HEALTH AND SAFETY

HC Deb 10 May 1994 vol 243 cc201-24

'No order shall be made under section 1 of this Act which includes any provision amending or repealing any enactment relating to the health and safety of any person'. —[Mr. Fatchett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

With this we may take New clause 8 — Approval of certain markets (No. 2) '(1) Where a person proposes to set up a commercial market that person shall apply to the local authority in whose area he proposes to set up the market for approval of the setting up of that market. (2) Where an application for the grant or renewal of approval has been made under subsection (1) above to a local authority, the local authority shall—

1. (a) give or renew that approval subject to such reasonable conditions as the local authority think fit; or
2. (b) refuse to give that approval, provided that approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

(3) A grant or renewal of approval under subsection (2) above shall cease to have effect after a period of twelve months beginning with the date on which it is granted or such other longer period as the local authority giving or renewing the approval may determine. (4) The local authority may charge a reasonable fee in respect of an application for the grant or renewal of an approval under subsection (2) above and different fees may be charged for different classes, sizes and locations of market. (5) The Secretary of State may by order make further provision as to approvals and regulation in relation to the setting up of commercial markets. (6) A person who sets up a rival commercial market without approval of the setting up of that market having been given or as the case may be renewed under subsection (2) above, or who carries on such a market in breach of any conditions attached to the grant or renewal of an approval, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. (7) In this section, "local authority", "market" and "right of market", have the same meaning as in section 22 above and "commercial market" means a market other than a market

1. (a) which is a temporary market within the meaning of section 37 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982; and
2. (b) the proceeds of which are to be applied solely or principally for charitable, social, sporting or political purposes.'.

Mr. Fatchett

We may have moved from a consensual position—at least for the Front Benches—to an issue that will give rise to some controversy. New clause 5 would remove any reference to health and safety from what will be section 1; we argue that provisions for health and safety, both at work and generally, should not be dealt with by means of the general powers included in the Bill.

In a speech to the European Policy Forum last autumn, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was quoted as saying: Our response to recent large scale disasters has been out of all proportion to the disasters themselves. He went on to mention our reaction to the Kings Cross fire —in which at least 30 people were killed—and the Marchioness disaster, in which 50 people were drowned.

I am not making a personal attack on the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The powers in the Bill will be given to Ministers generally, allowing them to amend and repeal health and safety provision and to affect security that has been built up over decades and generations. I have quoted the Parliamentary Under-Secretary merely to make the important point that he and, I suspect, other Ministers—especially those at the Department of Employment—approach the issue with a particular perspective and a particular ideological bent. That is why we seek to remove any reference to health and safety from the first four clauses of the Bill.

We have said throughout that we find the powers in those first four clauses unacceptable, and that they should in no circumstances be used to repeal primary legislation; we are now arguing that they should not be used to deal with health and safety provisions. Let me demonstrate the extent of the problems. Health and safety is a vast issue, which should be dealt with separately from the specific powers in the first four clauses. The record shows that there are 1.6 million workplace accidents each year, and that 2 million people suffer from occupational diseases; in 1991, 473 people were killed at work. Those statistics represent costs to individuals and their immediate families, and burdens on business.

There is also a cost to the economy. The cost of industrial accidents and disease is estimated to be some £16,000 million a year. Moreover, a recent publication from the Royal College of Nursing drew attention to the costs of accidents and injuries at work to a certain NHS hospital, estimating that 5 per cent. of that hospital's running costs would relate to industrial injuries and illnesses.

New clause 5, however, relates not just to industrial provision but to the health and safety of any person". Opposition Members fear that the Government may intend to amend or repeal fire safety regulations, thus reducing the safety and security of certain people. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) is well aware of last week's tragic events in his constituency: he responded to them by calling for tougher regulation and more inspections, and we support and respect what he said. He was also right to suggest that many landlords are using the social security system to provide housing for multiple occupation which does not meet standards that should be met in a civilised society.

Having read some of the newspaper reports of those tragic events, I feel that the hon. Gentleman's comments were appropriate; and they are also relevant to the Bill, given that it is a deregulation Bill that attempts to remove existing provision and security. I should have thought that last week's events in Scarborough showed that, on the contrary, we should tighten provision and improve inspection and standards.

6.15 pm

The statistics make my case compellingly. They reveal that an average of 800 people a year are killed in fire-related incidents in the United Kingdom, which has a higher fire death rate per million than any other European Union country. Each year, moreover, deaths resulting from accidents related to foam-filled furniture run into the hundreds.

We want to know the Government's intentions. I hope that I have demonstrated the seriousness of the problem; so why are we concerned about their intentions? The answer is simple: we do not necessarily believe in the Government's good intentions. They always say, as they did many times in Committee, "Trust us—leave it to us." They say that they will not reduce security and safeguards. I simply do not accept that. There are times when, rather than accepting the Government's words, we must look at their record; we should examine some of the rhetoric from Ministers about deregulation, the way in which the deregulation initiative has been presented to the House and the general argument that has been advanced. That argument has always been about taking the burden from industry.

Again, let me refer to the constituency of the hon. Member for Scarborough. There is a burden on one small business to observe the fire regulations and general health and safety provisions—a burden and a cost, which the evidence suggests may not have been met. That cost to one individual, however, also represents security, a safeguard and a benefit to others. That is the equation: the cost to one business is the right of another employee or consumer. Opposition Members are in the business of protecting the rights of such people.

Mr. John Sykes (Scarborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about what happened in my constituency last week. Unfortunately, neither of us knows why those people died. It could well be that the person concerned smoked in bed, but—however hard we may try—we cannot introduce a law to stop people smoking in bed, although it may be enough to cause a fire. Until we know the exact reason for the fire, I do not think it right for the hon. Gentleman to use it as an excuse for his new clause.

Mr. Fatchett

At the time of the event, the hon. Gentleman simply argued that there was a need for tighter regulation and stronger licensing provisions. If ever there was an argument to support my views, it was his first and, I think, honourable reaction.

We need to strike a balance that takes account of other interests. Throughout the Committee stage, we feared that the Government's interests that come to the forefront will always relate to business; we feel that other costs and interests must be taken into account. We also believe that the provisions in clauses I to 4 will severely restrict our opportunity to debate these key issues properly. We have always said that we are not willing to give additional powers to the Executive, and we shall debate these issues again tomorrow and on Thursday.

