HC Deb 24 April 1991 vol 189 cc1136-48
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 27, at end insert— 'Radioactive Substances Act 1960 (c. 34) 4A.—(l) For the purposes of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, so far as relating to authorisations required under section 6(1) of that Act for the disposal of radioactive waste, a relevant site in designated premises shall be treated as a site in respect of which a nuclear site licence is for the time being in force. (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, "relevant site" means a site used by a contractor for the purposes of any activity which would, if section I of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 applied in relation to the site, require a nuclear site licence.'. This is a technical amendment. Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, there are two different regimes for authorising the disposal of radioactive waste. Nuclear power stations and other major nuclear sites which are subject to licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 are regulated jointly by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Other sites which dispose of much smaller quantities of radioactive material are regulated by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution alone.

AWE is currently exempt from both Acts, although both HMIP and MAFF fulfil a quasi-regulatory role at AWE sites by administrative arrangement.

Under the Bill as amended in Committee, AWE will remain exempt from the licensing provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act but will become subject to the Radioactive Substances Act. A consequence is that, although HMIP will acquire a statutory role in authorising disposals of radioactive waste at AWE, MAFF will not, as none of the AWE sites will be licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act.

After discussion with MAFF, we have decided that it would be appropriate for MAFF to have a statutory role in authorising radioactive discharges at those AWE sites—Aldermaston and Burghfield—which would be subject to licensing under the Nuclear Installations Act were it not for the exemption provided in paragraph 5 of the schedule to this Bill. The amendment which we are now discussing has been drafted to achieve that purpose. Although it appears in the schedule, it does not confer any exemption upon the contractorised AWE; on the contrary, it imposes an extra layer of statutory regulation, and thus an extra environmental safetguard, by giving MAFF a role as well as HMIP. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. McWilliam

I thank the Minister for his explanation. We do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

7.7 pm

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am delighted to move the Third Reading of this Bill. We have spent some time taking the Bill through Committee and are now approaching a conclusion. I should like to explain the general purpose of the Bill, which is to meet the requirements of the Trident programme.

We believe that the Bill will improve the operation of manufacturing at AWE, thereby guaranteeing as effectively as possible our independent nuclear deterrent. Hon. Members will recall that I have often said that our Trident programme is on time at AWE, but production targets are becoming tighter, and to meet those targets we believe that we must organise manufacturing at AWE as effectively as possible by introducing the expertise of the private sector.

I also stress that we are not privatising AWE. All the property, assets and equipment will remain the property of the Secretary of State for Defence. What we are putting into private hands is AWE's organisation of manufacturing, which can best be carried out by people with the skill and experience that come from organising a manufacturing enterprise.

This is not to cast slurs on the abilities of the people at AWE, for whose qualities we have the highest regard. They are among the most skilled in their sphere in the world, and they are dedicated to helping us to secure our deterrent. We believe, however, that efficient manufacturing is best achieved by those with experience of manufacturing in the private sector. Therefore, the best way forward for AWE is for the operation to be contractorised. The path is already familiar to the House because we took it with the royal dockyards. They, too, have excellent staff, with exceptional skills and knowledge. It is fair to recognise, none the less, that the talents of the AWE work force do not lie primarily in areas of manufacturing.

Various serious concerns have been expressed by my hon. Friends who have constituency interests and by Opposition Members during many debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I am confident that the fears have been met.

There have been fundamental fears, for example, about security. I have often said that the Secretary of State is the ultimate guarantor for security. He can ensure in a number of ways that there is proper security, and we went into those in detail on Report. If the Secretary of State is worried about security, his special shares in the employing company provide him with the ultimate sanction of cancelling the contract and taking back the employing company. We do not expect that to happen, because there are several steps that could be taken before the ultimate sanctions were employed. As I have said, the ultimate sanction rests with the Secretary of State in the interests of the state's security.

The House has been greatly concerned with safety. The Government are obviously extremely concerned about safety and accept that it is of paramount importance. I think that I have satisfied the House that all the existing safeguards will remain. Again, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible for safety. Several extra safeguards have been introduced. Safety will be written deeply into the contract, and the contractor, will have an incentive to ensure that safety is of the highest level. He will suffer under the terms of the contract if he does not fulfil his obligations to ensure the proper level of safety.

