It is my belief that the Minister should retain the power to appoint arbitrators from the Lord Chancellor's panel. I must declare an interest—it is not exactly an interest because on this occasion I am rather against the chartered surveyor—for I have been a chartered surveyor for longer than I care to say. My father and grandfather were chartered surveyors and my son is one. I hold the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in great esteem. It is a professional body and I would trust it to appoint an arbitrator anywhere. However, many members of the farming community have the feeling that chartered surveyors act only for landlords. That may be true of some of the larger firms that feature in the headlines, but most firms of chartered surveyors are prepared to act for landlords or tenants.
The agriculture section of the institution forms a small percentage of the institution's members. I should say that not more than 10 per cent. of the institution's members deal with agriculture matters. If one wanted a body to deal with agriculture matters only, probably the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers would be a better choice.
It is normally the large firms and not the small country firms that can afford to provide the institution with a president. It is very nearly impossible to take the senior partner of a three or five-man firm from his work for a year to become president.
What happens when the president is asked to appoint an arbitrator in an issue in which his own firm is involved? I do not think that it would remove the feeling that something was slightly wrong if the vice-president were to make the appointment. I believe that the president would make the appointment fairly and without prejudice but the Bill should take its place on the statute book with the confidence of everyone who is to be involved in its implementation.
Against that background, it would be far better if the Minister retained the power to appoint arbitrators. I cannot believe that the appointment process costs the Ministry a great deal of money. I hope that my hon. Friend will change his mind and retain the power. I understand that the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association have agreed to pay a fee instead of being provided with a free appointment service as in the past. This matter has created much ill feeling in the country and in the farming community. I want the Bill to start off on the right foot and have a fair wind.
I shall refer to amendment No. 24 which stands in my name. Clause 8, which entails the transfer of certain functions from the Minister and his Department to the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, is one of the most controversial and doubtful parts of the Bill.
Under the present arrangements, a dispute between a landlord and a tenant may be referred to arbitration by either party. If the parties cannot agree on an appointment, an arbitrator is appointed by the Minister from a panel of arbitrators drawn up by the Lord Chancellor.
Under clause 8 the panel will still exist, and the Lord Chancellor will continue to draw it up. Instead of the Ministry appointing an arbitrator in a disputed case, the arbitrator will be appointed by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. That is wrong in principle. There is such a level of disquiet about the proposal and such feeling that it is wrong-headed that there is a serious danger that confidence in the arbitration framework will be undermined.
The arguments, as the Minister well knows, are against the whole proposal. The new arrangements will not be seen as impartial in the farming community as a whole — quite the contrary. They will have a debilitating effect on the level of confidence in arbitration on disputed matters. I can do no better than to quote from the comments on clause 8 by the Tenant Farmers Association. A brief which was sent to members of the Committee and no doubt to others states:
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is seen by tenants as a predominantly landowner orientated organisation and the necessary degree of confidence does not therefore exist.
I do not know whether that point is correct or whether the inference is correct. I say only that that is the case as one important organisation sees it.
The National Farmers Union has expressed considerable suspicion. The brief states:
On a point of principle it is not appropriate for the President of a professional body whose members act for the parties to a dispute, to be responsible for the appointment of the Arbitrator.
That appears to be a sound argument in principle.
The transfer of responsibility under clause 8 is a clear abdication of responsibility by the Minister and his Department. The present system has worked well for almost 40 years. It depends upon the confidence of all sections of the farming community, especially the tenants. The Ministry, in the cases about which we are talking, has long been seen as neutral, fair, impartial and above the disputes. I put it to the Minister that those functions have now been jettisoned. That is a serious matter.
The saving in money is minimal. On 28 November 1983, Lord Belstead said in another place that there would be a saving of £50,000 from dispensing with the four members of staff involved in appointing arbitrators. Compared with the wrecking of established confidence, that is chickenfeed and could easily be recouped through a fee. After all, a fee is to be paid to the president of the RICS. It is clear that an edict has gone out from the Prime Minister and the Treasury, "Thou shalt privatise." The Minister, looking around his small domain for something to privatise, has hit on this because he could find nothing else. That is dogma gone mad. The practical consequences will be extremely serious and there are no tangible gains.
I have much sympathy with the case made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) for his amendment No. 23. I am only sorry that the Standing Committee did not have the benefit of his wise advice and counsel. He probably has more practical experience in this matter than all the rest of us put together and his has been the most damning criticism. The House should take careful note of such criticism from a practitioner.
