Orders of the Day — Trade Union Bill

– in the House of Commons at 9:30 pm on 26th March 1984.

Alert me about debates like this

As amended (in the Standing Committee), agan considered.

Mr. Smith:

Many personnel managers and others take the view that such a provision introduces into industrial relations inflexibility that we do not want. As we have explained in detail in Committee, the most objectionable thing about part II is that it is utterly inappropriate to remove the trade unions' so-called immunity from legal action. If the Government were genuinely trying to give more rights to people in trade unions as to whether there should be strike action, they would not have used this sanction; they would have introduced a trigger mechanism that requires a vote of some type. They have removed completely the unions' immunity from civil process. That alters the relationship between union and employer, not the relationship between the member of the trade union and the organisation of the trade union. The Government are using part II as a transparent cloak for weakening trade unions in relation to employers. Moreover, third parties are to be allowed to take action against trade unions. That reveals the Government's true motive. Allowing a third party to take action against trade unions for what arises from a strike demonstrates something about the relationship between the union and its members.

What are often called immunities are nothing less than necessary legal protection to permit trade unions to exist. Without the legal immunities that arise from the Trade Disputes Act 1906, it would not be possible for trade unions to take industrial action in any circumstances. It is because we have chosen not to legislate to give a right to strike but to deal with the matter as I have outlined that it is described as an immunity. It is not a privilege but a necessary protection for the functioning of trade unions in any civilised democratic society. Anyone who knows anything about industrial relations fully understands that.

We believe that the innovation that the Government are introducing will not help industrial relations one bit. When, as is frequently the case, trade union officials are called in to help over industrial relations problems, they will look over their shoulders to ensure that nothing they do can be construed as authorising or endorsing action that is taken in case they lose immunity if a ballot is not subsequently held. The Bill will impose an inflexibility on them that is thoroughly undesirable from an industrial relations point of view.

It is not sufficiently well or widely appreciated how much trade union officials do to sort out disputes that do not lead to strikes. It is as well to remember that the vast majority of strikes are unofficial and last two days or less. That is the typical industrial relations problem in Britain. All the facts show that the Government, by trying to introduce this new provision in our industrial relations law, are not getting to the heart of what they think is the problem. We do not believe that it is a problem. More than that, part II upsets the industrial relations balance and gives the employer and other parties more legal ammunition to fire at trade unions. It will harm industrial relations and introduce inflexibility into the process. Ultimately, the crucial issue is whether industrial relations have improved. If they have not, there is no justification for the change.

Photo of Jim Wallace Jim Wallace , Orkney and Shetland

I have followed with interest what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying. Perhaps he will give us an example of a third party having a locus to bring in an action that he envisages under this legislation.

Mr. Smith:

There must be many who would suffer from secondary effects as a result of a strike, such as a supplier of goods who is affected at one remove from direct action, or someone other than an employer, such as a customer to whom the goods would have been delivered but for the strike. That is what arises in all cases where there is potential third party right of access.

In this new clause, we are trying to limit such a provision, but we are opposed root and branch to it, and there is no justification for introducing this new change into our industrial relations law. British industry has been singularly silent on this matter. There have been few writing to us pressing on us the merits of this part of the Bill. Most sophisticated and intelligent industrial relations managers will cultivate a good industrial relations system rather than look for legal advantages such as those that the Bill seeks to confer upon them.

This is probably the most idiotic part of the Bill and it is not even explicable in terms of the political philosophy of the Conservative party. I understand what the Government are at in part I and even more clearly what they are at in part III — that is a highly political operation. However, part II does not serve the political objectives of the Conservative party except that it generally weakens the trade unions at the cost of affecting our industrial relations system. I reject this part of the Bill as having provisions that contain not only malice but stupidity, and when we have a malicious and stupid proposition presented to the House of Commons we should vote against it, as we will when we vote for new clause 3.

