Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 2, line 21, at end insert
or the carrying on of such business in the United Kingdom.
() The amendments that may be made for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above include conferring powers on the Secretary of State, whether by extending or modifying any provision of that Schedule which confers such powers or by adding further such provisions.".
The most important change made by amendment No. 4 relates to the scope of the powers in clause 2. The need for an amendment springs from an amendment which introduces into schedule 1 a procedure for the Secretary of State to grant permissions which will have the effect of excluding from the definition of investment business certain activities carried on by the holder. The existing power in clause 2 to amend the definition of investment or investment business would not have been sufficient to amend the powers of the Secretary of State to grant permissions under the new provisions or to confer further powers on him. Therefore, it would not have been possible to extend the powers to cover activities other than those specified in the amendment, or to amend the criteria against which applications are to be judged. The amendment gives the clause 2 powers this desirable flexibility. Amendment No. 5 and the first part of the amendment No. 4 are consequential on amendments to the definitions in clause 1 made on Report.
I understand from what the Minister has said that the general effect of amendment No. 4 is to give the Secretary of State greater flexibility to adjust the definition of what carrying on investment business might or might not mean. One could add to the definition or subtract from it. That is a welcome flexibility, and I accept the purpose of the amendment. I take this opportunity to examine the direction in which the Secretary of State might intend to use his powers. An obvious and important way in which he might use these powers is by incorporating as part of the investment business, which ought to be dealt with under the Bill, the advising and managing of takeover bids. Most people understand that this is an important aspect of City operations and of investment business generally.
Given the unfortunate fact that the City very often finds itself in the headlines these days as a consequence of public concern at the way in which takeover bids are managed, it seems perverse that so far the Government have not taken the opportunity of specifically including the rules of the takeover code and the role of the takeover panel within these definitions. The fortunate aspect of this amendment is that it at least keeps open the possibility that the Secretary of State will choose to use his powers to do what the Opposition believe he should do, and ought to have done from the outset.
The sheer volume of takeover activity has caused a great deal of concern, but there is even more concern about the obvious evidence that corners are being cut and rules are being bent simply because of the immensely valuable business available to merchant bankers and others in this lucrative market. Increasingly, one finds — there is evidence virtually every day of the week—that the City and the takeover panel are concerned at the way in which the rules are ignored. It is perverse that the Government do not take the opportunity to remedy that obvious difficulty. A current example with which we are all familiar involves the problems arising from the Turner and Newall bid for AE. It could be argued that the takeover panel acted very fairly and responded with the appropriate range of sanctions and penalties. I shall try to argue in a moment that that is not necessarily the best way of dealing with that situation.
The difficulty, of course, is that the panel as presently constituted and operating, and operating outside the Bill and outside any possible statutory framework, remains a voluntary body. As a consequence, its rules have no legal force, it has no sanctions, and at the end of the day it has no teeth. In the intensely competitive new City, the major new players, as we all know, are intent on playing to the rules—to the whistle—and will demand something more than the relative lack of certainty offered by a voluntary code. Already there is evidence that in major takeover bids of this sort people are increasingly tempted to go to court, and on occasions do so, to get a legally binding ruling as to what is permissible and what is not. The danger is that if things are left as they are, quite apart from any other problems, the takeover panel may find itself bypassed in many of these important matters.
The case for the takeover panel in the present situation is that it provides a system of flexibility and of speedy response. I do not dispute that. My criticism is not of the fulfilment of the takeover panel's role within the constraints placed upon it. It has done an excellent job. If these matters are to be regulated effectively and if public and City concern is to be damped down, it is important that, in addition to speed and flexibility, and perhaps in contradistinction to those qualities, the takeover code should offer certainty. Grey areas are no longer good enough. We need the certainty of black letter law, as it were, so that everybody knows where he stands.
In the Turner and Newall case, the panel said that anybody in doubt about the meaning of the code, instead of consulting his lawyers — we all know that one's lawyer will often give the advice one is looking for—should consult the panel and get a legal ruling.
I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's reply meets my point. I do not dispute for a moment the willingness of the panel to answer such questions. The problem is that the answers that the panel gives are no more legally binding than anything else it does. It is increasingly clear that some parties to bids are likely to want a legally binding decision from the courts.
The Turner and Newall case — the AE case —illustrates the difficult point that concern about the role of the takeover panel and the case for bringing it within the framework of the Bill rests on two attitudes which, in some senses at any rate, run in contrary directions. There is the problem that, without sanctions, the takeover panel is increasingly in danger of being ignored. It will be ignored, if we are not careful, by those whose reputations are of no great value to them. The sanction at the disposal of the takeover panel is that of public reprimand. The panel could use the sanction of public reprimand to hurt people who transgress the rules. Damage is caused to the reputation of the bank or house involved. If, however—this is not by any means beyond the bounds of possibility —we are dealing with people who, in a sense, have no reputation to protect and are content to take the money and run, the sanction is of much less significance.
