§ '(1) Where a Sunday-only worker is employed on work substantially the same as work performed on a weekday by a shop worker in the same employment, if any term or condition of the contract of employment of the Sunday-only worker is or becomes less favourable than it would be if the worker was no, a Sunday-only worker, the relevant term or condition shall be treated as so modified as to be not less favourable.
§ (2) A complaint by a Sunday-only worker that his contract of employment had not been treated by his employer as modified, as required by subsection (1) above may be presented to an industrial tribunal.
§ (3) An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under subsection (2) above unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date when the complainant became aware of the failure of his employer to treat the contract of employment as modified as required by subsection (1) above.
§ (4) Where an industrial tribunal finds that a complaint presented to it under subsection (2) above is well founded the tribunal shall make such of the following as it considers just and equitable—
- (a) an order declaring the rights of the complainant and the respondent in relation to the act to which the complaint relates, and
- (b) an order requiring the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation not exceeding the limit for the time being imposed by section 75 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
(5) In section 136 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (appeals from industrial tribunals to Employment Appeal Tribunal) in subsection (1) after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted the words—
(h) the Sunday Trading Act 1994.".
(6) In this section—
shop worker" has the same meaning as in Schedule 4 below and
Sunday-only worker" means a person who is employed as a shop worker to work only on a Sunday.'—[Ms Ruddock.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Ms Ruddock
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There are two objectives to the new clause. We seek to give rights to Sunday-only workers and to underpin the general worker protections in the Bill.
At present the majority of Sunday-only workers in the retail trade work illegally. If the House does not pass this Bill, we must assume that their retail outlets will be closed, and these workers will not work at all. It follows that those who would be covered by the Bill and who might become legitimate Sunday-only workers constitute a new group of workers—workers who, even under this Bill, would have virtually no rights. That seems inappropriate.
We are used to the Government removing various employment protection provisions for workers. But, through the legislation, the Government propose to create a new pool of workers. The Opposition regard it as their 373 duty to try to amend the Bill to make some provision for those workers. We seek to afford them rights on sick pay, pensions, holidays and other contractural benefits that are comparable with those of week-day workers. We are aware that those are contractual matters. It would be difficult for us or any other amenders of legislation to propose measures that interfered with those contracts. I am sure that the Minister would be quick to tell us that we could not do so. It is reasonable to seek to make some comparision between those who work for one day only, Sunday, and those who work for the same enterprise on a week day.
Effective worker protection under the Bill will depend on a number of factors. There are two key elements—first, a common culture of respect for the provisions across the board among employers and employees and, secondly, retail employers' commercial incentive to comply and/or disincentive for non-compliance. Sunday-only workers, by their very nature, fall outside the normal provisions of worker protection, and of the Sunday Trading Bill and existing legislation, principally, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 because of their insufficient service time. That period is two years for those who are essentially full-time workers and five years for those working as few as eight hours.
Some Sunday-only workers may fall within the scope of existing employment protection. They will have to accrue the appropriate number of years of work before such protection becomes effective. At present, very few legal Sunday workers have worked the length of service required for their protection. Where workers have no protection, it is almost impossible for them, especially if they are without the benefit of trade union representation, to secure decent conditions and terms of employment.
Sunday-only workers form one of the most vulnerable groups of workers in our society. They are casual workers who are open to commercial exploitation. Not only might they be exploited on Sunday, but they might be pressed into employment on an ad hoc basis at other times. We believe that it is essential for their protection, and for the protection of week-day workers, that the terms and conditions of the Sunday-only workers are comparable with those of week-day workers.
As some of my hon. Friends said in an earlier debate, we do not want Sunday workers' wages and conditions to become depressed as Sunday trading increases, with a knock-on effect for the week-day worker. If the legislation is passed, Sunday workers will become a newly legitimised group. We seek to protect them and to ensure that they do not develop into a ghetto of casual workers on inferior terms.
§ Mr. Purchase
I support new clause 2. It is reasonable that people employed on a Sunday-only basis should enjoy protection on a pro-rata basis with colleagues in the same establishment who are full or part-time employees. I hope that hon. Members will be able to support the new clause.