The new clause is a second-best option. We should like all the Henry VIII powers removed because there is no justification for them but, if they are to remain, we believe that the specific issues of health and safety at work and fire safety and the general safety provisions should be removed from the first four clauses and from the general excessive new powers to be given to Ministers. We believe that every Member of Parliament should feel that he or she has a voice and a part to play in this debate on behalf of his or her constituents. We believe that the existing procedures are unsatisfactory, and I therefore commend new clause 5 to my hon. Friends and to the House as a whole.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston)

On Second Reading, I spoke of the need for clarity on the issue of health and safety as it is reflected in the Bill. In Committee, I pressed the Minister several times to clarify exactly how he saw the balance between the burden on business and necessary protection. In a written question on 15 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) asked the Secretary of State for Employment which health and safety at work regulations he considers to be a burden on business. The Minister of State, Department of Employment answered:

This is among the questions that I have put to the Health and Safety Commission and I am awaiting its advice."—[Official Report, 15 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 636.] How to ensure the health and safety and welfare of our work force is one of the most important issues facing us today, but we are having to try to secure the necessary protection in the context of clauses on which the Government have yet to receive clear advice from the body set up to advise them. Perhaps that advice has been made clear since 15 March—it certainly had not been made clear while the Bill was in Committee—and, if so, I invite the Minister to tell us which regulations have been identified as a burden by the Health and Safety Commission.

If the list deals entirely with pre-1974 regulations, the Government are approaching this important issue in entirely the wrong way. The solution would be a relatively minor amendment to section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, which would give the commission the power to advise the Minister so that matters could be dealt with more smoothly and in a more structured way. I presented the same argument in broad terms in Committee, but we are working in a vacuum.

The whole debate is in a vacuum because the Government have repeatedly refused to clarify what was meant by "a burden on business". I hope that the Minister of State, Department of Employment, understands that other Ministers have in previous debates described what they regarded as burdens on business. One extremely good example was provided in a late night Adjournment debate to which the Under-Secretary of State for Schools replied. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) dealt with the safety of outdoor pursuit centres, and the Minister described his call for regulation of those centres as a burden on business. He did so in the context of the tragic death of four young people.

If the House is examining the Bill in a vacuum, and if the only information at our disposal comes from statements made late at night in which Ministers of the Crown give their definition of burdens on business in relation to health and safety matters, it is no wonder that there is a major difference in the approach of our two parties.

The whole health and safety debate has always centred on the difficult balance that exists. Any hon. Member who was involved in training in health and safety matters back in 1974–76 will remember the commission's early posters, which showed scales representing the balance between the cost of improving safety and the benefits to employees. It is a difficult balance to strike and it must be dealt with subject by subject, regulation by regulation, and with great care. We cannot give sweeping powers to the Minister because the only information available is based on a set of vague generalisations given by his colleagues in relation to other matters. Until we debate specific regulations, we cannot make progress.

In a letter to members of the Committee, the Chemical Industries Association wrote: The chemical industry believe that much of the framework of existing regulations specifically affecting the chemical industry, eg, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the COSHH Regulations, is fundamentally sound; in many cases, however, there is a need for greater clarity and consistency in interpretation. This is especially relevant to my constituency, and the Minister of State will recall that last week I presented to him a petition on matters related to health and safety. The industry is pleading for better regulation and does riot want sweeping powers to be given to the Minister. The Bill approaches the issue in entirely the wrong way, and I urge the House to support new clause 5.

Mr. Adam Ingram (East Kilbride)

I support new clause 5 and wish to draw to the attention of the House and, I hope, that of the Minister an article that appeared in The Independent yesterday and that resulted in a leader column dealing with the implications of health and safety regulations. The article and the leader column dealt with the tragic case of a constituent of mine, Mr. William Neilson, who died on 9 June 1992, aged 61, of broncho-pneumonia, radiation-induced myeloid leukaemia, radiation dermatitis and radiation-induced myelodysphasia.

Mr. Neilson worked as an industrial radiographer for a company called Metal and Pipeline Endurance Ltd.—MAPEL. His work involved using portable equipment with components that emitted radiation more powerful and penetrating than that of hospital X-rays. The medical inquiry held after his death revealed that he had received a cumulative dose of radiation of about 15 grays. Grays are the means by which radiation is measured. The dose of radiation that he received was 15,000 times that contained in a single chest X-ray.

6.30 pm

What is disturbing about Mr. Neilson's death is that no one is accepting any responsibility for it—not his employer, MAPEL, and not BP at Grangemouth, where he worked as a subcontracted employee of MAPEL. The Health and Safety Executive has also said that it will not take any action in relation to the case. I argue that the case must call into question the existing health and safety protection afforded to people such as Mr. Neilson who work as industrial radiographers.

About 8,000 people in the country today are undertaking vital work in the non-destructive testing of pipes and metal structures. According to the National Radiological Protection Board, they are the most exposed of all of those who work with radiation sources. In 1991 alone, 60 such workers received doses above the level requiring investigation and 10 received more than the maximum legal dose. We should compare that with the 40,000 people who work in the nuclear industry. None of them came near receiving the maximum dose of radiation, and only seven cases warranted investigation.

The fact that statistics are available shows that monitoring is taking place under the existing regulations. Yet Mr. Neilson's condition was not identified early enough to save his life. No excess of radiation was ever recorded on the detection badge which he wore daily to his place of work.

Therefore, I am most surprised that the Health and Safety Executive should have dismissed responsibility for Mr. Neilson's death by saying that it would take no further action. I am also very surprised by the attitude of Mr. Neilson's employer, who said at the time of his death that Mr. Neilson was not working for the company. But at the time that Mr. Neilson received the dose of radiation which resulted in his death, he was working for MAPEL and BP, and he was supposedly under the monitoring control of the Health and Safety Executive and the relevant regulations, the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985. Someone was responsible for Mr. Neilson's death, yet no one is prepared to admit it. That is simply not acceptable.

The Bill will reduce the level of protection that is afforded to people such as the late Mr. Neilson and the other 8,000 industrial radiographers. If it goes ahead and the Government proceed with their intention, more deaths are likely to occur. I see that the Minister rejects that notion. If he rejects it, perhaps he should tell the House what action he has taken following the report in The Independent of yesterday. Has he asked the Health and Safety Executive to respond to that report? Is the executive now undertaking an urgent inquiry? Is it prepared to say that it has responsibility in this area and that it will investigate in detail what took place at the time?

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth)

I have seen the report and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. Yes, I have asked the Health and Safety Executive to report to me about the circumstances of that case, just as I have asked the Health and Safety Commission—which is a tripartite body—to look at the regulations. I have given clear instructions that no measures should be recommended that would undermine standards of health and safety. I think that it is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to seek to make parallels, but, in view of his interest in the case, I assure him that I will keep him informed about the response we receive from the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr. Ingram

I am grateful that the Minister has responded in that way. It would have been useful if he had made some public statement about the matter today. Clearly, there are grave worries about the future regulations which will apply to health and safety generally, and specifically to this field. I appreciate that the Minister is to keep me informed; I hope that he will keep the House informed as well, because there is general concern about the future protection of such employees.

The question remains why the Health and Safety Executive dismissed that case in the way that it did. I suspect that it is because the organisation has been understaffed and its funds cut substantially. There have been major cuts in the grants allocated to safety representatives this year, and the Government intend to cut their support entirely.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that he is concerned about the matter. I am not surprised that he has responded in that way. When a major newspaper reports in detail and raises concerns of that sort, I would not expect anything less of the Government.