Without some statutory back-up to the code—some legal force to the sanctions which it can apply—I fear that, in the intensely competitive climate in the City, it will become simply part of the acceptable wounds of battle, or some of the occupational hazards which merchant banks and others are content to accept as the price for carrying out this business and for obtaining future business. There is evidence in recent cases that even reputable merchant banks and reputable brokers are willing to take that public reprimand — that slap across the wrist. As a consequence, they can show their present and future clients that they are in to play rough for the best possible result for their clients.
The danger is that over a period the sanctions, such as they are, which the takeover panel might be able to exert will simply lose their force. We saw in the case of Lloyd's what happens when a regulatory system becomes inured to unacceptable behaviour. I fear that the same may happen with the takeover code and the activities of the panel. That is the primary case for the Minister using the power that the amendment gives him to extend the ambit of the Bill to the takeover panel.
In relation to the AE case, let me explain the other set of concerns. I think that this is the point that was made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). Even where the panel appears to take tough action, and appears to apply the rules in a penal way, there is still a substantial ground for concern at the fact that the panel has no statutory powers. The difficulty arises because if the panel gets tough, it does so on the basis of no legally established powers of any sort. It is not a tribunal, and it is not a court of law. It does not and cannot therefore provide the legal safeguards. It provides little by way of proper appeals, and so on. If major decisions are to be taken, affecting hundreds if not thousands of millions of pounds, they should be taken by a body that is set up by law and therefore provides all the ordinary safeguards that should be provided.
The difficulty with the AE case is that the takeover panel in many ways fell short of some of the procedural safeguards. It left some of the parties dissatisfied. In the end the sanctions that it applied were applied to the company rather than to the advisers. It was the shareholders of the victim company, as it were, who, in the end, had to carry the burden of the bad practices of their merchant banks and stockbrokers. In other words, even where the takeover panel has done what it can to punish transgressors, it has ended up punishing the wrong people. Even in areas where it tries to improve the operation of the code—for example, in the restrictions on advertising—it is in danger of misunderstanding what is needed in the interests of investor protection. For many shareholders, the full-page advertisement in one of the quality dailies is a useful and almost unique source of information about the nature of various bids. Even in its constitution, the takeover panel is hardly representative of the investing public, but it is certainly representative of many of those who manage investments and deal with takeover bids. It is unfortunate that in its attempts to regulate the area, it has acted against the interests of small investors.
The hon. Gentleman is yielding to his familiar temptation to usurp the functions of the Chair. I can assure him that I am as anxious as anyone to make progress with the Bill. As I am about to conclude my remarks, I shall bear his strictures with equanimity.
I urge the Minister to reply along the lines that he is sensitive to the issue that I raise. I hope that he recognises the need for improvement by legislative intervention in that area, and that he will use the powers that the amendment provides to extend the Bill to that vital area.
I fear that if I were to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on his election to the shadow Cabinet I might do his chances next year some damage, as so much admiration has already been expressed by Conservative Members.
I rise merely to comment on the burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that he found the amendment sensible and one that he could normally support but was probing the Minister as to what was in his mind. From the hon. Gentleman's speech, I got the impression that if the Minister could not assure him about the takeover panel and its ultimate inclusion in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman might push the matter to a Division. I have to say with no enthusiasm, and perhaps, to put it bluntly, with a little embarrassment, that if he were to do that my party and I could not go into the Division Lobby with him. I say that with a little embarrassment because we joined him in the Division Lobby last time he raised the matter. Therefore, I ask him and others to recognise that, on maturer consideration of those matters and, in particular — [Interruption.] Labour Members have good reason to laugh, but Conservative Members have not. They will recall that the Government introduced some 700 amendments, 20 new clauses and four new schedules and the Minister has had to refer time and again to "mature consideration". I recall that when we discussed the immunity of self-regulating organisations he argued for half a morning that there should be no immunity for SROs but subsequently gave in—not to the blandishments of good sense, but to the pressure put upon him by City organisations and others.
If the Minister can make such claims, so can I. I shall try to explain why we have reached that view. I refer first to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) — that the takeover panel is currently working well. One does not need to take his view or, indeed, my view on that. The most cursory study of the speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham when he raised the matter on Report will reveal, at column 539, a tribute to the working of the panel. The debate in the other place was redolent with statements by the Labour spokesman there about how the takeover panel was working effectively. I direct the attention of the House to column 518 of the Official Report, House of Lords, of 27 October, in which the official spokesman for the Labour party said that he believed that the panel was working well and that the code in operation was good. I do not quote him precisely, but any cursory study of the debate gives that sense. The Labour spokesman did not criticise the working of the panel in any way or suggest that it was inimical to the shareholders.