Sir Anthony Durant

I apologise for not being in my place when there was reference to the escape of tritium. There is no doubt that there is concern about it. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will talk to the establishment in advance of contractorisation to ensure that everything is secure? There are anxieties now, and I hope that my hon. Friend will go to the site and talk to those concerned about current safety.

Mr. Carlisle

I know that my hon. Friend has been worried about a tiny leak of tritium. I can confirm that there was an extremely small leak on 19 February in an area where research was taking place that is not central to the existing operation by Hunting-BRAE, which is concentrated on manufacturing. The regulating authorities were informed. As I have said, the release was extremely minor. No member of the public would have received exposure of more than 1 microSievert. The House will know that members of the public receive every year, on average, more than 2,000 times as much radioactivity as that from natural and background sources.

The leak has been investigated, and we are expecting a report soon. I shall be surprised if we do not accept all the recommendations that are contained in the report. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and his constituents.

As I have said, safety will be written into the contract. There will be support from the compliance office that we are setting up. As a last step—this course was not available when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was managing the manufacturing—the contractor could be taken to court.

Some concern has been expressed about terms and conditions. These will be protected by the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. We have guaranteed that pensions will be as good as they are now, as will terms of redundancy. We do not expect any redundancies so long as we are true to the Trident programme. The order book stretches securely into the future.

Our aim is to secure a nuclear deterrent and to ensure that the manufacturing effort is conducted on time and as efficiently as is possible. We have before us a sensible Bill that contains strong safeguards to protect national interests and AWE employees. I commend the Bill to the House.

7.16 pm
Mr. Rogers

For all the reasons that the Minister has advanced in support of the Bill, we shall vote against it. It is obvious that the measure was conceived out of the Government's incompetence and that their incompetence extended into the drafting of it. On many issues that we discussed on Second Reading and in Committee, we were extremely unhappy. Indeed, both Conservative and Opposition Members expressed reservations about some of the Bill's provisions. The hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said on one occasion that he supported the Bill in principle, although he did not support some of the details. That seemed a daft approach.

Many of the issues that have been raised this evening were debated in Committee. The more that we examined the Bill the more we were confirmed in our view that the Government are extremely bad at managing the procurement of nuclear warheads and weapons and of defence equipment in general. Our view was confirmed by the Select Committee on Defence. When examining the production of Trident, it became extremely concerned about extensive delays and overruns in cost and in time. It is beyond me to understand how the Minister can say that he is happy with the Trident nuclear programme.

The Select Committee dealt with the Government's feeble attempt to redress the system that prevailed in Aldermaston before bringing in 22 managers at £25 million a year. The Select Committee took the view that the result was different levels of payments to different grades in different ways so as to cause division and dissension, even when more money had been paid. It seemed that employees asked to be returned to a lower grade where they could earn more money.

The Government say that the management of Aldermaston was poor in their hands. I can understand that. Surely it is perverse for the Minister to use his incompetence to justify privatisation. It is because the Government are so poor at doing their job that they have introduced this privatisation measure. The Minister has told us that, if the Government are to meet their nuclear deterrent programme and provide a proper defence for the country, it is essential to privatise the manufacturing section.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rogers

The hon. Member was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, but he has been absent during today's proceedings until recently. It happens that he worked at Aldermaston. As he was part of the shambles that existed there, he should take some of the blame. Therefore, I shall not give way to him now.

The Minister says that he is not privatising but contractorising. However, as can be seen from column 47 of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, previously he said that the Government were privatising. It is privatisation, certainly of the intellectual aspects of the production of nuclear warheads and of the production itself. The fact that the Government are retaining the physical aspects of Aldermaston under their control simply means that they are acting as the landlord or the janitor. We are discussing the production of some of the most fearsome weapons known to mankind. We are concerned about the proliferation of those weapons and the fact that there is no real control over the penetration of the installations by people from other countries. The Bill contains no safeguards to prevent such penetration because the Government have removed civil service status from the people working at that establishment.

