HC Deb 25 July 1988 vol 138 cc116-28
Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 22, at end insert 'except that where a literary, dramatic or artistic work is made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical under a contract of employment, or apprenticeship, and is so made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall be entitled to the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published; but in all other respects the author shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 6, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert— '(2) Where a literary, dramatic, or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work, subject to:—

  1. (a) any agreement between the parties or their representatives
  2. (b) the application of sections 76 to 88 inclusive (Moral Rights).'.

Mr. Mitchell

I declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists and also as a journalist. Sometimes that word is put in inverted commas when I am so described.

The amendment is about the balance of power between working journalists and the proprietors of newspapers. We believe that with the unamended clause 11 the Government are shifting that balance of power unjustifiably towards the proprietors. Why the Government are acting thus escapes us, but it must be connected in some way with their general generosity to newspaper proprietors—a generosity which is, in the main, applied to get a press amenable to the Government. We have a press whose only concession to balance is to use slightly less glowing adjectives in their panegyrics about the Prime Minister.

The press has been larded with honours by this Government—usually in inverse ratio to the quality of the papers. We have had Sir Loin of Lamb, Sir David English, Lord Matthew of Whelks and Lord Stevens. It must be rather frustrating to the Government that they cannot confer a title on Lord Murdoch of Wapping Breasts, Lies and Sex Scandals, simply because he is an Australian.

The Government want to keep the press sweet and favourable to them. That is the only motive that we can see for shifting the balance of power towards the proprietors and against working journalists. Before clause 11 was introduced, the law was set out in clause 4 of the Copyright Act 1956. That law referred to Where a literary, dramatic or artistic work is made by the author"— or photographers, who are also concerned about clause 11— in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, and is so made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical In all other respects, copyright was retained by the author.

The NUJ wanted that original law tightened to restrict the proprietor's rights to staff journalists and to periodicals under his ownership. That tightening of the law would have brought us into line with the legal position as it prevails in most of Europe. However, the Government went the other way and they amended their proposals in the House of Lords to make the proprietor the first owner and to give him unfettered right of exploitation everywhere, including databases, which are becoming increasingly important.

The journalist's work is creative and should be the intellectual property of the creator. It should not be liable to wholesale exploitation without reward for or acknowledgment of the journalist who created it in the first place. In the act of creation, he brings his skills and abilities to bear and his name is used, all to enhance the sales and revenues for the proprietor. To take away from such people their rights over what they have created robs them of their reputation, skills and efforts and dedicates them all to the greater glory and income of the proprietors. In other words, it creates much the same relationship between journalists and proprietors as existed between serfs and their masters in 19th century Russia. Journalists get slightly higher expenses than were paid to serfs in 19th century Russia, but if their rights over their intellectual property are taken away in this fashion they will operate in the same sort of relationship.

9.15 pm

In Committee, the Government rejected all our efforts to enlarge journalists' rights. These amendments seek to retain the dignity accorded them by the Copyright Act 1956. We can see no justifiable reason why the Government should take away the rights conferred in that Act and change them in the way in which they appear in clause 11. Unless we return to the position under the 1956 legislation, journalists will effectively be robbed of all their rights when their intellectual property is used in books, broadcasts and databases. It is essential to allow them to retain their rights over all those uses.

The Opposition are adopting an essentially conservative role. We are advocating the preservation of the status quo. What is the Government's case for this monstrous, inexplicable and so far unexplained usurpation of journalists' rights? We know that the usurpation is subject to any agreement to the contrary, but surely no group of employed journalists is in a position to negotiate an agreement to the contrary. We propose to redress the balance in a relationship that is inevitably dependent to give journalists a platform on which to stand, by having rights within that relationship over their intellectual property.

Mr. Foot

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I must declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, although, like him, I cannot exactly calculate how much my income would be affected if the clause were passed. My hon. Friend put the case so strongly that I believe that it is possible to make this debate a short one.

