Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 15, line 24, at end insert:
(6) Where an employer, being a company in the case of which there has, as respects the whole or any proportion of its share capital, been granted a quotation on a recognised stock exchange, is required by virtue of this section to disclose any information to trade union representatives relating to future plans of the company which could have a significant effect on the assets or profits of the company, he shall at the same time make the information available in accordance with the disclosure requirements for the time being of that stock exchange.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser)
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In disagreeing with the amendment the Government have no intention of restrict- 1632 ing the information which can be given to shareholders or of forcing companies to give information to unions which they cannot give to shareholders or the Stock Exchange. Our objections are purely practical. We appreciate that there is real concern behind this amendment, but we feel it is misdirected.
Many companies already disclose information to trade union representatives without seeing any problem here. They accept that unions will handle the information responsibly. Although they will now be required by law to disclose some information to unions, that information will be concerned with collective bargaining, and its disclosure will not usually have any significant effect on the assets or profits of the company. Employers are not required to release information if its disclosure would have an adverse effect on the undertaking. In the very rare case where price-sensitive information is divulged—for example, when disclosure sends the share price up—there is nothing in the Bill to stop the employer telling the shareholders, the Stock Exchange, or anyone else. Nothing prevents a company from giving any information to shareholders or the Stock Exchange which it thinks the Stock Exchange rules require 1633 It is a matter for the Stock Exchange to see that its rules cover what it requires, and to enforce them if necessary. This is certainly not the purpose of legislation on the rights of trade union representatives. It does not, therefore, follow that since a legal obligation has been placed on companies to give information to unions the obligation to shareholders should also be given legal force. The existence of Stock Exchange rules to cover this obligation should be a sufficient safeguard for those who invest money. The purpose of this legislation is to provide an equivalent safeguard for those who invest their labour. If changes in the law concerning the rights of shareholders were required the place for them would be in a companies Bill.
There is a defect in the amendment in that it provides no sanction against any employer who breaks the Stock Exchange rules on disclosure. Presumably the Stock Exchange could take action against such an employer, but it could do this anyway without the benefit of this amendment.
Many of the disclosure provisions in the Bill are not substantially different the disclosure provisions in the Industrial Relations Act 1971. The clauses on disclosure of information in this Bill were welcomed by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) when, on Second Reading, he said:I now turn to the information clauses, to which we have no objection. They are the same clauses, with perhaps a little elaboration, as were contained in the Industrial Relations Act."—[Official Report, 28th April 1975; Vol. 891, c. 54.]On the bases of precedent and practicability and bearing in mind that stock exchanges have the right to require the disclosure of information if they think it relevant to shareholders, I hope that the House will agree to disagree with the Lords.
§ Mr. Brittan
I regret to say that I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to disagree with the Lords. This is a matter to which we attach some importance. We are not alone in that. These matters were raised elsewhere when there was a considerable degree of discussion both formally and informally relating to the points raised. It was the considered view of the Stock Exchange that an amendment of this kind was desirable. This is not a sudden side-wind but a pro- 1634 fessional view which is held responsibly and is advanced by the Lords in their amendment for that reason.
I do not believe that any useful purpose is served by comparing this situation with that of the Industrial Relations Act, or quoting general observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). Those were general observations, and even if what he was saying was taken in a wider sense than he undoubtedly must have meant, the fact is that if representations have been made by a responsible body this House ought to take them into account and consider them on their merits. For this reason we must look at the merits of what the Lords have done rather than consider what was said at the time of the Industrial Relations Act and the relationship between this legislation and that Act.
The first point to stress is that this amendment in no way seeks to limit disclosure to trade unions, which is the major objective in this portion of the legislation. It is equally important to stress that the amendment in no way seeks to protect companies that might not wish to disclose. Quite the reverse is the case.
The amendment is directed at bad companies which might be compelled to disclose price-sensitive information to trade unions under these disclosure provisions but which might be reluctant to disclose such information any further—not necessarily because it would harm the companies but for other reasons. A situation would arise in which trade unions would have price-sensitive information which would not be otherwise available.
§ Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about which we shall, no doubt, hear more. Can he give the House an estimate of the number of trade unionists who benefited from the release of price-sensitive information concerning Slater Walker last Friday afternoon?
§ Mr. Brittan
That is an interesting and instructive comment. As the hon. Member knows, the answer has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. No information was disclosed to trade unions and it does not seem that a great deal of service is done to the House by using a debate on a serious amendment to make that sort of cheap point. Such 1635 highly partisan points have been delivered by the hon. Gentleman with a greater degree of wit in the past. We look forward to his reverting to his better form.
The situation envisaged here is one whereby unions are given price-sensitive information, and when a difficult position arises over the listing agreement entered into by companies whose shares are quoted on the stock exchanges concerned. Such an agreement says that a company, having secured a listing on the Stock Exchange, is required to give immediate notification of any information necessary to enable shareholders to appraise the position of the company. It goes on to say that directors should not divulge price-sensitive information in such a way as to place in a privileged position any person, or class or category of person, outside the company and its advisers.
If the Bill is passed without this amendment the effect would be that trade unions would be placed in such a privileged position. We believe that that is undesirable. There is no reason why the amendment should not stand and ensure that there is that legal obligation on companies placed in that position to make the disclosure in the way the Stock Exchange provides.
The Minister says that it is not often that price-sensitive information is disclosed. That is right, but the CIR Report No. 31 says that the sort of information that is disclosed to trade unions, or ought to be so disclosed, can be price-sensitive. That report talked about information as to profits before and after tax, distributions and retentions and up-to-date values of fixed assets and stocks. It would be extraordinary if it were suggested that such information would be incapable of being price-sensitive. Of course it is. As such it is only right that there should be an obligation for it to be disclosed generally, as the Stock Exchange requires, rather than disclosed only to trade unions.
The Minister made two further points. He said that there was no sanction imposed on the employer if he failed to disclose the information. That is correct. The machinery does not provide for a sanction in this situation. We believe that the Stock Exchange would be greatly strengthened in any action that it chose to take if there were an express legal obligation for its procedures to be followed in a situation of that kind. 1636 We do not believe that that invalidates the strength and importance of the amendment.
The Minister says that there is nothing to stop disclosure being made and the Stock Exchange policing it. It is true that the Stock Exchange has considerable powers, but it feels that those powers would be substantially strengthened and given greater moral force if in addition there were a statutory provision of the kind that has been enacted elsewhere.
The Minister has failed to show why any harm would be done by the acceptance of an amendment which creates a certain parity of treatment, and which those most actively and professionally concerned regard as being a necessary protection for the proper operation of a market in securities. For those reasons I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Rooker
As Conservative Members are a bit touchy at the moment about Slater Walker, I promise not to refer to the matter again this afternoon. I have too many other important matters to talk about that concern my constituents
The amendment's pedigree is interesting. It does not go back to the Tories' Industrial Relations Act; it first appeared in the Labour Government's Industrial Relations Bill—the 1970 version, which was never enacted. How was the 1971 Act treated by another place, compared with the treatment of the 1975 version? By and large, the two measures are the same in respect of the matters which we are discussing.
I read with interest the debates in another place that took place in 1971. They are the first debates in another place that I have ever read. I noticed that members there seemed to make shorter speeches. I also noticed that the name Lord Terrington kept cropping up. I have checked "Erskine May" to see how far I can go on this matter. It was interesting to learn how the noble Lord had operated in 1971. He moved a similar amendment which would have had the effect of making it unnecessary for a company to disclose to a trade union any information which it did not 1637 need to make available to shareholders due to the provisions of one of the Companies Acts. That would have been a bit restrictive.
In 1971, after a short debate, the noble Lord sought leave to withdraw his amendment. Its withdrawal was accepted. The situation in another place has not changed very much between 1971 and 1975. There is still an inbuilt majority for the Opposition. However, the situation has changed in this place since 1971, in that we now have a Labour Government.