I should have liked to talk about a number of aspects at length, but I shall desist because of the pressure of time. In particular, I should have liked to speak of the Government's appalling inefficiency and mismanagement in the construction of the A90 building. Time and again, we have alerted the Government to the problems with the building, not only in its roof, but in the stainless steel tanks that have welding problems and may allow the emission of toxic and radioactive gases into the atmosphere. The building was privately constructed and the work supposedly was carried out to British Nuclear Fuels specifications. Much of the work had to be redone because it was unsafe. Who picked up the bill for all that additional work? It was the taxpayer. That does not fill me with confidence about the Bill's proposals for the production, supervision, safety and ultimate delivery of the finished product.

When I raised those matters in Committee, the Minister dismissed them and said that I was wrong and was scaremongering. He said: the problems of the capital programme are now firmly in the past. The A90 construction work is now complete. Several hon. Members referred to the problems with the duct work, which was acknowledged to be unsatisfactory. It has now been replaced by suitable materials.… I have seen the A90 building…and it is a very good one. Installation of the equipment is largely complete and commissioning of the building and equipment are now under way. We shall be able to meet the requirements for production of Trident, and I am pleased to say that the Trident programme is on course to meet its in-service date by the mid-1990s. There is already two or three years' slippage in the programme. He continued: An unsatisfactory situation has now been brought up to date through the various steps which we have taken. Work on the building is on time, it will meet the programme and it is safe."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F,19 February 1991; c. 242.] During the past week, we have seen just how safe it is. Answers from the Secretary of State have also shown that the work is not on time. Perhaps he could tell his Minister that.

Many of the issues that we have not had the opportunity to discuss this evening relate to control, accountability, certain aspects of safety, security, financial control, the general efficiency of the establishment, and other options that have not been considered. I am sure that hon. Members who represented Aldermaston, Burghfield, Cardiff and Foulness would have supported our amendments had they had the opportunity to do so, but they had not because of the Government Whip. I am referring to such matters as funded redundancy to ensure that after, TUPE 1981 plus one day, the work force would have the security that the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West said that he wanted for his constituents. He did not have the gumption to vote for our amendment, but perhaps he will vote with us on Third Reading. At least some of his hon. Friends abstained because they recognised the fundamental flaws in the Bill.

We need to derive into the issue of the contract. It is incredible that, at least two years after the proposition came to the fore, the Minister still cannot tell us what is likely to be in the final contract. For a year, some 22 people from a contractor have been operating under phase 1 of the contract, but we still have no information about the contract. Time and again in Committee, the Minister said that he could not tell us what would be in the contract because he did not know. That was an awful admission. After all this time, he still has no idea of what will be in the contract for the production of nuclear warheads. That is a sad and sorry admission, but it is in line with the clear fact that the Bill has arisen out of the Government's incompetence—an incompetence that has not stopped.

7.26 pm
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson

I have already explained why I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate and in the Committee proceedings. I am glad that I have sat through the remaining stages and Third Reading. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who has shown extraordinary patience despite being sorely provoked by many unreasonable arguments. He answered the points made extraordinary well and comprehensively. I thank him for his answers to my questions.

I well remember going to see Mr. William Rodgers when he was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence. It was a year or two after I had become the Member of Parliament for Newbury. I asked whether I could be shown around what was then called the AWRE at Aldermaston. He was polite, but he said, "Michael, we do not allow Members of Parliament to go around the establishment because of the problem with security clearance. We do not want to get involved in that area, because we are not sure what might arise." Now, many Members of Parliament have been around that establishment, and I like to think that my representations made some difference to the thinking of the Ministry of Defence about opening the establishment to Members of Parliament and the Select Committee.

The Bill is about the contractorisation of the four atomic weapons establishments. Perhaps it is because Aldermaston falls within my constituency that I think that it is the jewel in the crown. Ever since it was a wartime airfield, and then a leading establishment in the nuclear arms programme established by the first Labour Government after the war, it has played a leading role in the defence of our country. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said about its work force. They have given marvellous service to this country. They are extremely skilled. I suspect that the expertise that Lord Penney assembled around him at Aldermaston was the envy of many other establishements throughout the world. Aldermaston has been responsible for Polaris, Chevaline, and now Trident. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that the Trident programme is on time and will meet the needs of our nation.