The Government and the Minister should be aware of how strong is the feeling of outrage among journalists throughout the country at the Government's proposal. Even at this hour we hope the Government will be prepared to change their mind. I have listened to the Minister for most of the day, although I did not have the special opportunity of hearing him in Committee. He has sought to present himself as being in an appeasing mood. He has accepted opposition amendments and tried to create a perfectly emollient atmosphere. That is the best course for the Government to take, from their point of view, especially as they are trying to get through a Bill of this nature in this time.

It is quite improper that the Government should have introduced such a major Bill with so many ramifications that affect free speech and the rights of journalists and others in this way. It was wrong to introduce it in another place. Now, in the last week of Parliament, we are landed with a great disability. The possibilities of getting through sensible amendments are greatly diminished by the way in which the Government have done things. They have crammed in a long list of amendments at this stage. Some of them, admittedly, are formal, but it is quite improper for such a vast range of amendments to be pushed through like this. Only last week, on a similar measure—although it was not introduced in the House of Lords—many amendments, new material and major changes had to be forced through the House under a guillotine. We are under great pressure to do the same on this Bill.

It is wrong for the Government to deal with such matters in that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said, why do they not stick to the provisions that have worked already? The 1956 Act has been operating reasonably and people understand it. The application of this part of the law of copyright goes back for about 70 years. The Minister said that we have a Copyright Bill about every 20 years and that they arrive with the comet. Perhaps his scientific knowledge is better than his legal knowledge.

The Government had plenty of time for preparation, negotiations and discussions before the legislation was introduced, yet at the very last moment before Royal Assent we are confronted with a proposal to remove from journalists rights that they have had for at least 20 years and probably a good deal longer. It removes those rights without any effort having been made to discuss the matter with the National Union of Journalists.

No doubt the Minister will tell us about the negotiations that they had with the Members of the House of Lords. The place is so stuffed with peers who own newspapers that I suppose they did not need to set up a special Committee to examine the Bill. How did those negotiations manage to produce a proposal that is of financial advantage to some peers? What will be the financial advantage—collectively or severally—to those peers? How did they bring pressure on the Government? Did the meetings take place in the same hole in the corner where they cooked up the plan to introduce an entirely new method of ensuring the teaching of religious education in our schools? It is an example of bad government.

I do not wish to spoil the Minister's temper, especially as he is moving along the stepping stones to higher things or lower things—at any rate, sideways—because he has kept it well during our proceedings. But he should not have allowed such major legislation, altering the rights of journalists and many others, to be introduced in the House of Lords, and he should not have been a party to the House being confronted with such a measure at the fag end of the Session. As a last generous gesture to the House on the Bill, which he has piloted through with such skill, I hope that he will say that he has changed his mind and will accept in its entirety the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

This is a press baron's clause. Appropriately, it was introduced in the place to which press barons are sent by Tory Governments. It is an appalling example of special pleading and lobbying by an interest group that the clause should have left the House of Lords thus altered, and that the privilege of sitting in that place should have been used by press barons to improve their position in relation to journalists, who are not by and large Members of the House of Lords.

Like previous Opposition speakers, I must declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists.

Mr. Buchan

My hon. Friend is a press baron, too.

Mr. Wilson

My hon. Friends have pointed out that I have a vested interest as a press baron, but that is in only a fairly minor way.

Mr. Buchan

Not at all in a minor way. If the incidence of the Daily Mirror was as heavy as that of the West Highland Free Press in its own area, it would sell about 15 million.

Mr. Wilson

It is decent of my hon. Friend to point that out. Copies are available on subscription. I assure the House that the journalists whom I employ are more than welcome to their intellectual property, and the last thing that I would want to do would be to profit from their efforts. Hon. Members will gather that I am a philanthropic press baron, in a minor way.

This is a serious point. The rights of journalists to their intellectual property should be expanded rather than contracted. Increasingly, we live in an age not just of press barons in the old style but of multi-media barons—the same people who own the press increasingly own every other means of communication. They do so in rapidly diminishing numbers. We see the media world being carved up among very few people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Grimsay—I mean Grimsby—

Mr. Malcom Bruce

Another Hebridean island.

