HC Deb 04 April 1989 vol 150 cc71-9
Mr. Pike

I beg to move amendment No. 133, in page 190, line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

This is an important amendment which deals with a different aspect of pensions from that in the first group of amendments, which we welcome because they clarify the position and constitute a change from the proposals on Second Reading and in Committee. However, our amendment deals with an area about which we are not fully satisfied, and unless the Minister is prepared to move further we intend to have a Division on it.

Earlier the Minister made one or two helpful comments. He described the role of the trustees and said that two trustees would be representatives of members and would be part of the trust's governing body. He said that in some situations all trustees would need to agree before certain action was taken. Those were important and welcome announcements.

However, we are still not 100 per cent. convinced that once the water industry is privatised its employees will have the mirror image scheme with conditions as good as those to which they are currently entitled. We recognise that the Bill takes care of existing pensioners and safeguards pension rights earned to date. We welcome the progress that has been made in removing any ambiguity or doubt. However, we want to ensure that those working in the industry and those who may come into it will have a pension scheme that is at least as good as the existing one.

The Minister has said that he is worried about the number of schemes and whether they can be set up and administered in a proper way. Having served in different capacities on two pension funds before entering the House I recognise that this is a complex subject. I was an employee representative on the Philips staff pension fund, a very large fund, and an employer representative on the Lancashire county council superannuation fund.

The amendment may not be the best way to achieve what we are seeking, but I am sure that the Minister understands the spirit of it and I hope that he will at least say that if we do not divide the House the Government will move a little further and ensure that one pension fund is established to cover all employees within the privatised water industry, which will guarantee our objectives. If the Minister promises to bring forward an amendment in the other place, that may be acceptable.

Our amendment is simple. It changes the word "may" to "shall". However, as we all know, that is an important change. "May" is permissive and means that something may happen. Given the spirit in which the Government have responded today, I accept that that is what they intend, but that does not mean that it will happen. However, if our amendment were agreed to, the position would be clear because it removes all ambiguity. The Minister says that he does not believe that such a statutory requirement should be included in the Bill, while saying that that is the direction in which the Government wish to go. I find it difficult to understand why the Minister should say that, but is not prepared to put it in the Bill. It is a small area of difference.

On pensions, the difference between us is small and the Government should take the further step that the Opposition, employees in the industry and the trade unions representing them are seeking. It would not be a great step for them to accept the amendment, but it is an important one, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

5.15 pm

As there is now only a small difference between us on the pensions issue, it would be silly for the Government not to concede this final point. The Government have so many problems with other aspects of the Bill—we shall be debating those on Third Reading—that they should welcome the opportunity to eliminate one problem now. They say that they want the mirror image scheme, so why not put it in the Bill and remove this little problem?

The Opposition are rightly worried about protecting conditions of employment on privatisation. In the years to come pensions will be a matter of growing concern to many people. Twenty or thirty years ago many people did not regard company pensions as of great importance, but over the years there has been a considerable change of attitude. Pensions now are rightly viewed as an important part of any employment package.

I have served on the Standing Committees on many other privatisation Bills. Despite ministerial undertakings, pension issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction of employees. I well remember debates on the royal ordnance factories and the arguments about TUPE '81. Protection can be given up to the date of vesting and privatisation, but whatever the Minister says, if it is not in the Bill it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Decisions are not based on what is written in Hansard. If a matter goes to court, it is what is in the Bill that counts. The Minister knows that that is the important difference. He knows that if he wants to see a mirror image scheme he should go a little further and include the word "shall" in the Bill.

The Minister also knows that if some small pension schemes could not do exactly what the amendment seeks, he could easily say that the Government are prepared to come forward with a better proposal which will deal with the Opposition's points and give the necessary guarantees to the employees.

All that we are seeking in moving this simple but important amendment is to guarantee that employees presently in the industry will have their future pension earnings protected, whether they be my daughters or the sons or daughters of other hon. Members. They should have the safeguard of a pension scheme that is at least as good as the existing scheme.