I relate that history only to make the point that Aldermaston has existed for four decades. To argue that the management structure that was right in the beginning continues to be right—regardless of the changes in the nuclear arms industry—is to put one's head in the sand. Indeed, it is no longer called AWRE Aldermaston, but AWE Aldermaston.

We must all be aware of the criticisms of the A90 project and the other difficulties that have arisen as Aldermaston has moved from being a research and development centre to a production centre like Burghfield. Therefore, I entirely endorse the contractorisation proposals in the Bill. The management structure that the Government have chosen is right, as will be shown—as my hon. Friend suggested in his statement—by the Trident programme.

Different management skills are needed now from those that were in place when research and development were predominant. Moreover, despite the fact that some hon. Members found criticisms in the Select Committee's report, its ninth report, published last June, stated that the Atomic Weapons Establishment was suffering from serious problems that required effective remedies. The Select Committee supported the idea of outside management expertise and endorsed the Ministry of Defence's thinking. Bearing in mind the fact that it is an all-party the fact Committee, it made it difficult for the trade unions' wish to maintain the status quo. That seems to be the right approach to the new problems confronting the establishments.

Such action logically leads to the Bill. I recognise that, at this stage of the proceedings, some will continue to be sceptical about the proposals and others who are concerned about future profits, job security, pensions and redundancies within the new structure. However, my hon. Friend the Minister will have reassured them tonight on those points.

The unions are right to ask to be consulted, and I hope that no modern management would ignore their plea. The unions state that the continuing morale and confidence of the work force will be of the greatest importance to the success of the contractorisation, as it will be to future recruitment. I am sure that that is uppermost in the minds of contractors. I also agree with the unions about the need to demonstrate a commitment to the highest levels of safety. It was useful to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about the role of the compliance officer and his overview of general safety. It is good to know that parliamentary scrutiny will continue and that Ministers will still be accountable to Members of Parliament about safety at Aldermaston. It is also good to know that COMARE will continue to impose inspections when emission problems arise.

The assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister, taken with the objectives of contractorisation, will ensure a new future for Aldermaston and Burghfield. Both establishments have served us well and have a greater chance to serve us even better in the future.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) about the apparent inexhaustible patience of the Minister. However, I regret to part company with him when he says that the Minister has been sorely provoked by unconscionable arguments. If there has been provocation, it has arisen because of the Bill, which the Minister has often properly described as very narrow terms. It has been drawn in narrow terms to ensure that the maximum power and responsibility rest with the Executive and that the legislature has little to do with the way in which the principal proposal in the Bill is implemented. That is a matter of great regret, as is the failure of the Government to accept the compelling argument that the position of the compliance officer and her responsibilities for Atomic Weapons Establishments should have been enshrined in legislation and in express and specific statutory duties.

We are being invited to pass into law a Bill that depends on the Ministry of Defence's ability to negotiate a contract in effective terms. That will depend on the ability of the Ministry of Defence to enforce that contract, once it has been entered into, and, crucially, on the capacity of a private company to implement the terms and conditions of that contract. That is far too risky and flimsy a basis upon which to rest a matter as important as the nuclear weapons capability of the United Kingdom.

The issues that were raised on Second Reading have not been dealt with properly by the Government. For that reason, the Bill deserves to be rejected.

Mr. Brazier

I had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) in commending my hon. Friend the Minister for his patience in Committee in the face of some very repetitive and often badly argued comments from the Opposition. I strongly support the Bill, and remind the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that Conservative Members believe that the private sector is better at managing manufacturing operations because we have the modesty to see that, on the whole, private business is better at it than Governments.

I wish to raise just one of a number of points that my hon. Friend the Minister was good enough to discuss with me; indeed, it is the only issue that has not been fully resolved. It concerns research at Aldermaston. It is important to remember that, although there have been considerable problems about manufacturing, our research effort at Aldermaston remains world class. It is the envy of the Americans, for example, who never cease to be amazed at how the comparatively minute sums of money that we spend on research produce such great benefits. The Americans spend colossal sums in comparison. Nevertheless, our relationship with the large American facilities is important.