Mr. Wilson

I am sorry. Grimsay is in North Uist. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was wrong when he said that Mr. Murdoch is an Australian. I think that this week he is an American. Doubtless when he gets into satellite, if it suits his purpose, he will become a Martian, which might be more appropriate—

Mr. Austin Mitchell

An improvement.

Mr. Wilson

Indeed, it might be an improvement.

Those are powerful people in our society. It is intolerable that journalists, the people who work for them, should be put at a further disadvantage.

I do not want to pre-empt what the Minister says because the reply from any self-respecting Opposition Member would be, "Up to a point, Lord Copper!" but in Committee the Minister explained his thinking and said: To retain the provision would be anomalous and would keep newspaper proprietors at a disadvantage compared with other employers". To seasoned members of the journalistic profession such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and anyone who has worked in that industry, the idea that legislation should be formulated on the basis that newspaper proprietors are a disadvantaged class in society who have to have special little clauses inserted in the Bill to protect their interests, has a ring of improbability to it.

We are dealing with a greedy set of interests, like most vested interests who sit along the corridor in the other place, and who can never get enough. They can make special pleading work and having discovered that they can lobby on their own behalf, they do so ruthlessly and interminably. This will not be the end of their demands.

The National Union of Journalists and others are concerned about the works of the big journalists, the guy with the big name whose work can be paid for by one newspaper, by Murdoch or Maxwell, and so on, which can then be flogged relentlessly around the world on every conceivable means of communication. I should also like to put in a bit of pleading for the small guy, the person who does not receive large amounts of remuneration, who works for a local or provincial paper and who might happen upon the once-in-a-lifetime story. That story would go around the world. If it were a photographer, his pictures would go around the world. But that will not be a break for the journalist or the photographer. For years to come it will be yet another source of revenue for the proprietor—the disadvantaged creature whom the Minister is so concerned to protect.

There is a myth that everybody in journalism is earning a huge salary and raking in large expenses. There is a parallel with professional footballers. Everybody forgets those who are playing in the second, third or fourth divisions. The vast majority of journalists are in that category. To take away the limited rights that journalists enjoy under the 1956 Act and to replace them by the amendment in the Bill, which serves no function other than to extend the tentacles of proprietors and turn journalists into the vassals of proprietors with no independent rights of their own, is intolerable.

The press needs to be more independent. The rights of journalists must be defended. There is no need for the amendment. To use the Bill as a stick with which to beat journalists is wrong. I hope that the Minister will be able to defend what he is doing on rather better grounds than newspaper proprietors are at a disadvantage compared with other employers".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 May 1988; c. 82.] That is an injustice with which most of us could live.

9.30 pm
Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

I have to declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, but I am speaking entirely on my own account.

The amendment twists the relationship between a journalist and his employer to a wholly unjustifiable extent. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to a local reporter hitting on a major story. When the Bill becomes an Act, there will be many such instances. In the past, journalists thought that they would fall foul of their proprietor or employer, so they fought to find out which side he was on. The result was that, rather like the chap in "Local Hero", they spent a large part of their time in telephone boxes making reverse charge telephone calls to the United States and having money put into numbered post office accounts so that their employers would not find out that they were making money. In many cases that was totally legitimate; money was being made out of news and information that the journalists had unearthed, much of it in their own time. Nevetheless, they thought that they would be intimidated, got at or even dismissed if they chose to reveal that fact to their employers, because they would be unable to defend their copyright.

It might be argued that that is what happens under the law as it stands and the Government are seeking to regularise it, but journalists should be entitled to the copyright of the information that they have procured by means of their own creative ability or talent.

The Minister will no doubt tell us that if there is a real market for his work, a journalist can write his own contract. That is all very well for a Terry Wogan or a star with an established reputation, but it is not so easy for either an aspiring young reporter or an established reporter who has ability but not star quality. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is, in a sense, speaking up for middle range and aspiring young journalists against the press barons. I look forward with interest to the Minister's justification of a newspaper owner being given extra rights to defend himself against the vicious assaults of middle-ranking reporters and journalists on his staff.