If that is what the Minister wants to see, let him accept the amendment or say that the Government will introduce an amendments in another place to give that guarantee. We believe that those working in the industry now and those who enter it in the years ahead are entitled to such protection.

Whatever the Minister may say or mean today will mean nothing if it is not guaranteed by the Bill which, when it becomes an Act, will be binding. I hope that the Minister will say, even at this late stage, that he is prepared to think again and accept the wisdom of moving in the direction that amendment No. 133 suggests.

Mr. Allen McKay

While Ministers may give assurances in good faith, there is always the possibility that their successors will go against those assurances. That has happened time and again. Consequently, we always seek, particularly in respect of pension matters, a provision in the Bill that backs a Minister's assurances and provides a positive commitment so that people who have worked in an industry for many years, as well as those who enter it in future, may be sure of an adequate pension.

I hope that the Minister will look favourably on amendment No. 133. It is not that we disbelieve the Minister or question his intentions, but within a very short time, Ministers change, and successors may view the pension aspect very differently. It is important to workers in the industry to have an assurance that their pension fund is in order and that their pensions are adequately protected. It has been said that workers could withdraw their money and transfer it to a private pension scheme. Unfortunately, private schemes depend on the performance of investments, with the result that the value of their pensions can reduce. Local government and water authority pension schemes do not reduce in value and are index-linked, whereas private schemes are not. By putting his assurances into the legislation, the Minister can ensure that pensions will retain the value that they have today, which is important to those concerned about their financial future.

I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to the amendment, or to .any similar amendment that is presented in another place. If his assurances are written into the Bill, no one will be able to go against them later—which is something that no right hon. or hon. Member in any part of the House would wish to see happen.

Mr. Moynihan

The thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) concerned pensions, but schedule 2 has nothing to do with pensions. It deals with transfer schemes.

The amendment requires that any transfer scheme made under schedule 2 must provide for all the detailed supplemental provisions set out in schedule 2(3)(2). The word "may" has been used to provide a very necessary element of flexibility in the supplemental arrangements. The drawing up of schemes of transfer will be a complex undertaking, and it would be ridiculous to require the schemes to provide for all the supplemental provisions set out in schedule 2(3)(2) irrespective of the particular circumstances.

One of the supplemental provisions, set out in paragraph (3)(2)(e), enables a transfer scheme to provide for continuity of employment. I expected that the debate would concentrate on that point. In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning gave clear assurances about the rights of staff which I am happy to repeat. The contracts of existing water authority staff will be transferred either to the water services plcs or to the National Rivers Authority. The Secretary of State will not approve schemes of transfer made under schedule 2 unless they provide for continuity of employment. Having repeated that assurance, and taking into account the advantage that the Bill's existing wording provides in terms of necessary flexibility, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

On the specific points made by the hon. Member For Burnley, I repeat that the whole point of the mirror image schemes is to make certain that our objective of ensuring that no pensioner is disadvantaged by the act of transferring liability from a water authority to its successor company is achieved and that responsibility for payment is clear both to the recipient and to the body that will be responsible for it. An enormous number of factors will be taken into account in the deeds, including the responsibilities to be transferred to the NRA, gratuity awards, injury allowance, retirement compensation, pension enhancements, and pensions payable to former water authority chairmen and board members through determinations made by the Secretary of State. The question of what is to be in those deeds will be overwritten by our absolute determination that not one pensioner will be disadvantaged. I hope that that clarifies the position. It will probably not deter the hon. Member for Burnley from dividing the House, but I hope that the points I have made will dissuade him from doing so.

Ms. Walley

The Minister referred to the many general aspects to which the schedule refers, but we choose to concentrate on pensions because of our belief that pensions and the long-term interests of water authority employees are of paramount importance. We particularly want to focus attention on protecting employees' long-term interests and pension rights.