The basic problem with bringing in a contractor to manage research as well as production and development is that contractors do very little work in pure research, at least in the physics environment. If we are to ensure that we get the best of both worlds—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to ensure that we do—and all the benefits of improvements in manufacturing that flow from the extension of contractorisation while keeping our world class reputation for research, we must safeguard the contract structure for our research facilities.

I have in mind two safeguards drawn from the American analogy. In the United States, there is a considerable distinction between the contractorisation of the research side, which is held in the three main establishments by non-profit-making organisations. In two cases the contractor is the university of California and in the third it is a non-profit-making trust, which is a subsidiary of a profit-making company.

The two safeguards that I propose are, first, that the contracts for research must be administered by the chief scientific adviser and not by the Procurement Executive. In America, we have seen how successfully the Department of Energy manages the research contracts. They do so on a long-term basis, with five-year contracts that are assessed in arrears as opposed to the short-term approach of the Pentagon's procurement staff, adopted with other defence research facilities. I suggest that the chief scientific adviser should manage the contracts.

Secondly, the contract must be based on a system in which an outside body assesses the work at the end of a certain period when the bulk of the profit margin is awarded as a single sum so that the contractor does not, as so easily happens, find himself faced with large sums of money being spent on production and development work, on which their main attention is focused, and the small sums that are spent, perhaps on a cost-plus basis, on research get ignored. The talent can thus be sucked away from research into assisting development and production.

That is the only major aspect of the Bill that continues to concern me, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider those matters. I do not expect him to comment on them in detail when he replies to the debate. I remain convinced that the Bill is correct because I firmly believe that the private sector will manage the development and manufacturing side better at Aldermaston than any Government could and that it will provide the opportunity for the staff there to improve further their performance.

7.39 pm
Mr. McWilliam

I should like to take this opportunity to correct one or two of the misapprehensions voiced by Conservative Members, particularly those of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson). First, the trade unions were extremely helpful to the Select Committee on Defence when we were considering the problems of Aldermaston. No Opposition Member has argued recently that there was nothing wrong. We know that there is something wrong. The Select Committee reported that there was something wrong, made that clear to the House and made recommendations about ways in which we could correct the matter.

In the Bill, the Government have, as usual, gone too far. The trade unions made extremely helpful and forward-thinking suggestions, and have continued to do so. The view of the Select Committee, which was unanimous and which my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and I signed——

Mr. Home Robertson

I was not a member at the time.

Mr. McWilliam

I am sorry—my hon. Friend was not then a member. The report stated that there should be an injection of private expertise, but not privatisation.

I should also remind the Minister that it was not the public sector that ripped off the British taxpayer over the construction of the A90 buildings, but the private sector. Therefore, let us have no illusions about whether there are good and bad people in the private sector—there are.

The other factor that should concern Conservative Members, but does not seem to, is that the Americans managed to let the private sector destroy their atomic weapons production establishment at Rocky Flats because they were more interested in making money than in safety and making safe weapons. That establishment is now shut and cannot reopen where it was because it is no longer safe to be there. Private sector expertise did not help the Americans very much with that establishment.

I should remind Conservative Members who were not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee that the Minister has always relied on what he can get into the contract. When the Opposition attempted to introduce a schedule to set out some principles that should be included in the contract, he resisted our proposals. Therefore, we can have no confidence that the basic safeguards for which we are asking will be in the contract because we shall not see it—at least, not right away. We shall see it soon when the next general election comes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) becomes the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. What is more, I am certain that, knowing my hon. Friend, he will take an early opportunity to make a statement to the House on the contract's shortcomings and how he intends to deal with them—but I am sure that he will deal with that issue in his own reply.