If it were up to me, I should like clause 8 to disappear altogether, never to be seen again, but if there has to be a transfer it should be to a body other than the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Under the Government's proposal, justice may in fact be done but the fact that it will not be seen to be done will undermine confidence. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 24 and even at this late stage avoid one of the principal and far-reaching mistakes in the Bill.
I wish briefly to support all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins). He spoke of the feelings in his part of the world and I can confirm that, rightly or wrongly, similar feelings are held in the opposite corner of the country—the south-west.
The parliamentary committee of the Cornwall branch of the National Farmers Union has debated the matter and feels very strongly that the responsibility should be retained by the Minister. We are all conscious that Ministers and Government Departments are overloaded, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the Minister should meet the feelings on this point rather than have the entire Bill get off to a bad start through lack of confidence.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) referred to the cost of administering the existing legislation and the Minister's responsibilities under it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West said, the parties to disputes in arbitration are prepared to pay a fee. I respectfully suggest that that is the right way to proceed, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think again on this. For my part, I should like to see clause 8 disappear altogether.
I rise briefly to speak in support of the two amendments, and, in particular, amendment No. 23. I am profoundly concerned about the clause, which bestows the power of appointing arbitrators on the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I do not mean any disrespect to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), but, although his argument that the arbitrator should be appointed by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators has much merit, I see it as second best.
I think that I have done my homework on the Bill. I have read and re-read the Official Report of the proceedings in the other place, and of those on Second Reading in this House and in Committee. Perhaps I display my naivety, but I still cannot understand why the Government are taking such a course. The savings in cost and manpower are minimal. I do not know the precise figures, but I suspect that well over 90 per cent. of disputes over rent revision are settled without going to arbitration. In the few cases where the dispute continues, I suspect that for 90 per cent. of the time both parties will agree on the arbitrator. We are talking about a minimal number of cases. Therefore, one should ask whether the provision is worth all the fuss.
The industry is clearly unhappy about the changes that the Government intend to make. My gut feeling, particularly given the climate that prevails in farming matters at the moment, is that if the industry feels so strongly, we should go along with it and accept that the savings are minimal and let the powers remain with the Minister. On that point I rest my case. I thoroughly support the amendment.
May I apologise to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) as was not in the Chamber when he moved the amendment. However, I was well aware of the line that he intended to take.
I wish to reinforce what I said in Committee, which is that justice must always be seen to be done. Someone who is appointed independently and who is completely independent makes a far better arbitrator than someone with whom a person could identify. I do not seek, as I said in Committee, to criticise in any way the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It is a very honourable body and it has served our society well for a number of years, but the Bill puts it in a very invidious position. If the amendment was accepted and we returned to square one with the Minister retaining his powers, everybody would accept the position, just as they have done for several years.
Since Second Reading and the Committee stage, I have taken the trouble of speaking to farmers in my region. Believe it or not, although I represent an industrial seat, most of the land is agricultural. I have walked round the farms and have spoken to the Tenant Farmers Association, the NFU and others, not only in my constituency but in Lancashire and Yorkshire, which is my home base. I gained the overwhelming impression that no one is happy with the provision in the Bill. Everybody opposes it. People think that it is unfair and unreasonable. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) rightly said, the savings are minimal. To lose those savings would be as nothing compared with the respect that would be gained by the arbitration service if there was once again a totally independent system of appointment. Accordingly, I hope that the Government will concede that small point, which is nevertheless important if we are to have harmony in our arbitration system.
I endorse the sentiments that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are in full agreement on this issue. I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee. I have received many letters, and, like many hon. Members, I believe that the Government should concede this point. The sooner they realise that the farmers and the public at large are against the proposal the better.
To judge from the speeches so far, it is clear that there is great discontent and unhappiness in the farming community about the change that the Bill will make to the arbitration nomination. The change from the Ministry to the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has caused real offence. Indeed, there has been more controversy about this part of the Bill than about any other part that we have discussed.
The genesis of the Bill, and I make no complaint about it, was the debate and discussion initiated partly by a previous Minister, partly by the Country Landowners Association and partly by the NFU. The Bill was in gestation for three and a half years. There have been changes to the agreement, but essentially it has been kept.