Let us consider someone who has been employed on the basis that he or she will work only on Sundays with no prospect of remission with pay from that work. Although the clause keeps referring to "him", it really deals with "her" because it is almost inevitable that Sunday-only workers will be females. Their children will sometimes confound them by being sick the day after they have been in robust health. After spending a night looking after an ill child, or waking up to find their child is not well, there is 374 no way that they can go to work. It is reasonable that a person in that position should receive, on a pro rata basis, sickness pay for the day when she is unavoidably absent from work.
People take on such employment to improve their household income. The word "pin money" was used earlier, but I suspect that not too many people work for pin money in the old-fashioned sense, but, rather, to supplement their income, which is inadequate for a decent standard of living.
A holiday entitlement should be given to those who are fortunate enough to work for a decent employer who—notwithstanding the comments of Conservative Members—pays double time and at sensible rates. It is wrong that we should even consider allowing someone to work 52 Sundays every year without a pro rata holiday entitlement.
It is commonplace for workers to enjoy, after a period of time, 20 days or four weeks holiday per annum. Four Sundays off is all that the new clause seeks to provide. It would be just enough for Sunday-only workers to enjoy an Easter Sunday, a couple of weeks off in the summer or a week with the children during their Whitsun break. Those are eminently reasonably arguments.
I understand that the new clause has to be so long because it sets out new provisions for people who would not otherwise be covered. It is a plea on behalf of Sunday-only workers, who overwhelmingly are women, to enjoy the sensible pro rata arrangements that apply at their workplace. Those arrangements include sickness pay and allowing workers time off if their family, including relatives for whom they are responsible, unexpectedly fall ill. It is not unreasonable to expect a good employer to allow for that contingency and to allow sickness pay and holiday entitlement.
A Sunday-only woman worker may become used to an income of perhaps £15 a week, which may not seem much but is a lot for a family that is otherwise totally dependent on social security. She is the sort of worker who arrives for work 15 minutes before the shop opens and stays half an hour after it closes. It would be unfair not to pay her the income to which she has become accustomed and with the help of which she has elevated her family's status. She may have worked in that shop for three or four years and not had a day off or missed a beat.
Unless we include provisions in the Bill, the majority of employers, and certainly those who do not recognise trade unions, will not concede such workers' rights. It is reasonable for the House to provide pro rata benefits in sickness and holiday pay for women who will give up their time to enable us to shop on Sundays. Every hon. Member should support what is, after all, a very modest proposal.
§ Mrs. Wise
It would be intolerable if the Bill were passed without the new clause being added. It is an essential recognition of the fact that people who work only on Sundays are human beings with the same rights and needs as other workers. Without the new clause, there will be no guarantee that Sunday-only workers will have sick pay or holidays. Indeed, the probability is that they will not and that any time taken off work for whatever reason will be unpaid. Such arrangements are intolerable for Sunday-only workers and extremely dangerous for workers in general.
I am probably arguing my case in a way that will lose me any potential support from Conservative Members 375 who, I am sure, would like nothing better than to find yet another mechanism to undercut and drive down wages and conditions. Nevertheless, I appeal to the Committee to accept the amendment.
The retail industry is a major employer and it would be extremely dangerous to allow casual work to become so prevalent that it undermines the conditions of those who work more regularly at other times. In this instance, the interests of all shopworkers are the same—they need protecting. I hope that the Committee will accept the
§ Ms Glenda Jackson
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) pointed out that, for a variety of reason, the majority of workers who work exclusively on Sundays are undoubtedly women. He also dealt eloquently with the problem of women who might be unable to go to work because their children have fallen ill. As he rightly said, children have a habit of suddenly becoming ill. However, women are responsible not only for family members at the younger end of the age range but, increasingly, for elderly relatives.
It has been estimated that women carers save the country in the region of £6 billion a year, which is a sizeable sum. Quite rightly, the country is moving towards the idea that as our life expectancy increases we should be cared for in our own homes as long as humanly possible. That is what care in the community is all about.
Many women desperately need the additional sums that Sunday working provides, no matter how small they might be. However, they are caught in the trap of human values which I should have thought the Committee would be eager to preserve. Those values have to do with care and affection for members of the family, especially as they grow older. As a nation, we are living longer and the quality of our life is increasingly dependent on family members who are willing to care for us. The Committee should consider the issue seriously.