I ask the Government to accept the principle of new clause 5: aspects relating to health and safety should not be included in the Bill. That will satisfy those people who are working in very dangerous circumstances—many of them risking their lives for the good of the country by undertaking much-needed work in industrial radiography. That is the message that should come from the debate tonight. The only way that we can really satisfy those who work in that area—Mr. Neilson's widow, to whom I have spoken today, would agree—is by saying that further protection will be given to people who work in that field, thereby avoiding future deaths. We can satisfy their demands by supporting new clause 5.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

I support new clause 5. We have been told that the Bill is about lifting unnecessary burdens, while retaining necessary protection. I do not think that it will do that, and I want to spend a couple of minutes looking at the implications for health and safety of what is proposed.

The Government's game plan seems to be to move responsibility for fire safety from the fire brigade, where it has rested since 1961, to local authority building control departments. Under the Bill, the functions of the building control departments could be contracted out to the private sector, so the responsibility for fire safety could end up outside the hands of a public authority.

The Government have treated the fire service in an absolutely shameful way. It has been sidelined and ignored. A construction industry task force looked at fire safety matters and released a report entitled "Deregulation Task Force". The document was deposited in the Library after the Committee had dealt with clause 27 of the Bill and, therefore, we could not refer to it in our considerations. However, I have since had the opportunity to look through it in detail, and it is perfectly clear that the individuals who put their names to the report know absolutely nothing about the fire service.

The task force was chaired by none other than Mr. Chris Spackman, the managing director of Bovis Construction. The task force is packed with people who have business interests in the construction industry and who are closely allied to Conservative interests. Astonishingly, the fire brigade was not invited to sit on the task force or to give evidence to the task force.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's memory is defective. We went through all these points in Committee and I answered all the questions. In particular, I made the point that that task force document has since been superseded by the on-going fire service review and one of the five participants in the review is the chief fire officer of the county of Durham. How can the hon. Gentleman claim credibly that the fire service is being ignored or that its concerns are not being taken properly into account?

Mr. Prentice

I do not accept that for one moment. The document which formed the Government's thinking was "Deregulation Task Force". No doubt its recommendations filtered through into the document which the Department prepared under the title "Cutting Red Tape".

I have a submission from the fire authority in my constituency in Lancashire which makes some very modest criticism of the process. It says: It is disappointing to note that these proposals"— the proposals which have emerged from the process— have not been discussed with agencies responsible for the enforcement of current regulations and legislation until after they were submitted, thereby providing only one side of the argument and setting the agenda for other interested parties to follow. It beggars belief that in that initiative, which was to involve the cutting of red tape and the lifting of burdens but also, in a sphere as vital as fire safety, the safeguarding of necessary protections, the fire brigade was not even consulted.

The construction industry task force, through Mr. Spackman of Bovis Construction and his acolytes, said: Problems of consistency and quality of input are considerable. Whilst the Building Regulations are capable of standard interpretation through official guidance, the Fire Regulations are neither scientific nor consistently applied. Individual Fire Officers can have either substantial or little training and respond to most situations using common sense and custom and practice precedents. What informed that conclusion? We were given no evidence in Committee to back that assertion.

We ask the House to support the new clause because our contention is that responsibility for the fire regulations should lie with fire authorities. It seems self-evident that the people who risk their lives to put out fires, the people who 24 hours a day live, breathe and think about the complex of issues involving fire and fire prevention, should not be sidelined in that way. The fire brigade, not only in Lancashire but all over the country, has the knowledge, the skill and the practical experience of how fires behave and how people react in a fire, yet that is to count for nothing.

In Committee we were treated to several vaudeville performances by the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs, who had a few funny stories up his sleeve, such as the one about the fire officer who wanted the sign on the fire door changed from red to green, and wanted the size altered half a dozen times, and so on. But the Lancashire fire authority tells me that, as we would expect from that Minister, such criticisms have been massively overstated.

I am told that there was a review of the Minister's Department in 1993—the Department of Trade and Industry's "Review of the Implementation and Enforcement of EC law in the UK". That review touched on such matters, and it confirmed what I am saying. The scale of the problem had been massively exaggerated.

If the fire authorities have been falling down in their duty, why has the problem never been brought before the House before? All fire authorities are inspected annually by the Home Office fire services inspectors, and every year the report goes to the Home Secretary, yet until now nothing has ever been brought before the House to alert us to the possibility that our fire authorities are falling down on the job.

The truth is that fire authorities are not falling down on the job. The whole exercise is ideologically driven—we shall return to that point on Thursday. It is driven by an absolute hatred of anything provided by public authorities, whether local authorities or fire authorities, and a determination to transfer to the private sector everything that is not nailed down.

I shall finish with a few statistics from my area. I have already mentioned the Minister's Laurel and Hardy act in Committee; yet if the fire authorities were making such a hash of things, why has Lancashire fire brigade, which carried out 40,000 inspections last year, received only two complaints since 1991? If the fire brigades are falling down on the job of inspecting premises under the Fire Precautions Act 1971, which they rigorously enforce because they have the duty and responsibility to ensure that people are not incinerated in preventable fires, why have there been only three prosecutions in Lancashire since 1991?

The fire brigade is doing a pretty good job, and there is no evidence for the Government's contention that its responsibilities should be transferred to local authority building control departments. I hope that the House will support the new clause.

6.45 pm

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead)

I shall add briefly to what my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has said. I warn the Minister, who is jolly decent cove and a jolly intelligent one too, that, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has explained, he ought to know better than to oppose the new clause. I choose my words carefully, and do not mean to make a joke, when I say that the Minister is playing with fire with his proposal to take powers from the proper fire authorities and to pass to less qualified hands the duty of inspecting premises to ensure that their fire precautions are appropriate.

The Minister should bear in mind the fact that fire authorities and the fire service are among the most popular groups of public officials in the country. Their people are literally heroes, and everyone knows that they have saved lives both by their urgent and efficacious interventions in fires and by preventing tragedy through the assiduousness of their preventive work on fire precautions.

A few weeks ago in my constituency, encouraged by the splendid Fire Brigades Union—one of the oldest and best trade unions in the country—we did some street work with postcards and petitions, explaining to passers-by the Government's plans to take powers away from the fire authorities and fire services. That took place in an area that was once a Conservative constituency, yet I do not exaggerate when I say that the people there were surprised. It is difficult to shock people after 15 years' experience of the Thatcher-Major Government, yet people were not only shocked but horrified by the proposal.

In this building I recently had a conversation with the leaders of the Fire Brigades Union in Scotland. One of the most telling points that they made—I should like to hear the Minister's answer to it—was that, if the fire authorities are deprived of the responsibility of making regular inspections of buildings, some of which are tinderboxes, with fires waiting to happen, the first time that fire service people will be inside some of those premises is when they have to batter down the doors with their hoses in order to attack a potentially devastating fire.

