HC Deb 26 July 1989 vol 157 cc1100-10

Lords Amendment: No. 38, in page 24, line 7, at beginning insert The Commission may from time to time require the employer to give the Commission such information held by the employer, being information to which section 29(1)(a) or (b) of this Act applies, as the Commission may specify; but an employer who has been required on any date to give any information under this subsection shall not be required to do so again before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with that date. (1A)

Mr. Tom King

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 44.

Mr. King

The amendments extend the powers of the commission to require the disclosure of information by the employer. The existing power hinged on the employer's having submitted a monitoring return, and extended only to information supplementing that given in the return. We have released the commission from both those constraints.

Accordingly, the amendment provides that the commission can obtain from the employer any of the information which he might use for monitoring. Thus, where an employer who is not required to monitor applicants holds information on job applicants, the commission will be able to gain access to that information.

The second effect of the amendment is that the commission can exercise its powers whether or not a monitoring return has been submitted. This is to avoid an employer who has neglected to submit a return attempting to get out of disclosing information to the commission on the point that under the Bill as drafted its powers came into play only following submission of a monitoring return.

There are certain restrictions on the commission's total powers of inquiry. We have restricted it to six-monthly intervals. Although the commission has extensive powers of inquiry of employers, a balance must be struck. It is wrong that employers should be continually subjected to repeat inquiries. Therefore, we have set the six-monthly intervals.

The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has argued that the commission's powers should not be so restricted. I know that he will he concerned to achieve credibility for the commission and the voluntary co-operation of employers. There must be some recognition of the fair interests of employers. The commission has no restraint. If it behaved in an unreasonable way, a climate would be created in which people would justifiably feel unwilling to co-operate in reasonable inquiries. We do not believe that the commission would abuse its powers, but we think that, in giving it wide powers, there should be some restriction and protection in these respects for the employer. That is why I do not encourage the House to support the amendment tabled by the hon Member for South Down. I ask the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar)

The Opposition disagree with the Minister's interpretation of this group of amendments, especially No. 38. We argue that the practical implications of the amendment will restrict the ability of the Fair Employment Commission to require employers to supply information. We see it as another example of a Government attempt to restrict the commission's role and we find it unacceptable.

At present, the commission may, after the monitoring return has been received, require an employer to produce further information, as the Minister has outlined. The Commission could, for instance, request a breakdown of the composition of the work force by grade and could then require further details, perhaps to verify that information. We argue that amendment No. 38 will prevent the commission, once the initial request is made, from asking for supplementary information for a further six months. That would be a serious hindrance for the commission in verifying the monitoring returns. It is an incentive to less enlightened employers to prevaricate and obstruct the commission's work. We certainly accept that it is a balancing between the two forces, but we think that, in practical terms, the amendment will work in exactly the opposite way to the Minister's proposal. We therefore oppose amendment No. 38.

The Minister has claimed that the amendment extends the commission's powers in some senses, as it can request information beyond that laid down in the monitoring returns and will be able to ask for information even when a monitoring return has not been submitted. However, we believe that the practical effect of the six-monthly interval will he to constrain the commission's ability to pursue its inquiries unless it resorts to a full-scale investigation. We understand that a full-scale investigation can take place only in limited circumstances and is, by necessity, a cumbersome process. It would not provide an adequate method of dealing with obstructive employers.

We are concerned about amendment No. 39 because it prevents the commission from requiring employers to produce supplementary information about the composition of the work force other than the information relating to the way in which the monitoring returns were compiled. That is an unacceptable limitation on the commission's information-gathering role. Therefore, we will oppose amendment No. 38.

Mr. Eddie McGrady (South Down)

In presenting Lords amendment No. 38 the Minister made generous reference to my starred amendment which appears on the Amendment Paper but has not been selected. I agree Chat it would be improper to impose on employers unjust obligations and unnecessary trouble in making these returns to the Fair Employment Commission.

Lords amendment No. 38 provides that an employer who has been asked for information in the previous six months cannot be asked for "any" information within the ensuing six months. That means that if information is received from an employer that is not explicit or adequate and does not address the point that it should address, the commission may not ask for supplementary information to provide elucidation. That is why I object to the word "any". I have tried to provide a more practical arrangement by substituting the word "that". That would ensure that the commission would not repeat itself in asking for the same information, but it would have the ability to ask for additional information to process the information received in the first volley.

This is an inhibiting administrative defect in the commission's power to pursue for six months the information for which it legally and legitimately asks under the Bill. It would have a stultifying effect on the processing of cases. For that reason, and because of the broader points of principle lucidly stated by the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Mowlam), I oppose amendment No. 38 in its present form.