When we discussed the possibility of reducing the length of notice that must be given from three months to one month, the Minister said that that would strike especially hard at shops selling particular specialities to the consuming public. In the case under consideration that would undoubtedly be so, and it would strike against the very employers who take the time and trouble to train their Sunday-only employees, to make it incumbent on them that if, for a variety of reasons, one of the newly-trained Sunday-only employees could not work on that one day, that person would automatically have to be dismissed. The employer would again be on the treadmill of having to train workers and losing them once they were trained.
§ Mr. Pike
Is not there a danger that if the shopworker falls ill but does not get sick pay he or she will turn up to work anyway? If such people are dealing with food, would not that be highly dangerous? In the interests of hygiene and of food safety we should ensure that sick pay is given, to enable workers to stay at home in such circumstances.
§ Ms Jackson
I thank my hon. Friend for making that valid point. In recent years there has been a marked increase in all forms of food poisoning, traced back to a reduction in standards of hygiene, especially where food is prepared. One of the growing trends is for large supermarkets to provide food for consumption, if not on the premises, within easy walking distance, so my hon. 376 Friend makes a valid point. People would not think twice about turning up for work with a cold if they would otherwise lose money. Moreover, it is well documented both scientifically and medically that it is sometimes possible for people to be carriers of diseases from which they do not themselves suffer. The possibility of diseases spreading throughout the community becomes stronger if people who are desperate for the regrettably small sums that they earn on a Sunday have to calculate whether they will lose that money.
It is important for the Committee, especially Conservative Members, to readjust their thinking about what it means to be employed, and what the exchange of skills for wages means. There should be an equal contract, but among Conservatives there seems to be a prevailing view that it is a privilege to have a job. Given the shamefully high unemployment that the Government's economic policies and incompetence have heaped upon the country, that is not surprising, but as a House representing all the people of our country, we should not allow such ideas to sway us when we make decisions on such important amendments.
My hon. Friends and I have already said that most Sunday-only workers will be women. Those women sacrifice a great deal to enable their fellow citizens to shop on a Sunday, and the House should acknowledge those sacrifices. If the House is unwilling to acknowledge them in cash terms, in the money that people take home in their pay packets at the end of the working day, we should argue fiercely and strongly that what they cannot have in cash they should have in kind. They should be able to enjoy the benefits of other workers, although those are few in comparison with those of our European competitors—sick pay, holiday pay and the ability to participate as equal partners in a job that I sometimes think that Conservative Members do not regard as real work.
Conservative Members may consider it a doddle, to use a popular phrase, for a woman to sit at a check-out. They think that all she has to do is to pass the items that customers buy across a computerised machine. As I have said as someone who had her first experience of the working world as a shop assistant, it was an extremely draining job. One was constantly meeting members of the general public and on occasions they could be extremely bloody-minded.
§ Ms Jackson
I entirely agree. I have no doubt that given the commercial pressures which retailers are under, the number of goods which will be required to pass through the check-out will increase and the amount of time given to the assistant sitting there will decrease. That is invariably the case.
The Committee must acknowledge that we are talking about real work. There is great sacrifice, in the main, on the part of women employees, who will be the majority of Sunday-only workers. The Committee should ensure, as far as it is humanly possible, that the sacrifices and skills of those women are acknowledged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, the service that those women have provided for their fellow citizens 377 should also be acknowledged. If it is not the will of the Committee that those skills, sacrifices and services are acknowledged in hard cash, I strongly urge Conservative Members to support them being acknowledged in kind.
It is a difficult job to deal with the general public, especially when there is a marked stress on output. We have heard in previous debates that many retailers allow long queues to gather at check-outs because they are always conscious of overhead costs. Those at the sharp end in all such circumstances are the women sitting at the check-outs. The House should as far as possible—that possibility is infinitely wider than preceding votes have shown—support those women.
§ Mr. Peter Lloyd
I am once again constrained by the clock, so I shall sum up the Government's view of the new clause as quickly as I can. If I have followed what it means correctly, or certainly what it is intended to mean, the new clause would require that all the terms and conditions which are made available by an employer to his full-time, weekly staff would have to be available to Sunday-only staff.