One of the experiences that the authority gains from its current responsibilities is that its regular visits to premises as part of the licensing process give it an intimate knowledge of the layout and interior of those premises, of the parts of the building likely to cause difficulties in a fire and of the approach that could theoretically be taken if a fire occurred. If we take that responsibility away from the fire authorities and the fire service, by definition they will be deprived of that important and potentially life-saving experience.

The Conservative party is supposed to be party with the slogan, "If it's not broken, why fix it?" but of course, nowadays there is now a new breed of Conservative— people who are not so attached to that essentially Conservative principle. I cannot for the life of me understand what the Government are doing, and that applies to all their present proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made clear, there is no evidence among public opinion anywhere that the current system is in any way broken or deficient. In all the years that I have been in the House since 1987, we have never once been told of any significant failings in the current system.

The truth is that the change is not being made as a result either of the need to implement better practice or of any complaint arising from public opinion. The essence, the secret, of the change—we shall hear it over and over again in the next three days—lies in the vested interests that were stuffed into the task forces. Of course, the Minister will say that there was another tier to the task forces and that a fire officer from Durham was eventually put on them, but I have never heard him explain why the fire authorities were not represented in the first place on the task forces that drew up the blue document—produced this evening—which informed their thinking and that of the review tier of the body that looked into the matter.

The task forces, which have been the driving force behind the proposal before us, are stuffed full of vested interests, many of which make substantial financial donations to the Conservative party. They are more concerned with the price of the service than its value, knowing as they do the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Of course, most Conservative Members, however sheepishly, will troop behind the Minister, but I warn them in my closing remarks, as I did at the beginning of my speech, that the Government are playing with fire. The first time that a devastating fire destroys property and kills human beings as a result of the change—believe me, one does not need a crystal ball to envisage that it will not be many years before such a tragedy occurs—the responsibility will be laid fairly and squarely with the Minister, whom I admire and whom I caution, even at this eleventh hour, to change course. That responsibility will lie with the Minister, with the Government and with the Conservative party.

Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)

When the deregulation initiative was first mooted and when the Bill was first talked about, one subject that aroused more public suspicion than any other was the likely threat to health and safety. Ministers sought to dampen those worries and those suspicions all the way through, but they remain. As my hon. Friends have already said, those worries and suspicions remain on the definition of what is a burden on business. What are those health and safety regulations and standards that Conservative Members and, they believe, businesses find so difficult to bear?

The nearest thing that I have found to a Government definition of a burden on business is when they described what bad regulations are in their booklet on deregulation "Cutting Red Tape". One of the things that the document says is that bad regulations "waste time and money". What is a waste of time and money? It rather depends on who is defining the issue. In a cut-throat market and in those industries where the deregulation initiative has already had its effect, practices apparently waste time and money if they cut profit margins, because that can often mean the difference between staying in business and going out of business. That is when cost-cutting occurs. When cost-cutting occurs, that is when corner-cutting occurs, and when corner-cutting occurs, that is when health and safety standards start to suffer.

That is not scaremongering. It is happening already. Let us look, for instance, at the coach industry, which has already been subject to deregulation. Only last week, we read in the papers about the coach crash in Kent in November. It was believed to have happened—arguments have been put forward—because the advanced braking system on the coach was not working. The Department of Transport has—it seems—issued three sets of orders relating to ABS braking, which could have prevented coaches being on the roads until problems had been rectified. Either those orders were not enforced properly or they were not capable of being enforced properly, but the result was that that accident happened and 10 people died, including the coach driver.

So far, nobody has been held responsible for that accident. Even the coroner said that there was no candidate in the company whose negligence could be proved to have caused those deaths, even though another driver had pointed out the problems on that coach's braking system some 13 months previously. Indeed, we were told that the driver involved was not aware of that problem.

Faced with the classic example of that coach crash in Kent, are we honestly saying that the problem is too much regulation? Or is the problem, as I believe, not enough effective regulation and not enough effective enforcement? That is important to me as I come from the west midlands, where, only a couple of months ago—indeed, on the very day that, in Committee, we were discussing what is now clause 28, which relates to health and safety—a report was published by the west midlands health and safety advice centre called "The Perfect Crime".

That report detailed a study undertaken into workplace deaths in the west midlands area—some 28 work-related deaths—between 1988 and 1992. Its conclusion, backed by Sir Anthony Scrivener, Queen's counsel, was that, of those 28 cases, at least four could have resulted in a manslaughter prosecution and seven should have been referred to the police for criminal investigation and passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. Eight of the cases were inadequately investigated by the enforcement agencies and required further investigation, and five could have involved prosecution under health and safety law.

The families involved in those four cases in which, perhaps, a manslaughter prosecution should have been brought—the families of Dennis Wall, Dennis Clarke, Reginald Price and Tara Singh—expect their Government to recognise the incalculable burden that they have suffered in losing their loved ones. Not surprisingly, they are perhaps less than patient with a Government who see burdens only when they are burdens on business. If that is the only language in which the Government are prepared to talk and the only currency that they are prepared to understand, perhaps they should do their own calculations on the £16 billion cost of workplace-related accidents and on the £6 billion that accidents at work cost businesses.

If the new clause is not added, the Bill will contain no provision that says that health and safety standards are a no-go area when it comes to the deregulation initiative. We have been assured by Ministers on Second Reading and in Committee—no doubt, we shall be so assured again today —that their intention is not to remove what they describe as necessary protection. However, time and again in Committee during debates on health and safety and, indeed, during debates on other aspects of the Bill, we have asked what they mean by "necessary protection". What is the bottom line? Which standards do they think are not appropriate for deregulation? We have never on any occasion heard a clear answer from Ministers.

If ever there were a reason for the new clause to be added, it is not what I have said or what my hon. Friends have said, but the words of the Minister. At the first meeting of the Committee on 15 February 1994, I asked the Minister a direct question. Many Conservative Members have referred to the Health and Safety Commission today and its role in the deregulation initiative and in the task forces. I asked the Minister whether he could assure us that no health and safety regulations would be removed if that removal did not have the support of the trade unions and of the Health and Safety Commission.

The Minister said: I am not saying that that would occur only when trade unions were involved, but we would obviously follow the recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission. A few moments later, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) asked the Minister a slight variation of that question. He asked: Will the Minister now give a commitment that the powers in clause 1 will not be used on any occasion on which the Health and Safety Commission objects? The Minister gave the following reply: I regard it as going against the tripartite nature of the Health and Safety Commission for the hon. Gentleman to single out trade unions for special privilege. I hope that he will withdraw that remark, in view of the nature of the commission. On the Health and Safety Commission, I said—I think that I am quoting myself correctly—that I regard it as most improbable or most unlikely… I would not like to go further than that"— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 February 1994; c. 27–28.] The Opposition's message is that we expect Ministers —I believe that the public do as well—to go further than that. Health and safety standards must not be the casualty of the deregulation initiative. The families of all those who are injured at work—the families of the nine people who lose their lives every week at work—expect better from their Government, and their Government can give them better by accepting the new clause.