Never during the discussions between the CLA and the NFU did the question of arbitration arise. There were complaints in another place, as there were in Committee, about lack of consultation, but even the Minister said in Committee that the present system has been efficient, has worked well and has had the confidence and trust of both sides of the industry — both landowners and tenants. Therefore, we would have expected compelling and powerful reasons from the Minister for the proposed change. I shall never accuse the Minister of lack of vigour in defending his policy, but I must say that the reasons he adumbrated for the change were feeble in the extreme.
The Minister's defence was fairly simple. He said that it was not a great issue of privatisation or of Government policy—it was merely sensible to transfer to the private sector those tasks which could equally well be provided by non-Government bodies. He said in Committee:
We believe that the appointment of arbitrators falls firmly into that category.
The hon. Gentleman argued that it was a matter of practicality and not principle and that agriculture was unique in having the arbitrator in a landlord and tenant position being appointed by the Government. The truth is that sheer dogma is behind the change. The Minister's noble Friend in another place said clearly that he smelt dogma. This is no way to go about it.
The RICS appoints arbitrators in many non-agricultural cases and where the Crown is a party to the arbitration. The whole point about the RICS appointing arbitrators where the Crown is a party to the dispute is to achieve impartiality. If a Government Department nominated an arbitrator when the Crown was involved, that would appear not to be impartial. That is why the RICS is satisfactory in other cases.
The Minister argued in Committee:
It is the Government's priority to save manpower in the Civil Service, although we are not arguing the case on cost grounds."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 12 April 1984; c. 180.]
No one disputes that Government manpower should be saved if it is sensible to do so. It is a reasonable proposition, which any reasonable man would be willing to accept. However, there is a contradiction here. The Minister said that, although there would be no saving in manpower, it would be sensible to redeploy the four
people who were concerned to other tasks. We are talking about only four people. Under the heading "Effects of the Bill on Public Service Manpower", the Bill states
There will be a small saving in Departmental manpower arising from the transfer to the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors of the responsibility for the appointment of arbitrators.
The Government are trying to have it both ways.
The Minister admitted that the functions had been carried out effectively and impartially. There have been no complaints about the system and there is no widespread support—indeed no support at all—for any change. The Minister argues that the new system will be equally impartial, but that is not how the tenants see it.
I should not attempt to cross swords with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins) over the question of arbitration and chartered surveyors, for he has great experience of that, but everyone knows—the point has been made to me in extremely strong terms—that the RICS is seen to be comprised of the Government's men. That view appears to be deeply ingrained in the minds of tenant farmers.
The Parliamentary Secretary need not get excited. She knows perfectly well what is being said, and I must go on the advice of those in the industry. A fee must be paid, and there is no reason why we should not leave matters as they are, having the fee charged and paid to the Ministry. That would save money and would, therefore, help the Minister of State should he have any difficulty with the Prime Minister over this. I have received a strong letter of support from the north Wales branch of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers urging that matters be left as they are.
This is the only case of the Government being involved in arbitration where the Minister is taking action. On Monday of this week we had an Adjournment debate on the Potato Marketing Board. It was answered by the Minister who is dealing with the Bill. He said, defending the potato marketing scheme:
The scheme provides for arbitration if a producer is aggrieved by any act or omission on the part of the board or, failing agreement, to be appointed by Ministers".—[Official Report, 4 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 135.]
Under that scheme, therefore, the Minister is retaining the Government's right to appoint an arbitrator, and he accepts that that is a good formula when there are disputes between growers and the Potato Marketing Board. I believe that the milk marketing scheme also provides for the Minister to appoint an arbitrator in the event of a dispute between a producer and the Milk Marketing Board.
Thus, an arbitration on rent appears to be the only case where a Government arbitration nomination is being taken out of the Ministry's hands and handed over—perhaps one can put it this way—to private enterprise. Does the Minister intend to do away with the Government-nominated arbitrator under the Milk Marketing Board's scheme, or the scheme operated by the Potato Marketing Board? If so, a great deal of damage would result.