Photo of Mr Ian Mikardo Mr Ian Mikardo , Bow and Poplar

At this hour, I do not want to delay the House any more than a minute or two. I have two points in support of the new clause. Before I deal with them, perhaps I may be forgiven if I say a word to the Minister about his general conduct on Report. We began our proceedings with references from hon. Members on both sides of the House to the long battle that we had in Committee. It was a hard-fought Committee, perhaps the most penetrating that I have had the experience of sitting on. It was conducted with the sort of courtesy that is in the best traditions of the House. We had a fair old battle across the Committee, but we had it with courtesy and with a deferential listening to the opposite point of view and without any introduction of personalities.

I very much reject the low-level, vulgar personal attacks that the Minister—who should know better and who should better appreciate his position on the Front Bench — made on my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I do not like personal criticisms, even of one's opponents. I regret the observations about the Minister by Mr. Alan Watkins in The Observer in an article on 11 March, concerning the views of Conservative Back Benchers on some of their Ministers. He said that some Ministers were much admired by Conservative Members and added: There is not much appreciation for Mr. John Selwyn Gummer, who has a silly face, a silly voice and is silly all round. That is pretty low level. I do not like it very much, and I regret that the Minister chose to give credibility to Mr. Watkins that he otherwise would not have had by indulging in the sort of petty rubbish we heard from him.

My first point relates to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said about inflexibility. I know from experience that the majority of disputes do not start with deep-laid plans or long series of meetings, and so on. They start with a spontaneous walkout, sometimes by a relatively small number of people. A shop steward is suspended, so all the blokes in the shop walk out. Even simpler, in a shop employing a lot of women, the women come in one morning to find that the heating has gone wrong, the place is freezing and they cannot work, so they walk out. Or there may have been a dispute about bonus payments, and people walk out. Nine times out of 10, the employer or —in big companies—the personnel manager rings up the divisional officer of the union and says, "Joe, that lot of yours has walked out on me again. Come round and sort it out, there's a good fellow." He comes round and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, most disputes are settled within days. In fact, many are settled within hours. Joe comes round and says, "You have been a bit rough on my shop steward, haven't you? What say you to holding off the suspension for a week while we have a discussion?" He replies, "All right", and within hours the chaps are back in the machine shop, the assembly shop or the work-place.

That is what the provision in part II means. Now, when the employer rings up the divisional officer and says, "Joe, these chaps of yours have walked out on me, will you come and do something about it?" He will say, "Not on your nelly, mate. I shall not come round, because if I come round that makes it official, and if it makes it official you can sue my union, even one of your suppliers can sue my union, even one of your customers can sue my union, uncle Tom Cobleigh can sue my union, and even Mr. John Selwyn Gummer can sue my union. Not bloody likely am I coming round to talk to you about this strike. It is unofficial, and as far as I am concerned it will stay unofficial, because as long as it is unofficial your Act does not apply to it." Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard anything as daft as that?

The Government say they want to improve industrial relations, yet they bring in this Bill. It should be called "a Bill for the Encouragement of Unofficial Industrial Action". They are doing everything possible to encourage unofficial industrial action. It simply does not make sense.

I come to my second point. The workers put in a wage claim. The employers put in a counter-offer. However, the employees have asked for 7 per cent., and the employer has offered 4 per cent. The employees say, "We will have none of that. We want a strike." Under the Bill, they cannot decide whether to accept the 4 per cent. or to go for something more without having a ballot. That is clear. So let us suppose that the workers go on strike. A week later, the employer says, "All right, I will give you 5½ per cent." At that stage, to be logical, there should be a ballot again. Otherwise, one is saying that the employees have to make a choice between acceptance or rejection without a ballot. In logic, if they cannot choose between acceptance and rejection in the first case without a ballot, why can one demand that they make a choice between acceptance and rejection in the second case without a ballot?

With all respect to the Minister I am a little older, I have spent a little longer in the trade union movement and I know more workers than he, although that is not difficult. As a result of part II there will be more disputes and they will last on average much longer. As a matter of fact, disputes in Britain last on average for a much shorter period than, for example, in the United States or Australia or even in the Federal Republic of Germany, a country which is often held up as a model of industrial relations. It does not have a great many disputes, but when it does they last for a long time.