The Bill is the last piece of privatisation legislation to receive its Third Reading in the House. It does not deserve that Third Reading. It is the dying gasp of an outmoded, doctrinaire Conservative philosophy, epitomised by the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, which seems to have been set up. It will not have the effect that the Minister wants, and will not protect the nation in the way that our practical suggestion of a "next steps" agency would. We did not say, "Don't do anything." We have tried to be practical and to help all the way, but the Minister has been unwilling even to accept our sensible amendments about safety, health and foreign ownership. On that basis, the Bill does not deserve a Third Reading, and I intend to vote against it.

7.45 pm
Mr. Morgan

It is not often that a Member for Cardiff rises in the Chamber twice in a week to oppose privatisation measures that affect his constituency. A few days ago, I opposed privatisation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and now I am opposing the privatisation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Cardiff, North constituency contains the third, or perhaps equal second, largest plant in the AWE empire.

This is not a popular measure in the Cardiff district. Two specific allegations relating to safety have been put to me, and I think it is important for the Minister to hear about them and deal with them. If we transpose beryllium for tritium, one of the allegations about the Atomic Weapons Establishment bears an uncanny resemblance to the incident at Aldermaston that has emerged in the public domain. I have been told that the handling procedure at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Llanishen, in respect of beryllium powder when it is melted to make beryllium alloy, malfunctions from time to time.

When that happens, it illustrates a classic case of the sort of choices that the private contractor would face—whether to abide by the safety regulations and contaminate his stock of argon gas or to contaminate the atmosphere which my constituents and those of Cardiff, North have to breathe.

The beryllium alloy is melted inside a steel tube, which is pressurised to 18,000 lb per square inch in argon gas. When the steel tube bursts, as it inevitably does every five or 10 years, the argon gas should be vented back to the argon gas store and contaminates it. That is hard luck on the argon gas, as it must then be disposed of because it has beryllium in it, which is as toxic to the human chest as asbestos. In some ways, it is not as bad as radiation, but in other ways, its toxic effects can be worse in the shorter term. Unfortunately, the standard handling procedure for that very rare occurrence is to vent to atmosphere, rather than back to the argon store.

The second allegation is even more tricky and sensitive, and involves how private contractors would deal with any incident within the plant. Often when maintenance procedures are being carried out, people have to wear protective clothing. I have been told that no personnel are to appear out of doors within the plant complex dressed in protective gear in case that alarms people on the buses that go past the plant on their way up to the Llanishen council estate, Caerphilly and Rhiwbina. We should remember that the Cardiff establishment, unlike the other AWE establishments, is in the middle of a densely populated residential district in a large city of 300,000.

Such issues must be sorted out. We must determine the standard procedures that are to be used before the Bill becomes law and before it comes back to this House from the other place. I am not satisfied that the Minister has faced up to his responsibilities. He has not confronted the safety issues and the relationship of the establishment to the local community to enable me to act on behalf of my constituents and support the Government. As a result, I shall be in the No Lobby tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 155.