I have always given the Minister credit for being an extremely intelligent man. He must know that the important changes which have been made in the rent formula may produce in the early stages more disputes than are likely to occur later. The more that arbitration is seen to be impartial, the more the judgments handed down clarify the rent formula, the easier it will be in future years to operate the new formula. He must be aware of the resentment that is being caused by clause 8.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that the best way to make sure that, despite its failings and any criticisms that we may have of it, the Bill gets a fair wind is to accept amendment No. 23, to take out clause 8, leaving the existing system undisturbed. I hope that he will go that far. If he cannot and does not accept amendment No. 23, we shall force the House to a Division, even if the hon. Gentleman does not wish to do that. If amendment No. 23 is defeated, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support us in the Lobby on amendment No. 24.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said that he regarded amendment No. 24 as second best. I should not put it quite as second best——
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) is doing his best to be extremely enticing. This matter has been much debated and it is difficult to say anything new about it. I apologise for reiterating points that I made in Committee. My defence is that I am responding to points already made in Committee.
There has been much misunderstanding about what the amendment entails. Members of the Committee will understand that well, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Sir P. Hawkins). I have found much misunderstanding and exaggeration as I have travelled around the country. I am grateful for yet another opportunity to stress that this is a simple and staightforward proposal.
We are discussing simply the appointment of arbitrators from a panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I know that Opposition Members know, but it must be stressed again in view of their attacks, that we are not altering the arrangements for appointment to the Lord Chancellor's panel. The same people will be conducting arbitrations. Virtually all the members of the panel—202 out of 206 — are already members of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
It is a fundamental part of Government policy to transfer to the private sector those tasks that can be provided equally well by non-Government bodies. I repeat what I said in Committee, referred to a moment ago by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North—that the appointment of arbitrators falls firmly into that category. The RICS already appoints arbitrators in many non-agricultural cases. I am advised that the number exceeds 2,000 a year. I am told that those arbitrations are running at roughly 1,000 a year. We are asking the RICS to take on a task that it already does frequently, and of which it has great experience.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, the RICS is designated by statute to appoint arbitrators in agricultural cases where the Crown is a party to the arbitration. Therefore, it is appointing its own members in cases involving tenants. I have no doubt that the RIC'S can carry out that extended function objectively and impartially, as it already does in the appointments for which it is currently responsible.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about the Potato and Milk Marketing Boards. I was trying to think which part of the Adjournment debate, which came very early in the morning, the hon. Gentleman had decided to quote to me. There is a legitimate distinction between the boards and the RICS. I referred to the RICS appointing arbitrators to more than 2,000 agricultural cases a year. In the Potato and Milk Marketing Boards, arbitrators are appointed where there is a dispute between a statutory body and an objector, which does not happen often. Here, we are referring, as in all other cases for which the RICS appoints arbitrators, to disputes between two private individuals, a landlord and a tenant. It is perfectly capable of carrying out that function as impartially as it has done in all the other cases.
As to the practical arrangements after handing over, the president of the RICS has given assurance that the procedure currently followed for the appointment of arbitrators will be substantially the same and that he undertakes to make the most suitable appointments in all cases, whether or not the arbitrator is a member of the RICS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West asked what would happen if the president's firm had an interest in a case in which he was asked to appoint an arbitrator. I have been corresponding with my hon. Friend about that. As he knows, if the president were asked to appoint an arbitrator in such a case, the application would be directed to a vice-president, who would make the appointment. My hon. Friend said that that was not satisfactory, but that is standard RICS practice in non-agricultural cases, and does not appear to create any difficulties.
Officials of the agriculture Department will co-operate closely with RICS officers during the handover period to ensure that the new arrangements operate smoothly and effectively from the start. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North referred to the difficulties resulting from the introduction of the Bill and, therefore, certain changes in the tenancy arrangements, but, as he knows, we are not proposing to implement this part of the Bill until a year has passed, so as to enable the transition to take place and to deal with the point that he made.
As the House knows, it is the Government's priority to use manpower effectively in the Civil Service. It is therefore essential to make sure that those who are employed in the Civil Service undertake work of value to the farming industry that cannot be done elsewhere. With some of the changes that are taking place in Brussels, I assure the House that we need any manpower that we can relieve from other purposes to deal with some of the new functions that must be undertaken as a result of decisions in Brussels. Therefore, it is straightforward and sensible to say that four people should not be employed on a task that could equally well be performed by a non-Government organisation.
I refer to amendment No. 24. I am sure that the House will agree, as the Committee did when we debated this part of clause 8, that it would be wrong for us today to enter into a debate on the respective merits of the RICS and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, both of which are highly respected and capable professional bodies. I am grateful for the comments made in Committee about the professional integrity and standing of both bodies.
