frank Cook. |
| NOES | |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Couchman, James |
| Alexander, Richard | Cran, James |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Allason, Rupert | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Amos, Alan | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Arbuthnot, James | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Dover, Den |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Durant, Tony |
| Ashby, David | Emery, Sir Peter |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Atkins, Robert | Favell, Tony |
| Atkinson, David | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Baldry, Tony | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Gale, Roger |
| Batiste, Spencer | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Gill, Christopher |
| Bellingham, Henry | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Bendall, Vivian | Gow, Ian |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Benyon, W. | Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Greenway, John (Rydale) |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Gregory, Conal |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Grist, Ian |
| Boswell, Tim | Ground, Patrick |
| Bottomley, Peter | Grylls, Michael |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hannam, John |
| Bowis, John | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Harris, David |
| Brazier, Julian | Hayes, Jerry |
| Bright, Graham | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Hayward, Robert |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Hind, Kenneth |
| Burns, Simon | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Burt, Alistair | Holt, Richard |
| Butterfill, John | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Howard, Michael |
| Carrington, Matthew | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Cash, William | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) |
| Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Cope, John | Hunter, Andrew |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Irvine, Michael | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Jack, Michael | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Jackson, Robert | Rost, Peter |
| Janman, Timothy | Rowe, Andrew |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Ryder, Richard |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Sainsbury, Hon Tim |
| Key, Robert | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Knapman, Roger | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Knight, Greg (Derby North) | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Knowles, Michael | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Knox, David | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Shersby, Michael |
| Lang, Ian | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Latham, Michael | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Speed, Keith |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Speller, Tony |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Lilley, Peter | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Squire, Robin |
| Lord, Michael | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Luce, Rt Hon Richard | Steen, Anthony |
| Lyell, Sir Nicholas | Stern, Michael |
| McCrindle, Robert | Stevens, Lewis |
| MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Maclean, David | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N) |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Stokes, John |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Madel, David | Sumberg, David |
| Major, Rt Hon John | Summerson, Hugo |
| Malins, Humfrey | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Mans, Keith | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Marland, Paul | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Mills, Iain | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Thurnham, Peter |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) | Tracey, Richard |
| Mitchell, David (Hants NW) | Tredinnick, David |
| Moate, Roger | Trippier, David |
| Morris, M (N'hampton S) | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Morrison, Hon Sir Charles | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Moss, Malcolm | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Neale, Gerrard | Walden, George |
| Nelson, Anthony | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Neubert, Michael | Waller, Gary |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Ward, John |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Watts, John |
| Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W) | Wells, Bowen |
| Paice, James | Wheeler, John |
| Patnick, Irvine | Whitney, Ray |
| Patten, Chris (Bath) | Widdecombe, Miss Ann |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Porter, Barry (Wirral S) | Wilshire, David |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Portillo, Michael | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Price, Sir David | Wood, Timothy |
| Raffan, Keith | Woodcock, Mike |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Redwood, John | |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Mr. David Lightbown and |
| Riddick, Graham | Mr. Alan Howarth. |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
§ Question accordingly negatived