Part II will mean more disputes, and more serious disputes which will take longer to settle. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East said, with characteristic modesty and justice, that new clause 3 may not be the best that could be tabled, but it has been tabled only to limit the damage that part II can do and to draw attention to that. That is why, it should have the support of the House. That is why if the Government really cared about industrial relations and were really anxious to make sure that we lose as little working time as possible in disputes, they would not only accept it but would table an amendment of their own in another place to delete part II altogether.

Photo of Michael Martin Michael Martin , Glasgow Springburn 10:15 pm, 26th March 1984

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the Bill will take us back to the old days when men and management would not admit that the closed shop existed. Everyone would be in the same union and the manager would give an undertaking not to employ anyone unless he was in that union, but if an outsider came along he would be told that there was no closed shop. As my hon. Friend said, when a strike takes place a full-time officer will come along and it will be a case of a nod being as good as a wink. He will tell the men to get back to work, but under his breath he will say, "Stay out lads. You will get your just rewards, but I have to say publicly that you must go back to work." That is not a good or open way to conduct industrial relations.

New clause 3 is excellent, because of the dangers in the Bill. On Clydeside we have had good news about Scott Lithgow. Anyone who knows anything about that shipyard, or any other shipyard for that matter, knows that for every man who is employed by the company there is the equivalent of seven men employed by outside contractors supplying such things as plumbing materials, ventilation and carpentry equipment. A ship at sea is equivalent to a small town and a lot goes into it. It is completely independent and its construction requires all sorts of skills. An industrial dispute could well arise in a shipyard. Although both men and management may be trying to resolve the matter by negotiation, a small contractor could interfere with that process as a result of this legislation. The matter could become ridiculous. In Committee we cited organisations which have a known record of looking for cases to take to industrial tribunals. When trade union agreements were brought in, the Freedom Association sought to find people who would attend unfair dismissal tribunals and fight cases. The association paid legal expenses.

The danger is not that such organisations will persuade a large company to take a trade union to task— such firms usually have to negotiate, to have good relations with trade unions and to have the men back at work—but that a small supplier—even a baker who supplies goods to a factory or shipyard canteen—could, as a result of the legislation, bring an action against a trade union and cause a great deal of bitterness and resentment in industrial relations. The Government should therefore consider the new clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar pointed out that most disputes are heat-of-the-moment disputes. Workers may strike because someone who swore at the foreman was given the sack without the proper procedures having been followed. Few disputes have been about wage negotiations or complaints about conditions; most are heat-of-the-moment disputes, which are usually over almost as quickly as they start. The legislation will prolong disputes, and the Government should consider that.

Photo of John Gummer John Gummer Minister of State (Department of Employment), Party Chair, Conservative Party

I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) in supporting the new clause. From our previous discussions, I know that he believes that to insist on a ballot before calling workers out on strke would be a cumbersome and difficult operation and that its effect would be to increase unofficial action. However, I remain convinced that he is wrong.

It is not unreasonable for people to be asked whether they wish to strike before they are called out on strike. Nothing that has happened recently makes that any different. Most of the population think it reasonable that, if a strike is proposed, it should first be ascertained whether workers wish to strike—

Photo of John Gummer John Gummer Minister of State (Department of Employment), Party Chair, Conservative Party

As the hon. Gentleman says, "Or to go back." As I said in Committee, there is a fundamental difference between going on strike and going back to work. The natural order of things is not to be on strike. The idea that there must be a ballot to go back after a strike does not hang with a pre-strike ballot. One should make sure that those who are asked to strike want to do so.

It is not reasonable to say that the immunities of a trade union can be dismissed in the terms used by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). It is essential that those immunities exist, if trade unionism is to exist. No Conservative Members have said otherwise. I have made it clear that I believe in those immunities, because they are right and essential and because it is impossible to imagine an effective trade union movement without them. However, if trade unions are to have those immunities, it is reasonable for the community to insist that they are brought into play when union members want them and not in any other circumstances.