We are right to be concerned about the aspects raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Some of the employees about whom we are speaking, when they retire, will have given a lifetime of public service to the water industry, and on reaching the end of their careers they are entitled to the same rights as those that they expected at the beginning of their careers. Some of the Government's proposals relate only to employees' short-term interests and do not properly safeguard pension rights.

The only way of ensuring that workers retain their existing pension rights is by incorporating adequate protection in the Bill. If that cannot be done this. afternoon, I hope that the Minister will agree—as he has in respect of the costs of funding land drainage—to return at a later stage with a safeguard of the kind that the amendment seeks.

Just to concentrate on pensions, it is important to understand the present situation. I should like to clarify that, because most people in the water industry are currently in the water authorities superannuation fund, which is exactly the same as the local authorities superannuation scheme. I do not want to suggest that absolutely everything about it was marvellous—I was lobbied only recently about the way in which women are discriminated against in one small part of the scheme when it comes to widowers' rights—but the point is that the benefits of the scheme are statutory, as is the scheme itself. There is also automatic index-linking of the pensions.

Earlier in the debate the Minister touched on what he referred to as peripheral matters relating to pensions which, in a way, pre-empted the debate that we are having now; but it is equally important that we concentrate on the basic aspects of pensions and index-linking which we would like to see.

5.30 pm

Last year, the water authorities wanted to set up their own pension schemes, linked to privatisation but technically separate. This particular scheme could have advantages in so far as it would not necessarily discriminate against women, but it is a trust-based scheme governed by trustees, so is not statutory. I was very interested in the comments that the Minister made earlier when he talked about mirror image schemes not having any place as a concept when it came to privatisation.

We do not accept that the trust schemes themselves can give exactly the kind of statutory backing that is required now and in the future. That is why we want this amendment changed. We are concerned that index-linking is not guaranteed. The Government now say that the people who go to the National Rivers Authority will be able to maintain their membership of the water authorities superannuation fund but that those who stay with the private companies must choose either to maintain the current accrued benefits, that is, frozen benefits, or transfer to the water authorities scheme, or that each water authority will set up a mirror image of the water authorities superannuation fund.

It is this latter mirror image scheme which concerns us. Any future improvements will not be guaranteed in this scheme and there is constant pressure to remove the elements of the water authorities superannuation fund which discriminate against women, which are likely to change in the not-too-distant future. In addition, the mirror image will be not statutory but trust-based. We ask why it cannot be enshrined in law. We are very concerned lest the trustees change their minds in the future. Although in debate on previous amendments the Minister mentioned that two out of six trustees would be members and also that if any trustees objected to the winding up of a trust fund it would not be wound up, we do not feel that those safeguards are sufficient to protect the long-term pension rights of people who have trusted that their pension rights would be safeguarded for as long as necessary.

One of the problems facing employees—this is something else connected with this amendment which the Minister might like to take up in another place—is that they are now having to choose which pension scheme is best suited to their needs; but people cannot yet make an informed decision because the proposals are still before Parliament, which may change certain features—I hope that we can indeed do so.

It is unfortunate, in view of all this, that the water authorities set a deadline of 31 March 1989, a date which has already passed, to enable employees to transfer to their scheme with pension rights safeguarded. They now say that they will not guarantee the transfer with all qualifying service as of right—that is, transfer on a year-to-year basis of pension payments. They will not say how much and on what terms previous service will count in pension assessment. In view of that, is there any hope that at this very late stage the Government will consider extending the 31 March deadline?

This is another of the amendments by which we would like to make absolutely certain that the present and future well-being of employees is enshrined in the legislation, particularly when it comes to safeguarding the pension rights of people who have been, are and will be employed in the water industry. It is for this reason that we tabled the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 308.