I have considerable sympathy for the general idea, although we are talking more about part-time workers, not only about Sunday-only workers. Again I am dubious about whether it is fair and practical that workers who work one day or a limited time during the week should automatically receive all the benefits enjoyed by those who have earned those benefits, who have devoted far longer hours or years to their work. Those full-time workers rely on their jobs for their pensions, bonus rights, maternity benefits and career breaks. The new clause makes it clear that the employer is obliged to make available similar terms.
For example, an employer would have to make arrangements for Sunday-only workers to join the company pension scheme. That would certainly create problems for a properly managed pension scheme. I suspect that it would also be unwelcome to many, if not all, Sunday workers, who would not want to see stoppages taken out of their pay for the pension fund, especially if they were building a pension with another employer, or were students who had not yet entered into full-time work, or were wives who wanted to build up some income to pay for a mortgage or for a particular occasion, as has been said before.
Of course, the Government want to see good pay and conditions, but the trade-off between the two is best left to the employers and the employees, or the unions on their behalf, to negotiate. I do not believe that the new clause would do Sunday workers a good turn. It would certainly impose a rigidity that would diminish the amount of Sunday work available and the level of straight remuneration in the form of take-home pay for Sunday-only workers. It would probably dilute some benefits for full-time workers. It would certainly cut the unions out of helping Sunday workers to secure the best deal available for them as part-timers.
The interests and needs of part-timers are not always the same as those of full-time staff, and the benefits can be quite different. On benefits, certainly, the matter is much more complicated than the amendment recognises and it would be in everyone's interest for the provisions in this Bill to be left unchanged—although I accept that the House 378 may wish to return to the position of part-time workers in a different Bill and on another occasion. That is a matter for the House and for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, who was sitting next to me a few moments ago and who will no doubt read with enormous interest what I have said.
§ Mr. Alton
This is a good new clause because it recognises that people who are employed on a Sunday should receive treatment commensurate with that accorded to those employed during the rest of the week, on a pro rata basis. It recognises that those who work on a Sunday should have the same dignity and rights as anyone else.
We should not underestimate the Bill's scope. The Shops Act 1950 has led to about 300,000 people being employed. The Keep Sunday Special option would have led to about 100,000 extra people being employed. The deregulatory option to which the House agreed—the so-called compromise—will lead to about 1 million extra people being employed on a Sunday. Unless we build in safeguards such as that proposed in the new clause, those people will be exploited on rack rates of pay and we shall have a charter for the downgrading of the retail trade. Jobs that were once permanent full-time jobs will be replaced by part-time work, with people being exploited as a consequence. That is why it is important that the Committee should accept the new clause.
§ Ms Ruddock
I regret to say that the Minister has once again missed the point. I reiterate what I said in my opening speech: if the Bill is enacted, the Government will be creating a new group of workers—workers who go to work on Sunday because it has become legal to trade on Sunday. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has given us the figures, which are very substantial.
Those new workers will go to work without any form of employment protection. The new clause seeks to give them not different or wonderful conditions but decent conditions commensurate with those enjoyed by workers working for the same employer in the same retail outlet on a weekday. That is very little to ask and it is typical of the Government that they should refuse that most modest of requests.
We are talking about a pool of the most vulnerable and poorly paid workers. As my hon. Friends have so eloquently said, many women go to work for very little money. Difficult family circumstances often render their wages vital. They go to work out of economic necessity. They should not go to work to line other people's pockets and provide profits for companies and services for the public without any recognition of the sacrifices that they make and of the fact that their responsibilities often go beyond the workplace and include care of the young and the elderly and other family responsibilities.