8.45 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Evidently, information will be stored somewhere from which it can be made available when requested, but that was not the promise made to employees in Northern Ireland. They were told that after they gave the required information about their religion, schools and so on and after the quota was made up, all the information would be destroyed. Now we are told that this information will be stored and will be available to the commission if requested. I should like to know who else will get his hands on that information.

As we know, there is a serious security situation in Northern Ireland. Information like this leads to people being fingered and murdered. The Government have a duty to tell us who has that information. Is it destroyed? Is the undertaking given to employees not really an undertaking but a falsehood? Will this information always be available so that it can then be made available to the commission when it requires it?

Dr. John G. Blackburn (Dudley, West)

I had the opportunity, like many hon. Members, of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill. I think that, on quiet reflection, Members who served will say that matters were debated in a way that brought particular distinction to the House of Commons.

There was general acceptance in Committee that the most important part of the Bill concerned the commission's complete impartiality and its important role. In my judgment, Lords amendment No. 38 is the cornerstone of the Bill. There must be faith and trust in the workings of the commission. If there is not, the Bill will fall into disrepute, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has outlined. It is important that there are some qualifications to it. Having had the opportunity of serving on the Standing Committee, I believe that we should accept the amendment because it shows the weight and force of argument that are placed on the workings of the commission.

I am particularly attracted to the comments of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on safeguards for this information. I stress that there will be a great cry throughout the Province and in the House to ensure that the commission's reports and findings are confidential.

I should like to pay a warm and generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who served with particular distinction as the Minister on the Bill. In addition, this is almost certainly the valediction of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), as he takes up his new appointment. I wish him success.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

When I listened to the comments of hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench, I had the impression that they, and to a lesser extent the Government, were behaving and talking as if there were a vast army of employers in Northern Ireland who spent all their time dreaming up ways to get past laws against discrimination and who were continually and assiduously practising discrimination at every level of employment and in every way they could. In revealing that attitude of mind, they betray the vast gulf between their views and the reality of society in Northern Ireland.

I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he talked about information lying around and being liable to be consulted by other people, some of whom might be of evil intent. Will the departing Secretary of State, before he becomes the departed Secretary of State, tell us whether the Data Protection Act 1984 has any bearing on this information? Will this information be stored in hard form on paper, or is it to be stored on computer? The House and employers want to know that. Will the existing laws governing such information and its storage be transgressed in any way?

Some will say that the Bill is not sufficient. However, having passed the first group of amendments, it will lie permanently in the hands of the House to correct any deficiencies that become apparent. I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) turned down the point we accepted at the beginning of this debate. As shown in columns 65 to 66 of Hansard for Standing Committee B, in refusing to accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), he said that the reason he could not accept it was that it could be a devolved matter. Since the House and the Government have accepted the point this evening, it is clear that the Government accept that there will never be a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, at least into the far future. As a result, it will always lie in the hands of Ministers of whichever party, for the political lifetime of all here, to make any changes they wish.

Mr. Tom King

With all courtesy, I disagree with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam). We discussed the matter a great deal in Committee and she fairly referred today to the point about balance. I have in my previous incarnations debated with Opposition Members the question of balance. The endless pursuit of perfection in legislation has often been the Opposition's objective and they have often not given sufficient consideration to whether such legislation will work. We can pass amazing legislation and Bills of huge complexity, but if they are ineffective or too complicated and do not achieve their objectives, it is a pointless exercise. It is a question of judgment, and we have reached the judgment that our proposals are a sensible way to proceed. I know that the hon. Lady will agree with me—this picks up a point made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—that our proposals will work better if employers come to regard them as a reasonable and sensible requirement.

I could recognise one or two employers in the Province of Northern Ireland who may not rush to carry forward to the ultimate the general principles of the Bill, but there will be many others who are willing to see what they can do, as long as the legislation is reasonable and not hopelessly over-bureaucratic. We have to strike a balance because we do not want to lose their support.

Although the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) dressed it up in rather more lurid colours, he made an important point about confidentiality. He will know that confidentiality of information has been a clear concern of the Government in the preparation of this legislation. He knows that clause 19 is directed specifically to that important point. Clause 19 makes it an offence to disclose information from which a person's religious beliefs could be deduced.

The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also asked me about the Data Protection Act 1984. I can confirm that the Act applies if such information is stored on computers.

Mr. William Ross

Will that point be made clear to all employers?