On looking at the debates that took place in Committee in another place on 22nd September, when most of us were in Blackpool, I noticed that the same Lord Terrington moved a similar amendment, which had the same restrictive effect, namely, that information disclosed to trade union representatives should be disclosed to shareholders at the same time. He made a far longer speech than the one he made in 1971. He referred to the discussions that he had had with his friends on the Stock Exchange. Lord Terrington is a member of the Stock Exchange now, as he was in 1971, but in 1971 he did not say anything about that. Things seem to have changed in 1975, because he told the noble Lords about his discussions with the Stock Exchange and about the problems that would be created if the clause were allowed to stay in the Bill unamended.
The noble Lord withdrew his amendment in Committee and went away to have further discussions. On Report, on 13th October, he again moved an amendment—namely, the amendment that we are discussing. There was a long debate about the problems of the Stock Exchange, but no mention was made of the discrepancy between the arguments used in 1971 and 1975. The 1975 amendment was pushed to a Division, with the result that we are debating it—but what has changed between now and 1971? Why push basically the same amendment to a Division in 1975 but not in 1971?
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot)
It is sabotage.
§ Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 1638 Lord Terrington is a Liberal? Of course, there are no Liberals present tonight. Perhaps they are not interested in these matters. Lord Terrington's father was a distinguished Liberal, and I happen to know the present Lord Terrington very well. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should criticise him in this way.
§ Mr. Rooker
As far as I am aware, I have not said a word of criticism of the noble Lord. It matters not to me which bench he occupies. We have just had a Division in this place, and the Liberals voted with the Tories. Let us not argue about parties; let us not try to confuse the issue in that way. Lord Terrington could have pursued his amendment to a Division in 1971 but he withdrew at the last moment. I am asking why he took that course four years ago but pressed the matter to a Division in 1975.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) has referred to the CIR Report No. 31. Many of us have examined that report. It is interesting to learn that when the CIR was discussing attitudes to disclosure that it had found during the course of its investigation it said, in paragraph 93:We met cases where employers viewed with dismay the idea of giving to unions information which was, in fact, freely available in the company's annual report.It is no good arguing on the bais of the CIR report. It is no good arguing that employees should not have information because of a case which concerns Birmingham, to which I shall refer. The report meets both sides of the argument.
I do not want to fall foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in my 20 months in the House I have not had experience of the sort of practice adopted by the noble Lord. I took the precaution of reading "Erskine May" and I found a list of words which we cannot use when speaking of their Lordships.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are many more forbidden words that are not in that book. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not use them.
§ Mr. Rooker
I do not propose to read the list that appears in page 434 of "Erskine May". I was going to refer to the noble Lord as a Stock Exchange 1639 stool pigeon, but that seemed hardly fair, as he withdrew his amendment in 1971 but did not in 1975. Lo and behold, according to "Erskine May" we cannot refer to those in another place as stool pigeons. However, I question the conduct of a member of either place who will push an amendment to a Division when he knows that he is on a winner but will withdraw a similar amendment when different considerations apply. On the first occasion it may be that the noble Lord did not wish to cause embarrassment to the Government of the day, whether or not he was a member of that party.
That smells a bit. There is no satisfactory explanation, save that in the intervening period the noble Lord's fellow members of the Stock Exchange suddenly realised that he had withdrawn his amendment in 1971 without their approval. It may be that on this occasion they nobbled the noble Lord. It may be that he got the message and pushed his amendment to a Division. That is the situation we are facing today.
There is a fairly tight restriction on many apects of information to which trade unions would be entitled. I shall illustrate the point by referring to two particular cases. Because of the lack of information, people in Birmingham are losing their jobs. An agreement was made in Birmingham on 26th June this year between ASTMS and the Engineering Employers' Federation, connected with a lawn mower manufacturing firm called Charles H. Pugh Limited, of Small Heath, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for sport, who, for obvious reasons cannot raise this matter today. The workers affected live in the West Midlands area.