Many hon. Members will be aware that, with the particularly severe competition that exists in journalism at the moment, many journalists in employment are forced to sign contracts that reduce their working conditions and pay in their existing posts, and forgo the opportunity to freelance or to sell to interested third parties the benefits of their own work. That is happening under the present law, and it would appear that the Government are anxious to repress still further aspiring young and middle-ranking journalists and prevent them from developing their talents in a constructive and effective way.

I was not a member of the Committee, and I have not followed the passage of the Bill, but what I have heard makes it sound as if the Government, hiding behind the press barons in the Lords, are trying to ensure that those people have a dominant position over the livelihood of people who, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said, can often find it very difficult to find employment that is not controlled by those press barons.

If the Minister is anxious to break open a closed shop, it is the owners' and proprietors' closed shop that should be broken open, not that of aspiring and successful middle-ranking journalists. Therefore I am very happy to support the amendments and look forward with interest to hearing how the Minister can possibly justify resisting them.

Mr. Wigley

I hesitate to follow the eminent litterateur the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and th press baron of the Western Isles, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I do not have an interest to declare and I am not a member of an appropriate union, so it is appropriate to add my support to the amendment.

I find it difficult to accept that a Government that believe in greater freedom, as they claim, should be putting forward such a proposition, and that they should be using people in a way that they should never be used. The argument is absolutely overwhelming, that if a proprietor has paid a journalist to undertake a job and the journalist has done that job, the proprietor should get the first nibble at the work that has been done, and having had the opportunity of publishing the story, the journalist should have the benefit thereafter. The publication can reflect in the glory that the journalist had written the story for that paper in the first place. That should apply to any creative work, not just to the written word.

It applies particularly to photographs. If one thinks back to perhaps a happier time in the saga of The Times newspaper, when it used to publish excellent photographs, some of those photographs were worthy objects of art in their own right and the fact that they appeared in The Times first was to the credit of that newspaper, but thereafter they should have stood in the names of the photographers who had the vision and creativity to produce them.

In Committee, the Minister was decidedly unhappy about four or five parts of the Bill. He never admitted which four or five parts they were, but we know that he was not entirely comfortable with some of the measures that he had to advocate from time to time. I should like to think that this was one of the parts of the Bill about which he was decidedly uncomfortable. Having heard the argument put forward tonight, he should be so much more uncomfortable that he should feel in his heart that, even if he cannot accept the amendments now, the Bill must go back to another place with the amendments from this place. If any straightening out can be done, for goodness' sake, in this day and age let us not go back to the time when somebody working in an honest job is treated as a serf by his employer. That will happen under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Butcher

Having heard the arguments of a Scot and of two Welshmen, a south Walean and a north Walean, it is always very hard to resist that combination of Celtic elegance. Unfortunately, this is one occasion on which the word "but" is followed by a word of what Opposition Members would interpret as negativity. Much as I am persuaded of the logic of the earlier part of their arguments listed in the first amendment, I cannot go along with much of what I have heard of the substance of the second amendment. What appears to be happening is that Opposition Members have come to see the wisdom of vesting in the employer the ownership of copyright in a work made by an employee. Therefore, I have no trouble in accepting the principle underlying amendment No. 4. However, I must resist the amendment because it is unnecessary. The Bill as drafted provides all that Opposition Members want.