That group of workers clearly needs protection. Our new clause offers the most modest provision to ensure that such workers are given the terms and conditions developed for weekday workers, often as a result of trade union pressure in the workplace. Those who will work on Sundays under the Bill are a new pool of workers who are not protected. This new clause seeks to protect them and give them some reasonable conditions. We will take the new clause to a vote because we believe that this new pool of workers must gain some recognition for their service to 379 the community if the Bill is passed. We urge Tory Members to join us in voting for this modest proposal and for the protection of Sunday-only workers.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 273, Noes 305.382
|Division No. 116]||[10.00 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Dowd, Jim|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Dunnachie, Jimmy|
|Ainger, Nick||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Eagle, Ms Angela|
|Allen, Graham||Eastham, Ken|
|Alton, David||Enright, Derek|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Etherington, Bill|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Fatchett, Derek|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Faulds, Andrew|
|Austin-Walker, John||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Fisher, Mark|
|Barnes, Harry||Flynn, Paul|
|Barron, Kevin||Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)|
|Battle, John||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Bayley, Hugh||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret||Foulkes, George|
|Beggs, Roy||Fraser, John|
|Bell, Stuart||Fyfe, Maria|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Galloway, George|
|Bennett, Andrew F.||Gapes, Mike|
|Benton, Joe||Garrett, John|
|Bermingham, Gerald||George, Bruce|
|Berry, Dr. Roger||Gerrard, Neil|
|Blair, Tony||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Blunkett, David||Godsiff, Roger|
|Boateng, Paul||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Boyes, Roland||Gordon, Mildred|
|Bradley, Keith||Graham, Thomas|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Burden, Richard||Grocott, Bruce|
|Byers, Stephen||Gunnell, John|
|Callaghan, Jim||Hain, Peter|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Hall, Mike|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Hanson, David|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Hardy, Peter|
|Canavan, Dennis||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Cann, Jamie||Henderson, Doug|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Heppell, John|
|Clapham, Michael||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Hoey, Kate|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Home Robertson, John|
|Clelland, David||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Coffey, Ann||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cohen, Harry||Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)|
|Connarty, Michael||Hoyle, Doug|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Corbett, Robin||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Hutton, John|
|Cousins, Jim||Ingram, Adam|
|Cox, Tom||Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)|
|Cryer, Bob||Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)|
|Cummings, John||Jamieson, David|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Johnston, Sir Russell|
|Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)||Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John||Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Darling, Alistair||Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)|
|Denham, John||Jowell, Tessa|
|Dewar, Donald||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Dixon, Don||Keen, Alan|
|Dobson, Frank||Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)|
|Donohoe, Brian H.||Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)|
|Khabra, Piara S.||Prescott, John|
|Kilfedder, Sir James||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Purchase, Ken|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Radice, Giles|
|Leighton, Ron||Randall, Stuart|
|Lewis, Terry||Raynsford, Nick|
|Litherland, Robert||Redmond, Martin|
|Livingstone, Ken||Reid, Dr John|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Rendel, David|
|Loyden, Eddie||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|Lynne, Ms Liz||Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)|
|McAllion, John||Roche, Mrs. Barbara|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Rogers, Allan|
|McCartney, Ian||Rooker, Jeff|
|Macdonald, Calum||Rooney, Terry|
|McFall, John||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|McKelvey, William||Ross, William (E Londonderry)|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Rowlands, Ted|
|McLeish, Henry||Ruddock, Joan|
|Maclennan, Robert||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McMaster, Gordon||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|McNamara, Kevin||Short, Clare|
|McWilliam, John||Simpson, Alan|
|Madden, Max||Skinner, Dennis|
|Maddock, Mrs Diana||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Maginnis, Ken||Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)|
|Mahon, Alice||Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)|
|Marek, Dr John||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)||Soley, Clive|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Martlew, Eric||Spellar, John|
|Maxton, John||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|Meacher, Michael||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Michael, Alun||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Stevenson, George|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)||Stott, Roger|
|Milburn, Alan||Strang, Dr. Gavin|
|Miller, Andrew||Straw, Jack|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Molyneaux, Rt Hon James||Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Tipping, Paddy|
|Morley, Elliot||Turner, Dennis|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)||Tyler, Paul|
|Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Vaz, Keith|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Mowlam, Marjorie||Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold|
|Mudie, George||Wallace, James|
|Mullin, Chris||Walley, Joan|
|Murphy, Paul||Warden, Gareth (Gower)|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Wareing, Robert N|
|O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)||Watson, Mike|
|O'Brien, William (Normanton)||Wicks, Malcolm|
|O'Hara, Edward||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Olner, William||Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Wilson, Brian|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Winnick, David|
|Parry, Robert||Wise, Audrey|
|Patchett, Terry||Wray, Jimmy|
|Pendry, Tom||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Pickthall, Colin||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Pike, Peter L.|