7 pm

Mrs. Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Over the past hour, my hon. Friends have shown how strong our feelings are about the Bill, especially in terms of its possible effect on health and safety. Those of us who were members of the Committee are aware that we are a highly privileged bunch of hon. Members because we have at least discussed deregulation measures in detail. The purpose of the Bill is to remove that privilege from Members of Parliament, so that regulations will not have that proper scrutiny.

As we discussed the specific items on the face of the Bill in Committee, we kept coming back to the inadequate definitions which are so worrying, and we shall come back to them on Thursday. What is a burden on business? At what point do the costs to an industry become so great that it is important that the burden is lifted? At what point does "necessary protection"—no adequate definition has been given to us—come into effect? At every end and turn, the Government, through the Bill, have sought to offer to business the guarantee that if it shouts loud enough that regulations are too great a cost to it, they will act in the interests of business rather than in the interests of the public. I thought that the Government were supposed to act in the interests of the public.

That point is felt most sharply in health and safety. In health and safety terms, what is a burden for business may be a man or woman's life at work. A human life does not and cannot have a price. The fire officers and the members of the Fire Brigades Union to whom we have talked during the passage of the Bill have reminded us, time and again, that every fire regulation and every health and safety at work regulation has come out of a tragedy.

Whenever there is a tragedy or a death, the people around say, "This must not happen again. How can we ensure that it does not happen again?" A regulation is then introduced for a particular industry or a particular budding. To remove those regulations because they are a cost to business will clearly put lives at risk.

I hope that the Government will consider the following point. I am almost certain that in a few minutes, we shall be told that we have been scaremongering, as we were told several times in Committee. The Government could consider tonight the point that, even within the context of the Bill, by accepting that health and safety regulations and fire regulations should fall outside the group of regulations which the Bill can be used to deregulate, they would withdraw the accusation of scaremongering and would lift the threat to the lives and limbs of people at work.

The Government should simply accept the new clause and take out of the Bill anything to do with health and safety, life and limb and the threat to lives. The Government could take that simple action tonight. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government believe that public opinion is such that they will bow not just to the Opposition, but to public opinion. I hope that, because the public believe that health and safety is so important, the Government will accept the new clause.

Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone)

We must be clear that the Bill is, in part, about restricting the right of workers, under health and safety legislation, to a say in their working environment. That is why the new clause is important. It would maintain a high standard of health and safety in manufacturing industry by ensuring that no order that threatened the health and safety of any person could be made. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is prepared to accept the new clause. If the new clause is not included in the Bill, the Government will be free to bring back 19th-century working conditions. That is what the Bill is all about. It will create working conditions that will attract the worst employers.

The real burden of health and safety falls on those who suffer from accidents or ill health caused by their work, as my hon. Friends have said strongly this evening. According to figures recently published by the GMB, the cost to employers of work accidents and ill health is between £4 billion and £9 billion. The cost to society is reckoned to be between £10 billion and £15 billion. Clearly, employers, employees and society cannot afford that continuing cost. The Government should endeavour to ensure that the record becomes better and they should not create a situation which is likely to make things worse. That is why we must support the new clause. If it is not accepted, we can expect the record to worsen.

The real problem in health and safety is not that legislation is too restrictive, but that many employers fail to comply with the existing laws. The Health and Safety Executive has drawn attention, time and again, to non-compliance in sectors such as construction, textiles, chemicals and, I am afraid to say, local authorities.

The Government claim that they are easing the burden on business, but that is a ruse, as the Minister knows. In circumstances where it suits the Government, they have imposed unnecessary burdens on business. The administration of statutory sick pay is just one of the burdens that the Government have imposed on business. At first glance, the Bill may not appear to be that unreasonable in the area of health and safety. Clearly, laws need to be relevant and understandable. However, when the veneer is scratched away, we see clearly that there is more than meets the eye to the Bill.

The deregulation of health and safety must be seen in the context of the Government's hostility to the European Commission's social action programme. The Government are opposed to the health and safety legislation that is required by the "six pack" of European directives. That is the real intention of deregulating health and safety—it has nothing to do with abolishing obsolete legislation.

If the Government want to do something positive about health and safety, they should implement a new consultative machinery between the Health and Safety Executive and employers. They should increase the number of field inspectors and ensure that more resources are available for the training of shop floor health and safety inspectors. I hope that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches realise that if the new clause is not accepted—I am sorry, I meant to say Government Benches.

Mrs. Helen Jackson

They will be soon.

Mr. Clapham

It is true that Tory Members will be on the Opposition Benches soon. If the new clause is not accepted by the Government, the situation in industry will worsen, to the detriment of employers, employees and the community generally.

Ms Glenda Jackson

As my hon. Friends have said, it is the Government's inability to define what is meant by "burden" and "necessary protection" which causes us the most disquiet and which we are justified in being concerned about, because what we are discussing here are protections that will put at risk human health and, in extreme circumstances, take away human life.

The burden with which the Government are most concerned to lift from employers—be it in business, industry or the service sector—is that of responsibility. It is that responsibility, which carries with it a moral element —it certainly should in the field that we are discussing —that the Government wish to remove as a protective element for the British work force. We should not be surprised by that, because the Government have advertised the British work force in Germany not on the level of their skills or ability but on the fact that they will work for less than any other European workers.

The Government have also boasted that they have kept this country out of the EC health and safety directives. This country is becoming one of the most dangerous places in Europe in which to work.

It seems that the Government's proposals on the face of the Bill, which will preclude any future Parliament from examining such proposals in any detail, are something which the whole House should take seriously, and to which it should give serious consideration. That is why I trust that the House will vote in support of our new clause.

We are at a time in the development of industry and business when workers are constantly being expected to use new materials and new procedures. We are in an area where dangers come from we do not know what. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) pointed out, our existing health and safety legislation procedures usually came after some major and tragic accident. If the new clause is not accepted by the House tonight, we are at risk of increasing the possibility of such tragedies in a way that we have not seen before. Some of the processes and procedures which workers are now having to use are still very much an unknown area.

One can only look at the life that we as individuals know. It used to be that when we needed to go to the dentist and we needed an X-ray, the dentist and his assistant would stay in the room. We now know that that is a dangerous procedure—the dentist and his assistant now stand behind the protective screen or leave the room. If we look at the use of hypodermic needles in medicine, it used to be that they would be tossed with a cavalier disregard into any sort of receptacle. Since the discovery of how HIV and AIDS are transmitted, hypodermic needles and other such implements must go in protective boxes, cartons or bags.

We are constantly developing new procedures, processes and materials in a modern industrial society, but our knowledge of the possible dangers from those processes and procedures is not keeping pace with that forward thrust. That is why it is an extremely dangerous proposal on behalf of the Government simply to savage and sabotage those protections such as they have allowed to remain for the work force in this country. It is also the reason why I hope that the House will vote for the new clause tonight.

Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Hon. Members will remember that I was unhappy at Second Reading not because of what was on the face of the Bill—things such as the market charters and other important things. This issue does not affect people's lives—it decides whether they live or not. It is probably the most important issue that we will discuss tonight.

When the Minister talks about burdens, he must recognise that there is not only a burden on people in terms of personal suffering as a result of accidents at work; there is also a burden on the state. It has been estimated that the cost to the country of accidents at work is between £10 billion and £15 billion, and that 70 per cent. of all accidents could have been avoided. At present, it seems that we should not be relaxing regulations—we should be ensuring that they are properly enforced.

7.15 pm

The Government's response is to make cuts in the Health and Safety Commission. They have cut spending by 5 per cent., and 120 jobs in the commission have been lost this year. However, we need to look beyond what the Health and Safety Commission and the health and safety legislation do, because people's health and safety are determined by other legislation. As hon. Members said, most legislation usually comes about as a result of some sort of disaster. It is usually the stable door approach. Some people would describe it as the tombstone approach—as the tombstones mount up, the pressure for legislation mounts up. We have seen that time and time again.

We have certainly seen that with regard to fire regulations. Before 1970, all fire regulations came about because of a major disaster. Since then, to our shame, every piece of legislation has come about because of a major disaster. What we have now are a Government who are prepared in one breath to say that they will ensure that proper safety is there, and at the same time in the background they are prepared to erode people's safety. I can give many examples of that.

I can understand why the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) was happy to dismiss everything about Scarborough and say that they have not quite made up their mind about the problem. When we discussed the building and fire regulations in Committee, we were told that we were scaremongering and terrifying people when there was no need for it. I am happy to be a scaremonger if it makes the Government think twice about the legislation that they want to change. I was happy to be a scaremonger with regard to the regulations on furniture fittings. The Government were examining those regulations—they wanted to repeal the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988. The regulations were amended in 1989, but they were still not properly in force in 1993.

The Government wanted to amend the Gas Cooking Appliances (Safety) Regulations 1989 with regard to second-hand cookers. People recognised the danger of that. The Government wanted to look at the Heating Appliances (Fire Guards) (Safety) Regulations 1991 and the Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985, which were introduced after a blaze of publicity—I am sorry; I did not intend to make that pun. We all saw the pictures on television of children whose nightgowns had caught fire. The Government wanted to examine the Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989, although only a couple of years ago a child was killed after throwing a dangerous toy on to a fire.

The Government wanted to look at all those things. That is why I cannot trust the Government and they should not be given a blank cheque in terms of fire safety. In Committee, we were told that the things that the Government were doing were all innocuous. They said that local building Acts were of no consequence and that they were getting rid of outdated Acts.

Within a fortnight of the Committee voting on that, "World In Action" showed what building regulations meant. It showed a good example in one of the companies which was advising the Government on deregulation—Sainsbury. The programme showed a Sainsbury store and the local building regulations said that the store should have sprinklers and divisions in the roof space to stop the spread of fire. Those were ignored, and there was an appeal to the Secretary of State about the regulations. The appeal was upheld and the sprinklers and the divisions in the roof space were not put in.

The building burned down, not because of any fire inside, but because a wheelie bin caught fire outside. The fire spread to the roof and across the building, which burned down. Luckily, no one's life was lost, but that could have happened so easily. If the fire had occurred during the day, and not in the evening, the fire brigade was quite certain that it would not have been able to evacuate people from the store. That is one example of the Government saying one thing but doing another. I shall turn quickly to security at airports. I was quite happy to be a scaremonger after I found out that Government and the task force said that security at airports was belt and braces and that there was too much security at airports. Within days of that decision in Committee, somebody mortar-bombed Heathrow airport. I hope that the Government's view on that has changed now.

When we discussed the changes to public service vehicle and heavy goods vehicle licensing, there was talk about changing the rules governing drivers' hours which would allow them to drive for longer. It is only in the past few days that we have seen, following the M2 coach crash, that the driver had exceeded his hours and the speedometer had not been properly checked. The regulations which were there already should have been enforced more rigorously. We do not need less regulation, but more.

We get knee-jerk reactions. Following the fire in Scarborough, we are told that there will be a licensing system. That suggestion was rubbished when we were in Committee. Following the M2 disaster, we were told that there would be moves to stop coaches going into the fast lane. Again, any talk from the Opposition about the safety of HGVs and PSVs was rubbished in Committee. When we talked about the security of airports before the mortar-bombing of Heathrow, it was rubbished in Committee.

It is the Government's hypocrisy that gets me. They say they will promise people safety when they know that people with vested interests have sat on the task forces. For example, the task force on construction was chaired by Chris Spackman, the managing director of Bovis Construction, and included Derek Bernard Rimmer of Slough Estates and Dr. Margaret Lowe of Ove Arup. They all have vested interests and they will ensure that none of the measures are properly applied.

I shall finish by mentioning an interdepartmental fire safety scrutiny observation by the National Association of Fire Officers. In some ways, it sums up what the Government are doing. On the front page of the document, it says that a bonfire of red tape may prove an unfortunate phrase when human life is at stake.

Mr. Neil Hamilton

Blessed are those who expect nothing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for they shall not be disappointed.

I never really expected any sensible and informed speeches from Opposition Members, and my expectations have been amply fulfilled in the past hour or so. It is a great misfortune that we cannot debate serious issues in a rational and proportionate way. The Opposition do themselves no favours with the kind of speeches that we have heard this afternoon, not least from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). She is never inhibited by any connection with the facts, and declared that this country was the most dangerous place in Europe. On the contrary, the latest Health and Safety Commission annual report shows that expected—

Ms Glenda Jackson

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hamilton

I will in a moment, but first I will give the hon. Lady some statistics. She lacked any statistics in her speech and a combination of my speech and hers may advance the debate. The HSC annual report shows that expected overall fatal injury rates have dropped to the lowest levels ever reported and now stand at 1.3 per 100,000 employees. Non-fatal injury rates for employees also fell slightly last year for the third successive year.

The fatal injury rate is now less than one quarter of the rate in the early 1960s, less than one half of that in the 1970s, and 20 per cent. lower than that of the mid-1980s.

Mr. Fatchett

The rate of accidents is important.

Mr. Hamilton

As the hon. Gentleman points out, that is the key factor. The rate of accidents per 100,000 employees has fallen also, I am delighted to confirm to him.

Ms Glenda Jackson

rose—

Mr. Hamilton

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is about to contradict the facts.

Ms Jackson

Not at all. Yet again, the Minister is referring to figures which have been achieved in the past. Our argument is that, if the Bill goes through, such figures will be an impossibility in the future.

I believe that I did not say that this was the most dangerous place to work in Europe. I believe that I did say that, if the Government have their way, Britain will certainly become the most dangerous place in Europe in which to work.