I looked into the matter with great care, both before and after the Committee stage. I concluded that the RICS is the body with the greatest experience in this area. The president of the RICS will be advised in this task by staff of his land agency and agricultural division, all of whom have wide experience of agricultural matters. As I think I made clear in Committee, the activities and experience of those in the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators have tended to be concentrated in the City, trade, industry and other matters, but not agriculture.
Therefore, I can assure the House that I share the desire that nothing should be done to diminish the efficiency or impartiality of what is widely recognised as a well respected system of arbitration. I remain convinced that the transfer of my right hon. Friend's responsibility for the executive function of the appointment of arbitrators to the president of the RICS will not impair that system in any way, and before too long it will be seen that the fears that have been expressed are not realised. For that reason, I ask the House to resist both amendments.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister have not seen fit to act on the considerable disquiet in the farming community over this matter. Not only the farming community but the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers are, in 99 per cent. of the cases, the people who will have to act on behalf of the landlord or the tenant. I did not stress this before. I hope that the House will understand my embarrassment, but I thought that it was right to move the amendment because, as my family has been connected with the RICS for many years, I wanted to explain that it was wrong that people felt that disquiet, and I wanted the Bill to start off with a fair wind.
Only a small number of cases are involved. Generally, the landlord and tenant agree. If they do not, the valuers agree. Surely in 99 per cent. of the cases the valuers will agree at least on the name of an arbitrator. It is only when something goes wrong that they come to the Minister. I should have thought that one person and half an hour of the Minister's time was all that was necessary for the appointment of an arbitrator.
|Division No. 352]||[10.10 pm|
|Anderson, Donald||Beckett, Mrs Margaret|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Beith, A. J.|
|Ashton, Joe||Blair, Anthony|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)|
|Caborn, Richard||Maclennan, Robert|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||McTaggart, Robert|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||McWilliam, John|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Madden, Max|
|Clay, Robert||Marek, Dr John|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Maxton, John|
|Corbett, Robin||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Craigen, J. M.||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Crowther, Stan||Michie, William|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Parry, Robert|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge Hl)||Penhaligon, David|
|Dixon, Donald||Pike, Peter|
|Dormand, Jack||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Prescott, John|
|Eadie, Alex||Radice, Giles|
|Eastham, Ken||Randall, Stuart|
|Ewing, Harry||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Fisher, Mark||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|Forrester, John||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Foster, Derek||Rowlands, Ted|
|Freud, Clement||Sheerman, Barry|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Gourlay, Harry||Skinner, Dennis|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Harris, David||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)||Snape, Peter|
|Haynes, Frank||Spearing, Nigel|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Stott, Roger|
|Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)||Strang, Gavin|
|Howells, Geraint||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)||Tinn, James|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Torney, Tom|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Wallace, James|
|Hunter, Andrew||Wareing, Robert|
|Kirkwood, Archibald||Weetch, Ken|
|Lambie, David||Welsh, Michael|
|Leighton, Ronald||Winnick, David|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Loyden, Edward||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Mr. John Home Robertson and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Carttiss, Michael|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Cash, William|
|Ancram, Michael||Chope, Christopher|
|Arnold, Tom||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Ashby, David||Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Conway, Derek|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Coombs, Simon|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Cope, John|
|Baldry, Anthony||Couchman, James|
|Batiste, Spencer||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Dicks, Terry|
|Bellingham, Henry||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Benyon, William||Dover, Den|
|Berry, Sir Anthony||Dunn, Robert|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Durant, Tony|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Bottom ley, Peter||Evennett, David|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Eyre, Sir Reginald|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Fallon, Michael|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Farr, John|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Favell, Anthony|
|Brinton, Tim||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Forman, Nigel|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Gale, Roger|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Galley, Roy|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Budgen, Nick||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Goodhart, Sir Philip|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Gorst, John|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Greenway, Harry||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Hargreaves, Kenneth||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Hayward, Robert||Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|Heddle, John||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Henderson, Barry||Rowe, Andrew|
|Howard, Michael||Ryder, Richard|
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Jackson, Robert||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Key, Robert||Sims, Roger|
|Knox, David||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Lang, Ian||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Latham, Michael||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Spencer, Derek|
|Lester, Jim||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Lightbown, David||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Lilley, Peter||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)||Stern, Michael|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|McCurley, Mrs Anna||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|MacGregor, John||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Maclean, David John||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Major, John||Sumberg, David|