There was a good deal of contradiction between the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham about the working of the takeover panel and the statements by his party's representative in the other place, where the Labour spokesman went so far as to say specifically that he believed that the takeover panel in its operation and under the present rules looked after the interests of the small shareholder. That is precisely the point on which the hon. Member for Dagenham has taken a different view, so perhaps there are differences in other areas as well. In short, there was no suggestion in any of the those speeches that the takeover panel was not operating successfully and looking after the needs of small shareholders — for instance, in a way that ensures that they receive offers in the same way as larger shareholders. Indeed, one criticism of the takeover panel has been that in some quarters it makes it too easy for small shareholders to receive such bids. I am assured, however, that the hon. Member for Dagenham would not wish to alter that provision—and nor would I.
What we should like to hear is not criticism of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said, but the Liberal view. Is the Liberal party happy that the takeover panel has no teeth? That is what we want to know.
I was moving to that point. It seems that the Labour Front Bench in the other place, and, by inference, here as well, agrees that the takeover panel is operating well at present. The view is shared by them and us that the current operation of the takeover panel is adequate. The hon. Member for Dagenham has not criticised that.
The hon. Gentleman has made the statement so frequently that even I, with my great patience, am forced to rise to contradict him. I have just spent eight or 10 minutes explaining carefully, as I thought, precisely why Labour Members—I am glad to associate my hon. Friends in the other place with the sentiments that I have expressed — believe that the takeover panel, although an admirable body within the constraints that apply to it, is not doing an adequate job in the interests of investor protection. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman did not take that meaning from what I said.
I take the flavour of that, but it seems that there is a contradiction to be drawn between what has been said this evening and what was said on Report. The hon. Member for Dagenham said:
It is appropriate to pay tribute to the work of the takeover code and of the panel that administers it."—[Official Report, 12 June 1986; Vol. 99, c.539.]
He then said that the serious question was whether that arrangement would suffice following the big bang.
If the hon. Gentleman believes that there will be different problems after the big bang, is he saying that he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), or is he trying to explain why there are apparently no Liberal Members present to support him this evening?
If this issue is pressed to a Division, the hon. Gentleman will find that members of my party will be present to support me. There is no difference between the hon. Member for Dagenham and myself about the takeover panel perhaps being in need of some amendment in future. The question is whether the best way of doing that is to bring it within the Securities and Investments Board.
I am left in some slight confusion. When this matter was debated in another place an Opposition Front Bench spokesman made it clear that, although it was suggested that the panel should be subject to statutory rules, that did not include an intention to bring it under the SIB. That is contrary to what the hon. Member for Dagenham has said.
We accept that the takeover panel is working adequately, leaving aside whether that will continue to be the position after the big bang, so is it appropriate to bring the panel under the SIB now in readiness for changes that might have to be made in the future? The SIB is clearly overloaded and it is doubtful whether, with its current resources and with the challenges that it is now facing, it is capable of taking on even more responsibility as suggested by the hon. Member for Dagenham and whether it could carry out the job in an appropriate manner is even more doubtful. There are some defects in the statutory approach that has been suggested, and the hon. Member for Dagenham fairly and honestly named some of them. Would a statutory code governing the panel slow down the essential speed of operation that is so important and to which the hon. Gentleman alluded? Would a statutory code be too inflexible to meet the panel's needs in a way that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see? The present arrangement gives some flexibility in operating the rules for the panel, which can be beneficial. There is no reliance on statute and the courts.
I support the view that was advanced cogently in a previous debate by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher). He made some trenchant criticisms of the panel but said that he felt that the SIB had enough on its plate already. If that was true on 12 June, it must be immeasurably more true now with the pressures that have since been placed on the SIB. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central was right to call for an independent reexamination of the panel. The Minister did not concede that there was a need for that to be done, but I hope that he will give the suggestion further thought. I believe that it would be a useful way forward.
If we place the panel within the SIB, whose job it is to direct itself purely to City matters, will we limit the ambit of a panel which from time to time may have to address broader considerations affecting the public interest which may not be exclusive to the City? We know that the SIB is interested particularly in investor protection and those who invest in the City, and is there not some evidence to show that the panel's considerations will extend beyond investor protection to the broader public interest? I accept that the panel may well have to be examined in future, but it is operating very well now and it is not necessary to change it now. Indeed, it is necessary not to change it until it becomes necessary to do so.