Division No. 126] [7.47 pm
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Cope, Rt Hon John
Amess, David Cormack, Patrick
Amos, Alan Couchman, James
Arbuthnot, James Cran, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Critchley, Julian
Ashby, David Currie, Mrs Edwina
Atkins, Robert Curry, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Davis, David (Boothferry)
Baldry, Tony Day, Stephen
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Devlin, Tim
Bellingham, Henry Dorrell, Stephen
Bendall, Vivian Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Dover, Den
Benyon, W. Durant, Sir Anthony
Bevan, David Gilroy Dykes, Hugh
Biffen, Rt Hon John Evennett, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Body, Sir Richard Fallon, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Favell, Tony
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Fishburn, John Dudley
Bowis, John Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Fox, Sir Marcus
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Franks, Cecil
Brazier, Julian Freeman, Roger
Bright, Graham French, Douglas
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Fry, Peter
Burns, Simon Gale, Roger
Burt, Alistair Gardiner, Sir George
Butterfill, John Gill, Christopher
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Goodhart, Sir Philip
Carrington, Matthew Goodlad, Alastair
Carttiss, Michael Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Chope, Christopher Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Churchill, Mr Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth) Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcllfie) Gregory, Conal
Colvin, Michael Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Grist, Ian Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hague, William Moss, Malcolm
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) Neale, Sir Gerrard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Nelson, Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith Neubert, Sir Michael
Hannam, John Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') Nicholls, Patrick
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Harris, David Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Haselhurst, Alan Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hawkins, Christopher Oppenheim, Phillip
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney Paice, James
Hayward, Robert Patnick, Irvine
Heathcoat-Amory, David Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Porter, David (Waveney)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Powell, William (Corby)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Redwood, John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) Riddick, Graham
Hunter, Andrew Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Irvine, Michael Sackville, Hon Tom
Irving, Sir Charles Shaw, David (Dover)
Jack, Michael Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Jackson, Robert Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W) Skeet, Sir Trevor
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Soames, Hon Nicholas
Key, Robert Squire, Robin
Kilfedder, James Stanbrook, Ivor
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Stevens, Lewis
Kirkhope, Timothy Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Knapman, Roger Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North) Summerson, Hugo
Knowles, Michael Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Knox, David Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Latham, Michael Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Lawrence, Ivan Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Thorne, Neil
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Thornton, Malcolm
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Thurnham, Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Trotter, Neville
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Twinn, Dr Ian
Maclean, David Viggers, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick Walden, George
Madel, David Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Malins, Humfrey Waller, Gary
Mans, Keith Ward, John
Maples, John Watts, John
Marland, Paul Wells, Bowen
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Wheeler, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Whitney, Ray
Maude, Hon Francis Widdecombe, Ann
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Wiggin, Jerry
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Wilkinson, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David Wilshire, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony Winterton, Mrs Ann
Miller, Sir Hal Wood, Timothy
Mills, lain Yeo, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mitchell, Sir David Tellers for the Ayes:
Monro, Sir Hector Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Tim Boswell
Moore, Rt Hon John
Adams Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.) Barron, Kevin
Allen, Graham Battle, John
Alton, David Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Anderson, Donald Bennett, A.F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Bermingham, Gerald
Armstrong, Hilary Bidwell, Sydney
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Bradley, Keith
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) McCartney, Ian
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) McKelvey, William
Caborn, Richard McLeish, Henry
Callaghan, Jim Maclennan, Robert
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) McMaster, Gordon
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) McWilliam, John
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Madden, Max
Canavan, Dennis Marek, Dr John
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Cartwright, John Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Clelland, David Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Martlew, Eric
Cohen, Harry Maxton, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Meale, Alan
Corbett, Robin Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Cousins, Jim Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Crowther, Stan Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Cryer, Bob Morgan, Rhodri
Cummings, John Mowlam, Marjorie
Cunliffe, Lawrence Mullin, Chris
Dalyell, Tarn Murphy, Paul
Darling, Alistair Nellist, Dave
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) O'Brien, William
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) O'Neill, Martin
Dixon, Don Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Dobson, Frank Patched, Terry
Duffy, A. E. P. Pendry, Tom
Eadie, Alexander Pike, Peter L.
Eastham, Ken Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Fatchett, Derek Prescott, John
Faulds, Andrew Primarolo, Dawn
Fearn, Ronald Quin, Ms Joyce
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Radice, Giles
Flannery, Martin Randall, Stuart
Flynn, Paul Reid, Dr John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Richardson, Jo
Foster, Derek Rogers, Allan
Foulkes, George Rooker, Jeff
Fraser, John Rooney, Terence
Fyfe, Maria Rowlands, Ted
Galloway, George Ruddock, Joan
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Sedgemore, Brian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Golding, Mrs Llin Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Gordon, Mildred Short, Clare
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Skinner, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Grocott, Bruce Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Hain, Peter Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Harman, Ms Harriet Snape, Peter
Haynes, Frank Soley, Clive
Heal, Mrs Sylvia Spearing, Nigel
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Steinberg, Gerry
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) Straw, Jack
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Home Robertson, John Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Hood, Jimmy Turner, Dennis
Howells, Geraint Wallace, James
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Wigley, Dafydd
Ingram, Adam Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Kennedy, Charles Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Lamond, James Wilson, Brian
Lestor, Joan (Eccles) Winnick, David
Livingstone, Ken Worthington, Tony
Livsey, Richard
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Tellers for the Noes:
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Jimmy Dunachie
Loyden, Eddie
McAllion, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Back to