|Malins, Humfrey||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Malone, Gerald||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Terlezki, Stefan|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Mellor, David||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Thurnham, Peter|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Mitchell, David (NW Hants)||Tracey, Richard|
|Moynihan, Hon C.||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Murphy, Christopher||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Neale, Gerrard||Viggers, Peter|
|Needham, Richard||Waddington, David|
|Nelson, Anthony||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Walden, George|
|Oppenheim, Philip||Walker, Bill (T'side N)|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||Waller, Gary|
|Parris, Matthew||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Watson, John|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Watts, John|
|Porter, Barry||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Powley, John||Whitfield, John|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Wolfson, Mark|
|Price, Sir David||Wood, Timothy|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Woodcock, Michael|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Rathbone, Tim||Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Michael Neubert.|
|Division No. 353]||[10.21 pm|
|Anderson, Donald||Bermingham, Gerald|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Blair, Anthony|
|Ashton, Joe||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Caborn, Richard|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)|
|Beith, A. J.||Campbell-Savours, Dale|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Marek, Dr John|
|Clay, Robert||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Maxton, John|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Corbett, Robin||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Craigen, J. M.||Michie, William|
|Crowther, Stan||Iviillan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Parry, Robert|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)||Penhaligon, David|
|Dixon, Donald||Pike, Peter|
|Dormand, Jack||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Prescott, John|
|Eadie, Alex||Radice, Giles|
|Eastham, Ken||Randall, Stuart|
|Ewing, Harry||Redmond, M.|
|Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Fisher, Mark||Robertson, George|
|Forrester, John||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Rowlands, Ted|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||Sheerman, Barry|
|Haynes, Frank||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Home Robertson, John||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Howells, Geraint||Snape, Peter|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Spearing, Nigel|
|Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)||Stott, Roger|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Strang, Gavin|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Kirkwood, Archibald||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Lambie, David||Tinn, James|
|Leighton, Ronald||Tcrney, Tom|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Wallace, James|
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)||Wareing, Robert|
|Litherland, Robert||Weetch, Ken|
|Loyden, Edward||Welsh, Michael|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Winnick, David|
|Maclennan, Robert||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|McTaggart, Robert||Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Conway, Derek|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Coombs, Simon|
|Ancram, Michael||Cope, John|
|Arnold, Tom||Couchman, James|
|Ashby, David||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Dicks, Terry|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Dover, Den|
|Baldry, Anthony||Dunn, Robert|
|Batiste, Spencer||Durant, Tony|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Bellingham, Henry||Evennett, David|
|Benyon, William||Eyre, Sir Reginald|
|Berry, Sir Anthony||Fallon, Michael|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Farr, John|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Favell, Anthony|
|Bottomley, Peter||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Forman, Nigel|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Freud, Clement|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Gale, Roger|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Galley, Roy|
|Brinton, Tim||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Goodhart, Sir Philip|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Gorst, John|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||Greenway, Harry|
|Budgen, Nick||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Harris, David|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hayward, Robert|
|Cash, William||Heddle, John|
|Chope, Christopher||Henderson, Barry|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Howard, Michael|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Hunter, Andrew||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Jackson, Robert||Rowe, Andrew|
|Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Ryder, Richard|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Key, Robert||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Knox, David||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Lang, Ian||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Latham, Michael||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Sims, Roger|
|Lester, Jim||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Lightbown, David||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Lilley, Peter||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)||Spencer, Derek|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|McCurley, Mrs Anna||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|MacGregor, John||Stern, Michael|
|Maclean, David John||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|Malins, Humfrey||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Malone, Gerald||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Sumberg, David|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Mellor, David||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Mitchell, David (NW Hants)||Thumham, Peter|
|Moynihan, Hon C.||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Murphy, Christopher||Tracey, Richard|
|Neale, Gerrard||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Needham, Richard||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Nelson, Anthony||Viggers, Peter|
|Neubert, Michael||Waddington, David|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Oppenheim, Philip||Walden, George|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||Walker, Bill (T'side N)|
|Parris, Matthew||Waller, Gary|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Watson, John|
|Porter, Barry||Watts, John|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Powley, John||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Whitfield, John|
|Price, Sir David||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Wolfson, Mark|
|Rathbone, Tim||Wood, Timothy|
|Renton, Tim||Woodcock, Michael|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Tellers for the Noes|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. John Major.|
|Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|