Division No. 135] [5.35 pm
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Darling, Alistair
Allen, Graham Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Alton, David Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Dewar, Donald
Armstrong, Hilary Dixon, Don
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Dobson, Frank
Ashton, Joe Doran, Frank
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Douglas, Dick
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Duffy, A. E. P.
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) Dunnachie, Jimmy
Barron, Kevin Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Battle, John Eadie, Alexander
Beckett, Margaret Eastham, Ken
Beith, A. J. Evans, John (St Helens N)
Bermingham, Gerald Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Bidwell, Sydney Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Blair, Tony Fatchett, Derek
Blunkett, David Faulds, Andrew
Boateng, Paul Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Boyes, Roland Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Bradley, Keith Fisher, Mark
Bray, Dr Jeremy Flannery, Martin
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) Flynn, Paul
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) Foster, Derek
Buchan, Norman Fraser, John
Buckley, George J. Fyfe, Maria
Caborn, Richard Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Callaghan, Jim Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Godman, Dr Norman A.
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Gould, Bryan
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Graham, Thomas
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Cartwright, John Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Grocott, Bruce
Clay, Bob Hardy, Peter
Clelland, David Heffer, Eric S.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Henderson, Doug
Cohen, Harry Hinchliffe, David
Coleman, Donald Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Holland, Stuart
Corbett, Robin Home Robertson, John
Corbyn, Jeremy Hood, Jimmy
Cousins, Jim Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cox, Tom Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Crowther, Stan Howells, Geraint
Cryer, Bob Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Cummings, John Hoyle, Doug
Cunliffe, Lawrence Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Cunningham, Dr John Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Dalyell, Tam Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Primarolo, Dawn
Illsley, Eric Quin, Ms Joyce
Ingram, Adam Radice, Giles
Janner, Greville Randall, Stuart
Johnston, Sir Russell Redmond, Martin
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) Richardson, Jo
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Kennedy, Charles Robertson, George
Kilfedder, James Robinson, Geoffrey
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil Rogers, Allan
Lambie, David Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Leadbitter, Ted Ruddock, Joan
Leighton, Ron Salmond, Alex
Lewis, Terry Sedgemore, Brian
Litherland, Robert Sheerman, Barry
Livsey, Richard Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Skinner, Dennis
Loyden, Eddie Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McAllion, John Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
McAvoy, Thomas Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Macdonald, Calum A. Spearing, Nigel
McFall, John Steel, Rt Hon David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) Steinberg, Gerry
McKelvey, William Stott, Roger
McLeish, Henry Strang, Gavin
Madden, Max Straw, Jack
Mahon, Mrs Alice Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Marek, Dr John Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Turner, Dennis
Martlew, Eric Vaz, Keith
Maxton, John Wall, Pat
Meacher, Michael Wallace, James
Michael, Alun Walley, Joan
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) Wareing, Robert N.
Morgan, Rhodri Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Morley, Elliott Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Marjorie Wigley, Dafydd
Mullin, Chris Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Murphy, Paul Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Nellist, Dave Wilson, Brian
O'Brien, William Winnick, David
O'Neill, Martin Worthington, Tony
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Young, David (Bolton SE)
Parry, Robert
Patchett, Terry Tellers for the Ayes:
Pendry, Tom Mrs. Llin Golding and
Pike, Peter L. Mr. Frank Haynes.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Adley, Robert Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Aitken, Jonathan Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Amess, David Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Amos, Alan Brazier, Julian
Arbuthnot, James Bright, Graham
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ashby, David Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Aspinwall, Jack Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Atkinson, David Buck, Sir Antony
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Budgen, Nicholas
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Burns, Simon
Baldry, Tony Burt, Alistair
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Butcher, John
Bellingham, Henry Butterfill, John
Bendall, Vivian Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Bevan, David Gilroy Carrington, Matthew
Biffen, Rt Hon John Cash, William
Blackburn, Dr John G. Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Chapman, Sydney
Boscawen, Hon Robert Chope, Christopher
Boswell, Tim Churchill, Mr
Bottomley, Peter Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Howard, Michael