Mr. King

We shall take steps to try to ensure that employers are aware of all the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps the word "we" is a rather broad description of those who will seek to carry the proposals through. However, I know that we have been anxious—and I am sure that others will be equally anxious—to ensure that information and helpful advice is given to ensure the successful implementation of this legislation. Against that background, I urge the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 89.

Division No. 325] [8.55 pm
Alexander, Richard French, Douglas
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Gale, Roger
Amess, David Garel-Jones, Tristan
Amos, Alan Glyn, Dr Alan
Arbuthnot, James Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Green way, Harry (Ealing N)
Ashby, David Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Atkinson, David Gregory, Conal
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Baldry, Tony Ground, Patrick
Batiste, Spencer Hague, William
Beggs, Roy Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bellingham, Henry Hanley, Jeremy
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Bevan, David Gilroy Harris, David
Blackburn, Dr John G. Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Hill, James
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Hind, Kenneth
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Bowis, John Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Brazier, Julian Hunter, Andrew
Bright, Graham Irvine, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Jack, Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Janman, Tim
Buck, Sir Antony Jessel, Toby
Burns, Simon Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Burt, Alistair Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Butler, Chris Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Butterfill, John Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Kilfedder, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Carrington, Matthew Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Carttiss, Michael Latham, Michael
Cash, William Lawrence, Ivan
Chapman, Sydney Lightbown, David
Chope, Christopher Lilley, Peter
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n) Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) McCrindle, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Cope, Rt Hon John McLoughlin, Patrick
Cormack, Patrick Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Couchman, James Meyer, Sir Anthony
Cran, James Miller, Sir Hal
Currie, Mrs Edwina Mills, Iain
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Davis, David (Boothferry) Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Day, Stephen Morrison, Sir Charles
Dorrell, Stephen Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Moss, Malcolm
Dover, Den Moynihan, Hon Colin
Durant, Tony Nelson, Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter Neubert, Michael
Fallon, Michael Nicholls, Patrick
Fenner, Dame Peggy Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Fishburn, John Dudley Oppenheim, Phillip
Fookes, Dame Janet Page, Richard
Forman, Nigel Paice, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Paisley, Rev Ian
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) Patnick, Irvine
Forth, Eric Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Franks, Cecil Porter, David (Waveney)
Freeman, Roger Portillo, Michael
Raffan, Keith Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Temple-Morris, Peter
Redwood, John Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) Thurnham, Peter
Ross, William (Londonderry E) Tredinnick, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh Twinn, Dr Ian
Rowe, Andrew Viggers, Peter
Ryder, Richard Waddington, Rt Hon David
Sackville, Hon Tom Walden, George
Shaw, David (Dover) Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Waller, Gary
Shersby, Michael Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Skeet, Sir Trevor Wells, Bowen
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Wheeler, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) Widdecombe, Ann
Speller, Tony Winterton, Mrs Ann
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Winterton, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor Wolfson, Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John Wood, Timothy
Steen, Anthony Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Stern, Michael
Stevens, Lewis Tellers for the Ayes:
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.
Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Summerson, Hugo
Alton, David Kennedy, Charles
Anderson, Donald Kirkwood, Archy
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Leighton, Ron
Armstrong, Hilary Lewis, Terry
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Loyden, Eddie
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) McAvoy, Thomas
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) McCartney, Ian
Battle, John McGrady, Eddie
Beckett, Margaret McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Bell, Stuart McNamara, Kevin
Benn, Rt Hon Tony McWilliam, John
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Madden, Max
Boateng, Paul Mahon, Mrs Alice
Bray, Dr Jeremy Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Buckley, George J. Meale, Alan
Callaghan, Jim Michael, Alun
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Morley, Elliot
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Mowlam, Marjorie
Clelland, David Nellist, Dave
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Patchett, Terry
Cohen, Harry Pendry, Tom
Cousins, Jim Pike, Peter L.
Cryer, Bob Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Cummings, John Prescott, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Richardson, Jo
Dixon, Don Rogers, Allan
Duffy, A. E. P. Salmond, Alex
Eadie, Alexander Short, Clare
Fatchett, Derek Skinner, Dennis
Fearn, Ronald Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Steel, Rt Hon David
Flannery, Martin Steinberg, Gerry
Flynn, Paul Vaz, Keith
Foster, Derek Wall, Pat
Galloway, George Wallace, James
Godman, Dr Norman A. Warded, Gareth (Gower)
Gordon, Mildred Wareing, Robert N.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Winnick, David
Hinchliffe, David Wise, Mrs Audrey
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Worthington, Tony
Home Robertson, John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Tellers for the Noes:
Ingram, Adam Mr. Frank Cook and
Johnston, Sir Russell Mr. Frank Haynes.
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos.39 to 44 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 25, line 30, after "and" insert in a case where it was reasonably practicable for him to comply with it after that time, to show

Mr. Tom King

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 47 and 61.