Mr. Hamilton

I am afraid that the hon. Lady will discover when she has been here a little longer that, in this place, we are judged by what we have said, rather than by what we think we have said. That is sometimes very inconvenient.

The assorted members of the national union of shroud-wavers, scaremongers and conspiracy theorists sitting on the Opposition benches will be rejected by the people of this country. Everybody who thinks about it for a moment recognises that, if we have regulations which impose unnecessary costs upon businesses, those costs will flow through. Ultimately, they must be paid for by the very people whom Opposition Members claim they want to protect and defend, and whose interests they seek to advance.

Nobody with any sense takes the absolutist position that, on all matters concerning safety, we must do as much as we can without any consideration of costs to stamp out certain risks. They are all cases of balance. After all, if we were to take the view that we wanted to stamp out all road accidents, a simple way of doing so would be to ban all vehicles from using the roads. There would then be no accidents on the roads. But no sensible person takes that view. We all ultimately—consciously or subconsciously —make judgments about risks and we must bear in mind the costs that we are imposing upon society by the regulations that we introduce.

Among the many fantasies produced by Opposition Members is that we are in some way going to abolish all fire regulations, or that we are to reduce them in way that will increase substantially the risks to the public. The Government have no intention of doing that, and of course it would be a stupid thing to aim to do. I must admit that even this Government are not infallible, and we have from time to time made mistakes. However, I have stated categorically that our aim in the reviews that we have set up is to identify areas of overlap and duplication and where there is a lack of clarity between the responsibilities of enforcement bodies.

We want recommendations on the ways of dealing with those areas and we wish to address the practicability of bringing all the policy responsibilities for fire safety together in a single department to improve the clarity of the regulations and the effectiveness of their enforcement.

Mr. Galloway

Why were not the fire authorities and the fire service represented on the task force?

Mr. Hamilton

The task force was appointed to give the business view to the Government. [Interruption.] Of course that was the intention. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members think that business—the employers of the people whom they claim to represent—should not have their view heard by the Government. Opposition Front-Bench Members who slink around the dining rooms of the City and industry attempting to make friends among industrialists might have some difficult questions to answer if that were not the case.

Any sensible person knows that we must take into account the interests of industry, employees, professionals and the fire service. The views of business do not in any way require the Government to accept the recommendations, nor have we said that that would be the case. Having received that view, we have now instituted a wide review and an efficiency scrutiny of the areas of overlap and duplication. There are five members on the review team, as I mentioned earlier. I shall give everyone the names so that in future Opposition Members might not have the opportunity to scaremonger so much.

Mr. Stewart Kidd is the director of the Fire Protection Association, a subsidiary of the Loss Prevention Council. It certainly has no vested interest in increasing losses from fires. It has every vested interest in ensuring that there is greater safety to reduce its losses. Mr. David Smith is the president of the Institute of Building Control. It does not sound to me as if he is likely to be a fire-breathing extremist of the kind that Opposition Members have fantasised about.

Mr. Bill Yates works for Shell, a company that operates in the area of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would accuse that company of having the opinions of which his hon. Friends have spoken this evening. Mr. Alf Thompson is the chief officer of Durham fire service. Mr. Richard Saxon is a partner in the Building Design Partnership and, horror of horrors, a member of the construction deregulation task force.

7.30 pm

Mr. Heppell

The Minister read out a list of names. I am fairly certain that that list was not on the original task force. Is the Minister talking about the one that was set up after complaints were made or the original one?

Mr. Hamilton

The hon. Gentleman has woken up, I am glad to hear. I have already said that the deregulation task force was put together to give us the business view. The Government were not obliged to accept its view. The Government have not yet taken any decisions on any of the issues that it raised, but we have set up the second review, which is designed to give us a balanced view of the issues that I have set out.

So I am afraid that Opposition Members have been wasting their time and the time of the House in the past hour. They have been firing their muskets up alleyways down which the enemy is not coming, as someone once said of a speech made by Winston Churchill in the House.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

Will the Minister give the House a categorical undertaking that the responsibility for fire safety will not be transferred from the fire authorities?

Mr. Hamilton

I do not know whether it is the hon. Gentleman's view that reviews should be prejudged or that the Government should take decisions in advance of appointing them. That was an absurd and preposterous question to ask. We are happy to be judged on safety by our experience of 15 years in office.

Since 1975 the Health and Safety Commission has repealed or modified some 350 pieces of old, outdated and detailed prescriptive legislation. They have been replaced with about 100 sets of modern regulations which focus on the goals to be achieved by employers. That is more flexible and practicable for all involved. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, we need the Bill because the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 forbids us to repeal outdated and obsolete legislation by any means that are likely to be practicable. Consequently, it prevents us from doing in relation to pre-1974 legislation what we can already do in respect of post-1974 legislation.

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hamilton

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he was not here for the debate and I see that many Members have come into the Chamber. They have probably come to hear my speech rather than Opposition Members' interventions. I think that it is more likely that they have come in expecting a vote to take place, and I know that I have already been speaking for too long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] On that note of unity, perhaps I should sit down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] By popular request. In that case, I can take a hint and I will sit down.

Mr. Fatchett

If ever there was an argument for new clause 5, it was the Minister's speech. It was an appalling speech and one that the Minister will come to regret. We were dealing with serious issues and the Minister was not prepared to take them seriously. My hon. Friends were not scaremongering. They were raising serious issues and factual cases. The Minister could not even bother to reply to the points that they made.

The most telling comment that the Minister made was his definition of a burden as a cost to business. He needs to understand that there is a balance that relates to employees, consumers and the general public. In the Scarborough fire case, there was a burden on a small business to bring the hotel up to acceptable and legitimate standards. The fact is that lives were lost and people were injured because that did not happen. That is the basis of the balance to which my hon. Friends have referred. It is a great shame that the Minister could not respond to those important points.

It is also a great shame that the Minister did not recognise the fears that the task force working parties were set up to reflect interests, and in particular interests, that have backed the Conservative party and will get what they want from the Government's deregulation initiatives.

New clause 5 deals with important issues and the Government are sending one clear signal. Last Thursday at Question Time, the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to take tougher action following the Scarborough fire. The fact is that the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs and the Minister of State, Department of Employment are driven by an ideology that favours deregulated labour markets and a free-for-all for entrepreneurs without any protection for consumers and employees. We reject that outdated ideology. That is why I ask my hon. Friends not to give more power to Ministers but to protect the House and those outside by supporting new clause 5.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 283.