Colvin, Michael Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Conway, Derek Howarth, G. (Cannock & B' wd)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Cormack, Patrick Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Couchman, James Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Cran, James Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Critchley, Julian Hunter, Andrew
Currie, Mrs Edwina Irvine, Michael
Curry, David Jack, Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Jackson, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry) Janman, Tim
Day, Stephen Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Devlin, Tim Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dicks, Terry Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dunn, Bob Key, Robert
Durant, Tony King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Dykes, Hugh Kirkhope, Timothy
Eggar, Tim Knapman, Roger
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Evennett, David Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas Knowles, Michael
Fallon, Michael Knox, David
Favell, Tony Lang, Ian
Fenner, Dame Peggy Latham, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Lawrence, Ivan
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey Lee, John (Pendle)
Fishburn, John Dudley Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Forman, Nigel Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Lilley, Peter
Forth, Eric Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fox, Sir Marcus Lord, Michael
Franks, Cecil Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Freeman, Roger Lyell, Sir Nicholas
French, Douglas McCrindle, Robert
Fry, Peter Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Gale, Roger MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Gardiner, George Maclean, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan McLoughlin, Patrick
Gill, Christopher McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Glyn, Dr Alan McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Goodhart, Sir Philip Madel, David
Goodlad, Alastair Major, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Malins, Humfrey
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Mans, Keith
Gorst, John Maples, John
Gow, Ian Marlow, Tony
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Mates, Michael
Gregory, Conal Maude, Hon Francis
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Grist, Ian Mellor, David
Ground, Patrick Miller, Sir Hal
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Mills, Iain
Hague, William Miscampbell, Norman
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Mitchell, Sir David
Hampson, Dr Keith Moate, Roger
Hanley, Jeremy Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hannam, John Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr') Morrison, Sir Charles
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) Moss, Malcolm
Harris, David Moynihan, Hon Colin
Haselhurst, Alan Mudd, David
Hawkins, Christopher Neale, Gerrard
Hayes, Jerry Nelson, Anthony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney Neubert, Michael
Hayward, Robert Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Nicholson, Emma (Devon Wost)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) Norris, Steve
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hill, James Oppenheim, Phillip
Hind, Kenneth Page, Richard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Paice, James
Holt, Richard Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Patnick, Irvine Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Patten, Chris (Bath) Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Patten, John (Oxford W) Sumberg, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geotfrey Tapsell, Sir Peter
Pawsey, James Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Porter, David (Waveney) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Portillo, Michael Temple-Morris, Peter
Powell, William (Corby) Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Price, Sir David Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Raffan, Keith Thorne, Neil
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Thornton, Malcolm
Rathbone, Tim Thurnham, Peter
Redwood, John Townend, John (Bridlington)
Renton, Tim Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Rhodes James, Robert Tracey, Richard
Riddick, Graham Tredinnick, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas Trippier, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Trotter, Neville
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm Twinn, Dr Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Rossi, Sir Hugh Viggers, Peter
Rost, Peter Waddington, Rt Hon David
Rowe, Andrew Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Waldegrave, Hon William
Ryder, Richard Walden, George
Sackville, Hon Tom Waller, Gary
Sainsbury, Hon Tim Walters, Sir Dennis
Sayeed, Jonathan Ward, John
Scott, Nicholas Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) Watts, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Wells, Bowen
Shelton, Sir William Wheeler, John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) Whitney, Ray
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Widdecombe, Ann
Sims, Roger Wiggin, Jerry
Skeet, Sir Trevor Wilkinson, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) Wilshire, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Winterton, Mrs Ann
Soames, Hon Nicholas Wolfson, Mark
Speller, Tony Wood, Timothy
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) Woodcock, Mike
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Yeo, Tim
Squire, Robin Young, Sir George (Acton)
Stanbrook, Ivor Younger, Rt Hon George
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Steen, Anthony Tellers for the Noes:
Stern, Michael Mr. David Lightbown and
Stevens, Lewis Mr. Stephen Dorrell.
Stewart. Allan (Eastwood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to