Mr. Tom King

I shall address my remarks to the first amendment, as it is an example of the others. It is designed to cover the possibility that an employer who was required to supply information to the commission under clause 31 fails to do so within the specified time, and for genuine reasons is unable to meet the requirements thereafter.

The clause as it left this House provided a "reasonable excuse" defence for an employer who could not meet the requirement for information within the specified time. What it did not do, however, was provide a defence for an employer who could not provide the information even after the specified time—by reason, for example, of his personnel records being accidentally destroyed. This amendment allows the commission to recognise those circumstances, and to make appropriate allowances. It does not, however—I stress this—provide an employer with an excuse for not providing information on time: it therefore does not weaken the enforcement provisions made by the Bill. Similar amendments are made to clause 35 and 44.

Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South)

The House will recall that in replying to the previous debate, the Secretary of State said that he thought that the Opposition were seeking perfection and that if perfection were enshrined in the legislation, it would be extremely difficult to make the legislation work in practice. Perhaps Hansard will make it clear whether that was a distortion or a paraphrase. However, the right hon. Gentleman certainly said that Opposition Members are trying to make the Bill more complicated than it needs to be to do the job that the Government and the Opposition wish it to do.

Throughout the lengthy proceedings on the Bill, although we accept the Government's good intent in fair employment and other key issues, Opposition Members have said that the Government have not gone far enough to ensure that the legislation will be strong enough to provide for fair employment within the Province. Time and again the Secretary of State has exhibited a tendency to rely on the word "reasonable"—what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. In moving amendment No. 45 he used the reasonableness argument again. To underline his reasonableness, he said that the amendment will not aid employers who wish to thwart the implementation of the fair employment legislation.

The Opposition disagree with the Secretary of State on that. That is why we shall vote against amendment No. 45. The amendment further weakens the legislation and will provide some employers—we do not suggest that there will be many—who do not want to be reasonable, who are not the reasonable men to whom the Secretary of State refers, and who wish to thwart the spirit of the legislation with another line of defence if they fail to comply with the wishes or orders of the tribunal.

As the Secretary of State correctly said, as the Bill stands, an employer who fails to provide information upon request from the commission is liable to conviction, but he has two defences open to him. First, he can show that he has a reasonable excuse—namely, unreasonable cost or inconvenience. Secondly, he can show that it was not practicable for him to comply or try to comply with the requirements before proceedings began. Amendment No. 45 adds the further defence that an employer feels that it is not reasonably practicable to supply information. Amendment No. 45 will place a further restraint on the commission's ability to obtain necessary evidence to identify persistent discriminators.

The Government argue that the amendments are necessary to protect employers from reasonable circumstances—namely, the destruction of records by fire, an act of terrorism, or an act of God. However, the Secretary of State is sufficiently long in the tooth to know that, if that defence is available to employers, every employer who fails to comply with a request will run off to his solicitor or barrister to erect a defence that he can put forward as reasonable. The Secretary of State does not want to give such an opening to recalcitrant or persistent discriminators in the Province. He knows that some people are prepared to spend large amounts of money to be defended in the courts. Solicitors and barristers in the Province will have a field day trying to erect defences which comply with the reasonableness aspect of the amendment.

I do not know whether the Secretary of State has followed through the consequences of the amendment. There are now three defences. The third defence, provided by the Lords amendment, is on the question of reasonableness. It is our view that more employers will be able to get round the requirements of the fair employment legislation. I know that the Secretary of State is busy contemplating pastures new, but I wonder whether it has crossed his mind in the past few days that the consequence of the amendment will be further to water down the contract compliance provisions in the Bill.

9.15 pm

The Secretary of State will know that the Bill contains a complex procedure for an employer ultimately to be deemed an unqualified person under the terms of the Act. Only after that exceedingly complex procedure has been undertaken can the contract and grant provisions come into operation. This group of amendments makes it even harder to visualise the contract compliance provisions ever being used. If the threat is no longer real, the provisions will be further undermined.

Even at this late stage we urge the Government to think again so that the Secretary of State's last act is not to make fair employment legislation inoperable in practice.

Mr. Tom King

We make no apology for seeking to establish a reasonable basis for the Bill. We come back to the question of judgment. The matter depends partly on one's judgment and partly on whether one understands the law.