It is typical that Liberals are prepared to consider these issues in the light of the circumstances that prevail at the time and to make a judgment of what is appropiate. I share with the hon. Member for Dagenham some doubts about whether the panel, as constructed, will meet the needs of the City and will be able to carry out the job that it is called upon to perform in the new context in which it will find itself, but I do not think it necessary to solve the problem by immediately placing the panel on a statutory basis or placing it within the SIB. It is probably better to lake a longer view of the problem and to arrange for an independent re-examination to take place.
When that process has been completed, we can take the most sensible course that will meet the needs of the City. We shall be able to take a much more measured and sensible approach as a result of taking a longer view of the problem. That would be infinitely preferable to placing the panel within the SIB now.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I resist the temptation to enter into a fascinating analysis of whether, and if so to what extent, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was criticising the takeover panel and, if so, whether he was being consistent or inconsistent with what he said previously, or with what was said from the Opposition Front Bench in another place, and to what extent that view accorded or did not accord with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Even more tempting is the philosophy behind the question posed by the hon. Member for Yeovil in his closing remarks. I think that he was saying, "To change or not to change, that is the question"—subject on which he and his party are unrivalled in their expertise.
The peg on which the hon. Member for Dagenham sought to hang his intervention, with characteristic ingenuity, was the extent to which the activities of advising and managing bids and takeovers come or would come within the scope of the amendments. It is that point, which is cardinal and perhaps the only point relevant to the debate, that I propose to address, but I fear that I am unable to offer the hon. Gentleman much comfort.
A professional adviser who advises a person on the acquisition of shares is already covered by the definition of "investment business". So, too, is a merchant bank which makes arrangements for the acquisition. I think that that much will have been appreciated by the hon. Gentleman, and I have no doubt that it is common ground between us. Clause 2 could not be used to bring the panel's rules, which apply to acquirers as well as to advisers, into the scope of the Bill. It is concerned with the activities and people caught by the Bill, not with the Secretary of State's rule-making vires. Even if I were persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's blandishments that the powers which are the basis of the amendment could be used to cover the activities to which he has referred, the scope to do so does not exist within the terms of the amendments, so it would not be possible to do what has been suggested.
Tributes have been paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House— I do not wish to re-enter the argument about the precise tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham — to the panel's activities. I wish to associate myself with the tributes and compliments that have been paid because I believe that the panel is working well. I see no ground for criticising its rulings in the case of Turner and Newall and AE.
Without wishing in any sense to be provocative, it seemed that at one stage the hon. Member for Dagenham was seeking to criticise the panel for not being able sufficiently to enforce its rulings. At another stage, he seemed to be suggesting that it was enforcing its rulings too stringently and too effectively. I detected a certain inconsistency there. I suggest that the panel is working well, that there are no grounds for interfering with its workings, that there would be no advantage in bringing its activities within the scope of the Bill and that, in any event, it would not be possible to do so within the scope of the amendments.
With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who made a valiant effort to hide his embarrassment at the fact that he and his party have from one stage of the Bill to another almost totally reversed their stance. He tried to cover that up by paying great textual attention to what my noble Friends said. All I can offer the House is the thought that, on that subject at least, I can act as a more authoritative interpreter of their remarks than the hon. Member for Yeovil.
There is no difference between my noble Friends and me on this. We believe that the takeover panel has done a good job within the constraints put on it in its role as a voluntary body. We also believe that, in the light of the immense changes that are taking place in the City, that ought to change. We are asking not, as the hon. Member for Yeovil would have it, for the takeover panel to be brought immediately within the aegis of the SIB—although that might have been a desirable possibility at an earlier stage of the Bill—but that the Secretary of State should exercise some form of reserve power.
I have made it clear that I have not changed my mind. I am simply adjusting to new circumstances at a different stage of the Bill. Unlike the Liberal party, we have not done a complete volte face. We might well have settled this issue in another place if alliance peers had joined the otherwise cross-bench alliance in support of my present argument.