Clause 11 (2) provides that, when a work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of copyright. That meets the wish of Opposition Members as expressed in the first part of the amendment. The provisions of subsection (2) are subject to agreement to the contrary. That already provides what paragraph (a) of the amendment seeks. Amendment No. 4 requires that clause 11 be subject to clauses 76 to 88. That does not need to be said. Moral rights are distinct from copyright and the application of those rights is determined by the clauses in question. In particular, clauses 76 and 79 set out cases where the rights apply and clauses 78 and 80 give the circumstances where they do not. Therefore, although I applaud the sentiments expressed in amendment No. 4,I cannot accept it. With the assurance that the Bill as drafted delivers what is required by the amendment, I trust that it will be withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 would introduce, with one or two drafting changes, the provisions of section 4(2) of the Copyright Act 1956. That provides for a split ownership of copyright in the case of a work produced by an employee of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical. The employer is to own copyright for the purposes of publication in newspapers, magazines and periodicals and the author is to own copyright for all other purposes.

Mr. Doran

The Minister said that we accept the principle that copyright should lie with the employer. As I understand it, that is the present position. The point of amendment No. 4 is that clauses dealing with moral rights are also excluded from employees. Under subsection (2)(b) that would not apply. Therefore, there are significant differences between what we want and what the Minister wants.

Mr. Butcher

We are consistent in terms of remuneration rights and moral rights. We had an exhaustive debate on that, and obviously I was unable to convince the hon. Gentleman. I should say, en passant, that there have been assertions about special pleading in each of the contributions made. I have not noticed a scale of lobbying from the National Union of Journalists that is anything like the scale of lobbying that has occurred on virtually every issue of substance in the Bill. Opposition Members say that we should not indulge in special pleading, and they are not indulging in special pleading for their own purposes. They are saying that journalists, compared with other creative employees, should be set apart and be given rights that are not given to creative people in other industries.

Before we proceed further, I should make it clear that we are dealing only with journalists, photographers and others who are employed by newspapers. Under the Bill as it stands, the first copyright in a work made by a freelance or commissioned author is vested in the author. He may assign all or part of the copyright to the newspaper or merely license the newspaper to print the work in question. I do not think that anyone seriously objects to that principle. A newspaper wanting to publish an author's work must have his consent, and can acquire as much or as little of the copyright as it needs for those purposes. The freelance author who depends on his work for his livelihood is the owner of copyright in his work, and can use that copyright to negotiate payment.

The debate on amendment No. 3 is concerned only with employees of newspapers, magazines and similar periodicals. The question before us is, what should be the position of works created by an employee during the course of the employment? The general principle under the 1956 Act, set out in section 4(4), is that the employer is entitled to the copyright, and that principle is re-enacted in clause 11(2).

That it is right that an employer should own the fruits of his employee's labour seems to me to be a self-evident truth. If I employ a man to use his skills to make a product and provide all the resources that he needs to do it, it is only right that I should own what he has made in my time and at my expense. Opposition Members who tabled the amendment fully accept that basic principle, as is evidenced by amendment No. 4, which vests copyright in the employer.

9.45 pm

Had Opposition Members proposed the deletion of subsection (2) and argued that an employer could acquire his employee's copyright contractually, I would have resisted, but I would have recognised that such an amendment would be consistent with their professed concern for the employee's side of the employee-employer relationship. I understand that they have seen the light and have recognised the sense and justice of the principle enshrined in clause 11(2).

One question remains: why single out employed journalists for special treatment? Why should an employee of a newspaper be better placed than, say, the employee of an advertising agency, a software house or a book publisher? There are numerous industries in which people are employed for the purpose of creating copyright works for their employees, yet it is not suggested that the employee should own copyright. The anomaly is most starkly presented in the case of an employed journalist. If he is employed by a newspaper, he is to own a part of the copyright in his work. If he is employed by a television company, his employer owns all the copyright.

The most ardent supporter of amendment No. 3 could not deny that it is anomalous, but it must be admitted that the anomaly has been around for 70 years or more. Why do away with it now? The answer is that it is not an innocuous anomaly. First, it seems to be wrong in principle to say to newspapers, "You, and you alone of all the many employers of the authors of copyright works, are not to receive the full benefit of your investment in your work force."