Therefore, if the effect of a strike is to be covered by immunities, it is not unreasonable that the strike should be shown to have the support of those people who will be called out on strike. It is not unreasonable to say that the granting of immunities demands that those who are to be called out on strike have the opportunity of deciding whether they wish to strike. It is not wrong to suggest that there is a connection between immunities and the need to ensure that members who are to be asked to take industrial action have the opportunity to decide on the matter.

The Bill does not preclude a trade union from taking no notice of the response of its members. Nothing in the Bill provides that there must be a majority for a strike. The Bill is careful to say only that those who are to be called to take industrial action should be given the opportunity to decide what they want to do. That is the least interference in the practice of trade unions that can be arranged.

The Opposition also argue that the Bill's provisions are so damaging that they should not be able to be triggered except by an employer. They suggest that a supplier who has been damaged by a strike called without a ballot should not have the right of redress. That is a curious argument, because most of us know that many strikes do considerable damage to third parties.

The hon. Member for Springburn mentioned bakers, but not only small firms are involved. The damage that could be done to an independent wholesaler or retailer is considerable and ought not to be cast aside lightly. Many people are damaged by strikes, and all that is asked is that there should be a ballot. If there is no ballot, the immunities will not exist. That does not seem unreasonable. Nor does it seem unreasonable that the union should lose the immunity from action not only by employers but by others who would be affected.

I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said about personal attacks. He and I have good reason to agree that we would not make comments about people's personal appearance. Neither of us would like to face the return match if we did that. However, I made no such personal comments about the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I referred to what he said, the manner in which he said it and the intellect behind it. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar made heavy weather of that.

Photo of Mr Ian Mikardo Mr Ian Mikardo , Bow and Poplar

The silliest thing that the Minister of State did was to refer to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) had lost the seat in a previous election. So have I, and so has the Minister. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Photo of John Gummer John Gummer Minister of State (Department of Employment), Party Chair, Conservative Party

If the hon. Gentleman calls that a personal remark, I admit it. It applies to me as it does to the hon. Gentleman. To make a fuss about that seems unnecessary.

The anxieties of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar are unfounded. I do not believe that any trade union official who wishes to get men back to work will find it difficult to do his job without condoning action that has taken place without a ballot. I am sure that he will find it possible.

Photo of John Gummer John Gummer Minister of State (Department of Employment), Party Chair, Conservative Party

Indeed we shall. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will prove me wrong, but I think that he will be found to be wrong.

The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar said that immunity would remain for individuals involved in an unofficial strike. That is true, but I do not believe that there will necessarily be an increase in the number of unofficial strikes.

Photo of Mr Ian Mikardo Mr Ian Mikardo , Bow and Poplar

The hon. Gentleman must wait and see.

Photo of John Gummer John Gummer Minister of State (Department of Employment), Party Chair, Conservative Party

We shall all have to wait and see. It is of the nature of unofficial strikes that a number of people get so fed up with the circumstance that they often ballot with their feet by walking out. That is what happens. I do not suggest that there should be some kind of unofficial ballot in those circumstances. We are referring to the formal circumstance in which a trade union calls for a ballot before a strike, or seeks to make official an unofficial action that has taken place. In those circumstances, the trade union ought to ask its members whether they wish to take industrial action. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.

I think that the House should not accept the new clause. I am sure that, in the event, we shall all learn that the principles and the proposals that the Government put forward are sensible, because they ask only that the union shall go back to its members when it wishes to call its members out on industrial action.

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

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 247.