What the Minister said came as no surprise to me. I understand the technical point that he made but, to reach a speedy conclusion to the debate, I shall content myself with saying that his speech was imbued with a complacency that is not shared by a wide range of opinion outside the House, not least in the City. A good deal of press comment and City opinion is now convinced that we can no longer live with the present arrangements. The Opposition want to register that point strongly. I have no real quarrel with that amendment, but to register our view on the Government's refusal to take the takeover point seriously we shall be compelled to divide the House.
|Division No. 303]||[6.33 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Forth, Eric|
|Alexander, Richard||Fox, Sir Marcus|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Franks, Cecil|
|Amess, David||Fraser, Peter (Angus East)|
|Ancram, Michael||Gale, Roger|
|Ashby, David||Galley, Roy|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)||Gorst, John|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Gow, Ian|
|Baldry, Tony||Grant, Sir Anthony|
|Batiste, Spencer||Gregory, Conal|
|Bellingham, Henry||Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Ground, Patrick|
|Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic||Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)|
|Best, Keith||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Hannam, John|
|Blackburn, John||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Harvey, Robert|
|Bottomley, Peter||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Hawksley, Warren|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Hayward, Robert|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Bright, Graham||Heddle, John|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Hickmet, Richard|
|Browne, John||Hicks, Robert|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Budgen, Nick||Hill, James|
|Burt, Alistair||Hind, Kenneth|
|Butcher, John||Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)|
|Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam||Holt, Richard|
|Butterfill, John||Hordern, Sir Peter|
|Cash, William||Howard, Michael|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Chope, Christopher||Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Hubbard-Miles, Peter|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Colvin, Michael||Jessel, Toby|
|Conway, Derek||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Coombs, Simon||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Cope, John||Jones, Robert (Herts W)|
|Corrie, John||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Critchley, Julian||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Kershaw, Sir Anthony|
|Dicks, Terry||Key, Robert|
|Dorrell, Stephen||King, Roger (B'ham N'field)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Knight, Greg (Derby N)|
|Dover, Den||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward||Knox, David|
|Dunn, Robert||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Durant, Tony||Lang, Ian|
|Dykes, Hugh||Latham, Michael|
|Evennett, David||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Eyre, Sir Reginald||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)|
|Farr, Sir John||Lightbown, David|
|Favell, Anthony||Lilley, Peter|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Forman, Nigel||McCrindle, Robert|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)||Speed, Keith|
|Maclean, David John||Spencer, Derek|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Major, John||Squire, Robin|
|Malone, Gerald||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Marlow, Antony||Steen, Anthony|
|Mates, Michael||Stern, Michael|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Sumberg, David|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Mellor, David||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Moore, Rt Hon John||Terlezki, Stefan|
|Murphy, Christopher||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Nelson, Anthony||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Neubert, Michael||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Norris, Steven||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Onslow, Cranley||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Osborn, Sir John||Tracey, Richard|
|Portillo, Michael||Trippier, David|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Raffan, Keith||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Rathbone, Tim||Waddington, David|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Wallace, James|
|Robinson, Mark (N'port W)||Waller, Gary|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Ward, John|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Rossi, Sir Hugh||Watts, John|
|Rowe, Andrew||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Wheeler, John|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Whitfield, John|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Wilkinson, John|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Wood, Timothy|
|Shersby, Michael||Woodcock, Michael|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Mr. Richard Ryder.|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Anderson, Donald||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Crowther, Stan|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Deakins, Eric|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Dewar, Donald|
|Barnett, Guy||Dixon, Donald|
|Barron, Kevin||Dobson, Frank|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Dormand, Jack|
|Bell, Stuart||Douglas, Dick|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Dubs, Alfred|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Blair, Anthony||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Eadie, Alex|
|Boyes, Roland||Eastham, Ken|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Fatchett, Derek|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Faulds, Andrew|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)|
|Buchan, Norman||Fisher, Mark|
|Caborn, Richard||Flannery, Martin|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Forrester, John|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Foster, Derek|
|Canavan, Dennis||Foulkes, George|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Fraser, J. (Norwood)|
|Clarke, Thomas||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Clay, Robert||George, Bruce|
|Clelland, David Gordon||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Godman, Dr Norman|
|Coleman, Donald||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Gould, Bryan|
|Corbett, Robin||Hamilton, James (M'well N)|
|Hamilton, W. W. (File Central)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Hardy, Peter||Pendry, Tom|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Radice, Giles|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Randall, Stuart|
|Hefter, Eric S.||Redmond, Martin|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport East)||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|John, Brynmor||Rowlands, Ted|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Sheerman, Barry|
|Leighton, Ronald||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)||Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)|
|Litherland, Robert||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Soley, Clive|
|McKelvey, William||Spearing, Nigel|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|McTaggart, Robert||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|McWilliam, John||Tinn, James|
|Madden, Max||Wareing, Robert|
|Marek, Dr John||Weetch, Ken|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Welsh, Michael|
|Meacher, Michael||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Michie, William||Wilson, Gordon|
|Mikardo, Ian||Winnick, David|
|Milian, Rt Hon Bruce||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Nellist, David||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Mr. Allen McKay and|
|Park, George||Mr. Laurence Cunliffe.|