Division No. 234]	[7.35 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Ainger, Nick	Dafis, Cynog
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Dalyell, Tam
Allen, Graham	Darling, Alistair
Alton, David	Davidson, Ian
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Armstrong, Hilary	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Ashton, Joe	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Austin-Walker, John	Dewar, Donald
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dixon, Don
Barnes, Harry	Dobson, Frank
Barron, Kevin	Donohoe, Brian H.
Battle, John	Dowd, Jim
Bayley, Hugh	Eagle, Ms Angela
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Eastham, Ken
Beggs, Roy	Enright, Derek
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Etherington, Bill
Bell, Stuart	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Fatchett, Derek
Bennett, Andrew F.	Fisher, Mark
Benton, Joe	Flynn, Paul
Bermingham, Gerald	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Berry, Roger	Foulkes, George
Betts, Clive	Fraser, John
Blair, Tony	Fyfe, Maria
Blunkett, David	Galbraith, Sam
Boyes, Roland	Galloway, George
Bradley, Keith	Gapes, Mike
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Garrett, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	George, Bruce
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Gerrard, Neil
Burden, Richard	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Byers, Stephen	Godsiff, Roger
Callaghan, Jim	Golding, Mrs Llin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Graham, Thomas
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Grocott, Bruce
Canavan, Dennis	Gunnell, John
Cann, Jamie	Hain, Peter
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Hall, Mike
Chisholm, Malcolm	Hanson, David
Clapham, Michael	Hardy, Peter
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Henderson, Doug
Clelland, David	Heppell, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Coffey, Ann	Hinchliffe, David
Connarty, Michael	Hoey, Kate
Cook, Robin (Livingston)	Home Robertson, John
Corbett, Robin	Hoon, Geoffrey
Corbyn, Jeremy	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Corston, Ms Jean	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Cousins, Jim	Hoyle, Doug
Cummings, John	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Hutton, John	O'Neill, Martin
Illsley, Eric	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ingram, Adam	Parry, Robert
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Patchett, Terry
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Pendry, Tom
Janner, Greville	Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Pike, Peter L.
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Pope, Greg
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Prescott, John
Jowell, Tessa	Primarolo, Dawn
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Purchase, Ken
Keen, Alan	Quin, Ms Joyce
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)	Radice, Giles
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)	Randall, Stuart
Khabra, Piara S.	Raynsford, Nick
Kirkwood, Archy	Redmond, Martin
Lewis, Terry	Reid, Dr John
Litherland, Robert	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Livingstone, Ken	Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Rogers, Allan
Llwyd, Elfyn	Rooker, Jeff
Lynne, Ms Liz	Rooney, Terry
McAllion, John	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
McCartney, Ian	Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Macdonald, Calum	Rowlands, Ted
McFall, John	Ruddock, Joan
McKelvey, William	Sedgemore, Brian
McLeish, Henry	Sheerman, Barry
Maclennan, Robert	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McMaster, Gordon	Simpson, Alan
MacShane, Denis	Skinner, Dennis
McWilliam, John	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Madden, Max	Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Maddock, Mrs Diana	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mahon, Alice	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mandelson, Peter	Snape, Peter
Marek, Dr John	Soley, Clive
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)	Spearing, Nigel
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Spellar, John
Martlew, Eric	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Maxton, John	Stevenson, George
Meacher, Michael	Strang, Dr. Gavin
Meale, Alan	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Michael, Alun	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Tyler, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Milburn, Alan	Wallace, James
Miller, Andrew	Walley, Joan
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James	Wareing, Robert N
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Wicks, Malcolm
Morgan, Rhodri	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Morley, Elliot	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Wilson, Brian
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Winnick, David
Mowlam, Marjorie	Wise, Audrey
Mudie, George	Worthington, Tony
Mullin, Chris	Wright, Dr Tony
Murphy, Paul	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)	Tellers for the Ayes:
O'Brien, William (Normanton)	Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and
Olner, William	Mr. Dennis Turner.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Aitken, Jonathan	Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Alexander, Richard	Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Baldry, Tony
Amess, David	Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Arbuthnot, James	Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Bates, Michael
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Batiste, Spencer
Ashby, David	Bellingham, Henry
Aspinwall, Jack	Bendall, Vivian
Atkins, Robert	Beresford, Sir Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John	Gill, Christopher
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Gillan, Cheryl
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Booth, Hartley	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Boswell, Tim	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Gorst, John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Bowden, Andrew	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bowis, John	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Brandreth, Gyles	Grylls, Sir Michael
Brazier, Julian	Hague, William
Bright, Graham	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Hanley, Jeremy
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Hannam, Sir John
Budgen, Nicholas	Hargreaves, Andrew
Burns, Simon	Harris, David
Burt, Alistair	Haselhurst, Alan
Butcher, John	Hawkins, Nick
Butler, Peter	Hayes, Jerry
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Heald, Oliver
Carrington, Matthew	Hendry, Charles
Carttiss, Michael	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Cash, William	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Churchill, Mr	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Clappison, James	Horam, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Coe, Sebastian	Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Congdon, David	Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Conway, Derek	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hunter, Andrew
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Jack, Michael
Couchman, James	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Cran, James	Jenkin, Bernard
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Jessel, Toby
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Day, Stephen	Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Devlin, Tim	Key, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dicks, Terry	Kirkhope, Timothy
Dorrell, Stephen	Knapman, Roger
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dover, Den	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Duncan, Alan	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Knox, Sir David
Dunn, Bob	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Eggar, Tim	Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Elletson, Harold	Legg, Barry
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Leigh, Edward
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Lidington, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Lightbown, David
Evennett, David	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David	Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Fabricant, Michael	Lord, Michael
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas	Luff, Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Fishburn, Dudley	MacKay, Andrew
Forman, Nigel	Maclean, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Forth, Eric	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Madel, Sir David
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Malone, Gerald
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Mans, Keith
French, Douglas	Marlow, Tony
Fry, Sir Peter	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Gale, Roger	Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Gallie, Phil	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gardiner, Sir George	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Garnier, Edward	Merchant, Piers

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)	Steen, Anthony
Moate, Sir Roger	Stephen, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector	Stern, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Streeter, Gary
Moss, Malcolm	Sumberg, David
Needham, Richard	Sweeney, Walter
Nelson, Anthony	Sykes, John
Neubert, Sir Michael	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Nicholls, Patrick	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley	Thomason, Roy
Oppenheim, Phillip	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Ottaway, Richard	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Page, Richard	Thumham, Peter
Paice, James	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Pawsey, James	Tracey, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Tredinnick, David
Pickles, Eric	Trend, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Trotter, Neville
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Twinn, Dr Ian
Rathbone, Tim	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Viggers, Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Richards, Rod	Walden, George
Riddick, Graham	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Robathan, Andrew	Waller, Gary
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Waterson, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Watts, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Wells, Bowen
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Whitney, Ray
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Whittingdale, John
Sackville, Tom	Widdecombe, Ann
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas	Wilkinson, John
Shaw, David (Dover)	Willetts, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wilshire, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Shersby, Michael	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Sims, Roger	Wolfson, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Wood, Timothy
Soames, Nicholas	Yeo, Tim
Spencer, Sir Derek	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Spink, Dr Robert	Tellers for the Noes:
Spring, Richard	Mr. Irvine Patnick and
Sproat, Iain	Mr. Sydney Chapman.
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Question accordingly negatived.