There is an error in what the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said. It is not sufficient for an employer simply to have a reasonable excuse. He must also comply as soon as reasonably practicable, or prove that the proceedings were brought too soon. There is greater protection than the hon. Gentleman appreciates. Our reasonable basis is even more reasonable than he may realise.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 77.

Division No. 326] [9.17 pm
Alexander, Richard Hague, William
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Alton, David Hampson, Dr Keith
Amess, David Hanley, Jeremy
Amos, Alan Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Arbuthnot, James Harris, David
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Ashby, David Heathcoat-Amory, David
Atkinson, David Hill, James
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Hind, Kenneth
Baldry, Tony Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Batiste, Spencer Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Beggs, Roy Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Bellingham, Henry Hunter, Andrew
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Irvine, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy Jack, Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G. Janman, Tim
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Jessel, Toby
Boswell, Tim Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Johnston, Sir Russell
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Bowis, John Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Kennedy, Charles
Brazier, Julian Kilfedder, James
Bright, Graham King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Kirkwood, Archy
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Buck, Sir Antony Knox, David
Burns, Simon Latham, Michael
Burt, Alistair Lawrence, Ivan
Butler, Chris Lightbown, David
Butterfill, John Lilley, Peter
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) McCrindle, Robert
Carrington, Matthew MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Carttiss, Michael Maclean, David
Cash, William McLoughlin, Patrick
Chapman, Sydney Meyer, Sir Anthony
Chope, Christopher Miller, Sir Hal
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Mills, lain
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Cope, Rt Hon John Morrison, Sir Charles
Couchman, James Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Cran, James Moss, Malcolm
Currie, Mrs Edwina Moynihan, Hon Colin
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Nelson, Anthony
Davis, David (Boothferry) Neubert, Michael
Day, Stephen Nicholls, Patrick
Dorrell, Stephen Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Oppenheim, Phillip
Dover, Den Page, Richard
Durant, Tony Paice, James
Dykes, Hugh Paisley, Rev Ian
Fallon, Michael Patnick, Irvine
Fenner, Dame Peggy Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Fishburn, John Dudley Porter, David (Waveney)
Fookes, Dame Janet Portillo, Michael
Forman, Nigel Raffan, Keith
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Forth, Eric Redwood, John
Franks, Cecil Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Freeman, Roger Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
French, Douglas Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Gale, Roger Rossi, Sir Hugh
Garel-Jones, Tristan Rowe, Andrew
Glyn, Dr Alan Ryder, Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Shaw, David (Dover)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Gregory, Conal Shersby, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ground, Patrick Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Speller, Tony Walden, George
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Stanbrook, Ivor Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John Wallace, James
Steen, Anthony Waller, Gary
Stern, Michael Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Stevens, Lewis Wells, Bowen
Stradling Thomas, Sir John Wheeler, John
Summerson, Hugo Widdecombe, Ann
Taylor, Ian (Esher) Winterton, Mrs Ann
Temple-Morris, Peter Winterton, Nicholas
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) Wolfson, Mark
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) Wood, Timothy
Thurnham, Peter
Tredinnick, David Tellers for the Ayes:
Twinn, Dr Ian Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.
Viggers, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David
Anderson, Donald Lewis, Terry
Armstrong, Hilary Loyden, Eddie
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) McAvoy, Thomas
Battle, John McCartney, Ian
Beckett, Margaret McGrady, Eddie
Benn, Rt Hon Tony McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) McNamara, Kevin
Boateng, Paul McWilliam, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy Madden, Max
Buckley, George J. Mahon, Mrs Alice
Caborn, Richard Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Callaghan, Jim Meale, Alan
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Michael, Alun
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Clelland, David Morley, Elliot
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Mowlam, Marjorie
Cohen, Harry Nellist, Dave
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Patchett, Terry
Cousins, Jim Pendry, Tom
Cryer, Bob Pike, Peter L.
Cummings, John Richardson, Jo
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Rogers, Allan
Dixon, Don Salmond, Alex
Duffy, A. E. P. Short, Clare
Eadie, Alexander Skinner, Dennis
Fatchett, Derek Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) Steinberg, Gerry
Flannery, Martin Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Flynn, Paul Vaz, Keith
Foster, Derek Wall, Pat
Galloway, George Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Godman, Dr Norman A. Wareing, Robert N.
Gordon, Mildred Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Worthington, Tony
Hinchliffe, David Wray, Jimmy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ray Powell.
Ingram, Adam
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 69 agreed to.

Forward to