Division No. 204][10.30 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Alton, DavidCorbett, Robin
Anderson, DonaldCorbyn, Jeremy
Archer, Rt Hon PeterCowans, Harry
Ashdown, PaddyCox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ashley, Rt Hon JackCraigen, J. M.
Ashton, JoeCrowther, Stan
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Cunliffe, Lawrence
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Cunningham, Dr John
Barnett, GuyDalyell, Tam
Barron, KevinDavies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Beckett, Mrs MargaretDavies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Beith, A. J.Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Bell, StuartDeakins, Eric
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Dewar, Donald
Bermingham, GeraldDixon, Donald
Bidwell, SydneyDobson, Frank
Blair, AnthonyDubs, Alfred
Boothroyd, Miss BettyDunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Boyes, RolandEadie, Alex
Bray, Dr JeremyEastham, Ken
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)Ellis, Raymond
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)Ewing, Harry
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)Fatchett, Derek
Buchan, NormanFaulds, Andrew
Caborn, RichardField, Frank (Birkenhead)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Fisher, Mark
Campbell-Savours, DaleFlannery, Martin
Canavan, DennisFoot, Rt Hon Michael
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)Foster, Derek
Carter-Jones, LewisFoulkes, George
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Clarke, ThomasFreeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Clay, RobertGarrett, W. E.
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)George, Bruce
Cohen, HarryGodman, Dr Norman
Coleman, DonaldGould, Bryan
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.Gourlay, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Hardy, PeterPavitt, Laurie
Harrison, Rt Hon WalterPendry, Tom
Hart, Rt Hon Dame JudithPenhaligon, David
Haynes, FrankPike, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Prescott, John
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)Radice, Giles
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)Randall, Stuart
Howells, GeraintRedmond, M.
Hoyle, DouglasRees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)Richardson, Ms Jo
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)Robertson, George
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Janner, Hon GrevilleRobinson, P. (Belfast E)
John, BrynmorRoss, Ernest (Dundee W)
Johnston, RussellRowlands, Ted
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)Sedgemore, Brian
Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldSheerman, Barry
Kennedy, CharlesSheldon, Rt Hon R.
Kilroy-Silk, RobertShore, Rt Hon Peter
Kirkwood, ArchibaldShort, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Leadbitter, TedShort, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)Skinner, Dennis
Litherland, RobertSmith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Lofthouse, GeoffreySnape, Peter
McCartney, HughSoley, Clive
McCrea, Rev WilliamSpearing, Nigel
McDonald, Dr OonaghSteel, Rt Hon David
McGuire, MichaelStewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
McKelvey, WilliamStott, Roger
Mackenzie, Rt Hon GregorStrang, Gavin
McNamara, KevinStraw, Jack
McTaggart, RobertThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
McWilliam, JohnThomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Madden, MaxThompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Marek, Dr JohnThorne, Stan (Preston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)Tinn, James
Martin, MichaelTorney, Tom
Mason, Rt Hon RoyWallace, James
Maxton, JohnWardell, Gareth (Gower)
Maynard, Miss JoanWeetch, Ken
Meacher, MichaelWelsh, Michael
Michie, WilliamWhite, James
Mikardo, IanWilliams, Rt Hon A.
Millan, Rt Hon BruceWilson, Gordon
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)Winnick, David
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)Woodall, Alec
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)Wrigglesworth, Ian
Nellist, DavidYoung, David (Bolton SE)
O'Brien, William
Orme, Rt Hon StanleyTellers for the Ayes:
Paisley, Rev IanMr. John Home Robertson and Mr. Allen McKay.
Park, George
Patchett, Terry
NOES
Aitken, JonathanBonsor, Sir Nicholas
Alexander, RichardBoscawen, Hon Robert
Ancram, MichaelBottomley, Peter
Arnold, TomBowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ashby, DavidBoyson, Dr Rhodes
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Braine, Sir Bernard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Bright, Graham
Baldry, AnthonyBrinton, Tim