Secondly, there are practical effects that harm newspapers. Hon. Members should consider the case of a television company that sends a crew to some trouble spot—say, the Gulf. The pictures and reports sent back by the staff can be sold by the company to a newspaper to help to recoup some of its investment. But if a newspaper sends a journalist and photographer to the Gulf, it cannot sell the story and pictures to a television company. For those purposes, copyright would be vested in the employees, even though the story had been obtained at the not inconsiderable expense of the employer. That means that different branches of the media are not competing on a equal footage, and that is wrong.

The anomalous treatment of newspapers also hinders the development and exploitation of databases—another point that was raised by Opposition Members. Under this agreement, a newspaper would have to obtain copyright clearance from its own employees to put the works that they have produced on to a database. Back issues of a newspaper cannot be transferred to microfiche or other more convenient forms of storage, as that involves the consent of the employee. It may be that the employee would consent, but he could seek a high price. Why should the employer pay again for work that he has already paid for?

The general principle should be that, subject to contrary agreement, the employer owns the copyright in his employee's works. Any exception to that general rule has to be fully justified. An exception to favour newspaper employees may have been justifiable 30 years ago, but it is not so today, in an age when the boundaries between sectors of the media are not clear cut and special treatment can act as an obstacle to the dissemination of information. I must ask the House to reject the amendments.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) called the clause a piece of special pleading. I must say again that it is for the hon. Gentleman to plead why newspaper employees should be set apart from other categories of creative people.

Mr. Austin Mitchell

The Minister's speech will not feature among the highlights of his collected Department of Trade and Industry speeches as he moves on. It is as though he made it in Times-speak—that is to say, I could not understand a word of it—rather than Sun-speak, when he could have said, "Rearrange the following words to form a well-known English phrase or expression: Off bludge."—which is essentially what he said. It is inconceivable to suggest that all that we are doing in reality is just to return the legislation to what it has been since 1956.

The Minister can show no examples of any problems, anomalies or disputes arising from the existing legislation that he is changing. He has produced no argument for the change and had no consultations with the National Union of Journalists—only, apparently, with the press barons. He has not even told us what peculiar quality of intelligence, integrity or dignity in British press barons, as shown in their newspapers, justifies giving them so much greater power over their journalists than the press barons of most other countries, who do not have the rights that the Bill provides and which our amendments seek to reduce.

Our conclusion must be that the Government are on their knees before the press barons. Certainly we intend to bring them to their knees by opposing the clause and voting for our amendments. We want to see the headline in The Sun tomorrow, "Journos Butchered by Soaraway Supermin Before Being Jerked Off'.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 3 in page 6, line 22, at end insert 'except that where a literary, dramatic or artistic work is made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of employment, or apprenticeship, and is so made for the purpose of publication in a newspaper. magazine or similar periodical, the said prioprietor shall be entitled to the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published; but in all other respects the author shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work.'—[Mr. Austin Mitchell]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 221.