|Pope, Greg||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Powell, Ray (Ogmore)||Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Aspinwall, Jack|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Atkins, Robert|
|Alexander, Richard||Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)|
|Amess, David||Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)|
|Arbuthnot, James||Baldry, Tony|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Banks, Matthew (Southport)|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)||Banks, Robert (Harrogate)|
|Ashby, David||Bates, Michael|
|Batiste, Spencer||French, Douglas|
|Bellingham, Henry||Fyfe, Maria|
|Bendall, Vivian||Gale, Roger|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Gallie, Phil|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Garnier, Edward|
|Booth, Hartley||Gill, Christopher|
|Boswell, Tim||Gillan, Cheryl|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Bowden, Andrew||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Bowis, John||Gorst, John|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes||Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Brazier, Julian||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Bright, Graham||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Grylls, Sir Michael|
|Browning, Mrs. Angela||Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Hague, William|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie|
|Burns, Simon||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Burt, Alistair||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Butcher, John||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Butler, Peter||Hannam, Sir John|
|Butterfill, John||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Harris, David|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hawkins, Nick|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hawksley, Warren|
|Cash, William||Hayes, Jerry|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Heald, Oliver|
|Churchill, Mr||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Clappison, James||Hendry, Charles|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)||Hicks, Robert|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.|
|Coe, Sebastian||Hill, James (Southampton Test)|
|Colvin, Michael||Horam, John|
|Congdon, David||Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Conway, Derek||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For"st)||Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Couchman, James||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)|
|Cran, James||Hunter, Andrew|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Jack, Michael|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamford)||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Day, Stephen||Jessel, Toby|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Devlin, Tim||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)|
|Dicks, Terry||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Key, Robert|
|Dover, Den||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Duncan, Alan||Knapman, Roger|
|Duncan-Smith, Iain||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Dunn, Bob||Knight, Greg (Derby N)|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Knox, Sir David|
|Eggar, Tim||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Elletson, Harold||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)||Lang, Rt Hon Ian|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Legg, Barry|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Leigh, Edward|
|Evennett, David||Lennox-Boyd, Mark|
|Faber, David||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Fabricant, Michael||Lidington, David|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Lightbown, David|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lilley, Rt Hon Peter|
|Fishburn, Dudley||Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Lord, Michael|
|Forth, Eric||Luff, Peter|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Freeman, Rt Hon Roger||MacKay, Andrew|
|Maclean, David||Sims, Roger|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Madel, Sir David||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Soames, Nicholas|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Speed, Sir Keith|
|Malone, Gerald||Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)|
|Mans, Keith||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Martand, Paul||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Mariow, Tony||Spring, Richard|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Sproat, Iain|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Mates, Michael||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian||Steen, Anthony|
|Merchant, Piers||Stephen, Michael|
|Mills, Iain||Stern, Michael|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Stewart, Allan|
|Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)||Streeter, Gary|
|Moate, Sir Roger||Sumberg, David|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Sweeney, Walter|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Sykes, John|
|Moss, Malcolm||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Needham, Richard||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Nelson, Anthony||Taylor, John M. (Solihull)|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Thomason, Roy|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Norris, Steve||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley||Thurnham, Peter|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Ottaway, Richard||Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Page, Richard||Tracey, Richard|
|Paice, James||Tredinnick, David|
|Patnick, Irvine||Trend, Michael|
|Patten, Rt Hon John||Trotter, Neville|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Pawsey, James||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Viggers, Peter|
|Pickles, Eric||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Walden, George|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Waller, Gary|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Ward, John|
|Rathbone, Tim||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Waterson, Nigel|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Watts, John|
|Richards, Rod||Wells, Bowen|
|Riddick, Graham||Whitney, Ray|
|Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm||Whittingdale, John|
|Robathan, Andrew||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Wilkinson, John|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Willetts, David|
|Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)||Wilshire, David|
|Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela||Wolfson, Mark|
|Ryder, Rt Hon Richard||Wood, Timothy|
|Sackville, Tom||Yeo, Tim|
|Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)||Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.|
|Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress leave to sit again.
§ Committee reported progress.
§ Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14(Exempted business),
§ Question agreed to.
§ Again considered in Committee.