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Batiste, SpencerBrooke, Hon Peter
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyBrowne, John
Bellingham, HenryBruinvels, Peter
Bendall, VivianBuchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)Buck, Sir Antony
Benyon, WilliamBudgen, Nick
Berry, Sir AnthonyButterfill, John
Bevan, David GilroyCarlisle, John (N Luton)
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnCarlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnCarttiss, Michael
Chalker, Mrs LyndaHargreaves, Kenneth
Chapman, SydneyHarvey, Robert
Chope, ChristopherHaselhurst, Alan
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Hawksley, Warren
Cockeram, EricHayes, J.
Colvin, MichaelHayhoe, Barney
Conway, DerekHayward, Robert
Coombs, SimonHeathcoat-Amory, David
Cope, JohnHeddle, John
Corrie, JohnHenderson, Barry
Couchman, JamesHickmet, Richard
Cranbome, ViscountHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Currie, Mrs EdwinaHind, Kenneth
Dickens, GeoffreyHirst, Michael
Dorrell, StephenHolland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.Holt, Richard
Dover, DenHooson, Tom
du Cann, Rt Hon EdwardHordern, Peter
Durant, TonyHoward, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Eggar, TimHowell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Emery, Sir PeterHowell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Evennett, DavidHubbard-Miles, Peter
Eyre, Sir ReginaldHunt, David (Wirral)
Fallon, MichaelHunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Favell, AnthonyHunter, Andrew
Fenner, Mrs PeggyHurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Fletcher, AlexanderJenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Fookes, Miss JanetJessel, Toby
Forman, NigelJohnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Fowler, Rt Hon NormanJones, Robert (W Herts)
Fox, MarcusJoseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Freeman, RogerKing, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Fry, PeterKing, Rt Hon Tom
Galley, RoyKnight, Gregory (Derby N)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Glyn, Dr AlanKnowles, Michael
Goodlad, AlastairKnox, David
Gorst, JohnLamont, Norman
Gow, IanLang, Ian
Grant, Sir AnthonyLatham, Michael
Greenway, HarryLawler, Geoffrey
Gregory, ConalLawrence, Ivan
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edmds)Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Grist, IanLester, Jim
Ground, PatrickLightbown, David
Grylls, MichaelLilley, Peter
Gummer, John SelwynLloyd, Ian (Havant)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Hampson, Dr KeithLord, Michael
Hanley, JeremyLyell, Nicholas
Hannam,JohnMcCrindle, Robert
McCurley, Mrs AnnaPink, R. Bonner
Macfarlane, NeilPollock, Alexander
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)Porter, Barry
Maclean, David John.Powell, William (Corby)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)Powley, John
McQuarrie, AlbertPrentice, Rt Hon Reg
Malone, GeraldPrice, Sir David
Maples, JohnProctor, K. Harvey
Marlow, AntonyRaffan, Keith
Mather, CarolRaison, Rt Hon Timothy
Maude, Hon FrancisRenton, Tim
Mawhinney, Dr BrianRhodes James, Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mayhew, Sir PatrickRidley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mellor, DavidRidsdale, Sir Julian
Merchant, PiersRifkind, Malcolm
Meyer, Sir AnthonyRoe, Mrs Marion
Miller, Hal (B'grove)Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)Shersby, Michael
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)Skeet, T. H. H.
Miscampbell, NormanSmith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)Soames, Hon Nicholas
Moate, RogerSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Montgomery, FergusStanbrook, Ivor
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)Steen, Anthony
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Moynihan, Hon C.Stokes, John
Mudd, DavidTaylor, Rt Hon John David
Murphy, ChristopherTaylor, John (Solihull)
Neale, GerrardThompson, Donald (Calder V)
Nelson, AnthonyThompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Neubert, MichaelThurnham, Peter
Newton, TonyVaughan, Sir Gerard
Nicholls, PatrickViggers, Peter
Norris, StevenWakeham, Rt Hon John
Onslow, CranleyWalden, George
Oppenheim, PhilipWalker, Bill (T'side N)
Osborn, Sir JohnWard, John
Ottaway, RichardWardle, C. (Bexhill)
Page, John (Harrow W)Warren, Kenneth
Page, Richard (Herts SW)Watts, John
Parris, MatthewYeo, Tim
Patten, Christopher (Bath)Young, Sir George (Acton)
Patten, John (Oxford)
Pattie, GeoffreyTellers for the Noes:
Pawsey, JamesMr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. John Major.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.