Division No. 443] [9.50 pm
AYES
Allen, Graham George, Bruce
Anderson, Donald Godman, Dr Norman A.
Ashdown, Paddy Golding, Mrs Llin
Ashton, Joe Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Grocott, Bruce
Beckett, Margaret Hinchliffe, David
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Hoyle, Doug
Bermingham, Gerald Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Bidwell, Sydney Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Blair, Tony Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Boateng, Paul Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Boyes, Roland Illsley, Eric
Bradley, Keith Janner, Greville
Bray, Dr Jeremy Kirkwood, Archy
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Lamond, James
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Leighton, Ron
Buchan, Norman Litherland, Robert
Buckley, George J. Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Caborn, Richard Loyden, Eddie
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) McAllion, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N. McAvoy, Thomas
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) McKelvey, William
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) McLeish, Henry
Clay, Bob McWilliam, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Madden, Max
Cousins, Jim Mahon, Mrs Alice
Crowther, Stan Marek, Dr John
Cryer, Bob Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Cummings, John Martlew, Eric
Cunliffe, Lawrence Meale, Alan
Darling, Alistair Michael, Alun
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Dewar, Donald Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dixon, Don Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Doran, Frank Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth Morgan, Rhodri
Eadie, Alexander Morley, Elliott
Eastham, Ken Mowlam, Marjorie
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) Mullin, Chris
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Murphy, Paul
Faulds, Andrew Nellist, Dave
Fisher, Mark O'Brien, William
Flynn, Paul Patchett, Terry
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Pike, Peter L.
Foster, Derek Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Fraser, John Prescott, John
Galloway, George Quin, Ms Joyce
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Rogers, Allan Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Rowlands, Ted Wigley, Dafydd
Short, Clare Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Skinner, Dennis Wilson, Brian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) Winnick, David
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Spearing, Nigel Worthington, Tony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Turner, Dennis Tellers for the Ayes:
Vaz, Keith Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes.
Wallace, James
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
NOES
Alexander, Richard Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Fallon, Michael
Amess, David Favell, Tony
Amos, Alan Fenner, Dame Peggy
Arbuthnot, James Fishburn, Dudley
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Fookes, Miss Janet
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) Forman, Nigel
Ashby, David Forth, Eric
Aspinwall, Jack Franks, Cecil
Atkins, Robert Freeman, Roger
Atkinson, David French, Douglas
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Fry, Peter
Baldry, Tony Gale, Roger
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Gardiner, George
Batiste, Spencer Garel-Jones, Tristan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Gill, Christopher
Bellingham, Henry Goodhart, Sir Philip
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Goodlad, Alastair
Benyon, W. Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bevan, David Gilroy Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Biggs-Davison, Sir John Gow, Ian
Blackburn, Dr John G. Gower, Sir Raymond
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Boswell, Tim Gregory, Conal
Bottomley, Peter Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Ground, Patrick
Bowis, John Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Hanley, Jeremy
Brazier, Julian Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Bright, Graham Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Harris, David
Browne, John (Winchester) Haselhurst, Alan
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Hawkins, Christopher
Buck, Sir Antony Hayes, Jerry
Budgen, Nicholas Hayward, Robert
Burt, Alistair Heathcoat-Amory, David
Butcher, John Heddle, John
Butler, Chris Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Butterfill, John Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Hill, James
Carrington, Matthew Hind, Kenneth
Carttiss, Michael Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Howard, Michael
Chapman, Sydney Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Chope, Christopher Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Churchill, Mr Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Hunter, Andrew
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Irvine, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John Irving, Charles
Couchman, James Jack, Michael
Cran, James Janman, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina Jessel, Toby
Curry, David Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Day, Stephen Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Devlin, Tim Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Dickens, Geoffrey King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Dorrell, Stephen Knapman, Roger
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Dover, Den Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Durant, Tony Knowles, Michael
Emery, Sir Peter Knox, David
Lang, Ian Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Latham, Michael Porter, David (Waveney)
Lawrence, Ivan Portillo, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle) Powell, William (Corby)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Price, Sir David
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Rathbone, Tim
Lightbown, David Redwood, John
Lilley, Peter Riddick, Graham
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lord, Michael Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lyell, Sir Nicholas Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
McCrindle, Robert Rost, Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil Ryder, Richard
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Sackville, Hon Tom
McLoughlin, Patrick Shaw, David (Dover)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Major, Rt Hon John Shelton, William (Streatham)
Malins, Humfrey Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mans, Keith Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Sims, Roger
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Skeet, Sir Trevor
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Speller, Tony
Maude, Hon Francis Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stern, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Miller, Sir Hal Sumberg, David
Mills, Iain Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Miscampbell, Norman Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW) Thorne, Neil
Moate, Roger Thurnham, Peter
Monro, Sir Hector Townend, John (Bridlington)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Waddington, Rt Hon David
Morris, M (N'hampton S) Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Morrison, Sir Charles Ward, John
Moss, Malcolm Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mudd, David Watts, John
Neale, Gerrard Wheeler, John
Neubert, Michael Widdecombe, Ann
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Wood, Timothy
Nicholls, Patrick Woodcock, Mike
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Yeo, Tim
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley Tellers for the Noes:
Page, Richard Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.
Paice, James
Patnick, Irvine

Amendment accordingly negatived.