The agreement contained a provision aimed at putting machinery into mothballs until some time in 1976, when the situation was to be reviewed and a decision made whether to recommence production. In any event, it was laid down that no machinery would be moved within a period of 12 months. Some of the staff were to be retained so that production could be restarted, if and when it became possible.
On 9th October a union official was called to the factory by one or two 1640 workers whose task was to look after the material in mothballs. On arrival, that official discovered that all the machinery had gone to Suffolk. The union did not apply sanctions in respect of that company, because of the promise given by the employers about the machinery and its future use. The workers accepted the good will and, indeed, the word of the company, knowing that the position was to be reviewed in February 1976. However, only three months after the agreement had been reached all the machinery was moved to Suffolk.
The workers and their representatives cannot obtain any answers from Mr. Chick who, apparently, is in charge for the firm. I gather that the company is owned by Birmid Qualcast, a firm not known for good industrial relations practice in the Midlands, and that that firm has taken no action to alleviate the situation. Over 130 people have lost their jobs. That is the first example I wish to quote in support of my argument that we should leave the Bill in the form in which it left this House.
§ Mr. Brian Walden (Birmingham, Ladywood)
Is the situation not even worse than the way in which my hon. Friend has charitably put it? The work force was originally told that redundancies had to occur because of the lack of trade, but it was discovered that the company had already decided to transfer the machinery.
§ Mr. Rooker
My hon. Friend is correct. Perhaps I have been too charitable, possibly because of the time factor. I have a case to put to the House and it will take a little time to develop. By raising the matter in the House, I hope to do something to alleviate the plight of the workers in that firm. I wish to emphasise that this situation arose because of the lack of information.
Basically, the story began early this morning, when I spent four hours at Companies House researching information about three companies. That was open information, kept in that building by Act of Parliament, and was information lying there in dusty files. It is looked at only when things go wrong. In Birmingham there is a small factory called Tomey Industries Limited, employing about 100 people. It is an old-established Birmingham company and has existed for 120 years.
§ Mr. Hayhoe
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are working on a tight schedule and have an enormous number of amendments to consider. I do not wish to detract from the importance of the problem he raises and, indeed, of constituency matters. However, I cannot understand how the situation would be altered in any way by Lords Amendment No. 16 either remaining in or being deleted from it—which surely is the point to which we are addressing our minds. However important the hon. Gentleman's argument may be, I do not think it is relevant to the matter before us.
§ Mr. Rooker
It is highly relevant, because we have to make a case for removing the Lords amendment from the Bill. It is no use the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) trying to silence me when I seek to point out that I spent four hours this morning examining the files of these three companies. It is obvious that what I am about to say will be embarrassing to one or two managers of companies.
I was attempting to deal with Tomey Industries. A couple of weeks ago the workers were called together by the firm, told that there were no orders, and that the firm was closing down—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I wish to help the hon. Gentleman and the House, but I must point out that the amendment is related to the Stock Exchange. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to keep his argument as close as possible to the terms of that amendment.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Rooker
I understand your dilemma, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in dealing with the Bill, but I believe that I am still in order. I am seeking to draw attention to the restrictive nature of the amendment. I wish to point out that before the workers in that Birmingham factory leave their jobs on 19th December, the Bill will have received the Royal Assent and will be the law of the land. It is surely important to seek to ensure that as it will leave this place the Bill will have some effect on the situation which I have sought to outline. I shall endeavour to keep in order. I shall not go through the seamy details of this case. I shall seek only to bring out the salient points. 1642 The workers were called together two weeks ago and told that the firm was shutting down, following a lack of orders and the worsening economic situation. The workers did not accept that explanation, because they believe that there is plenty of business. Consequently, they asked the company for more information. The company was taken over in January 1974 by another company, called Fordcombe Holdings Limited. The workers' representatives can find out nothing about that company. They have asked the managing director for information. They have made clear to him that they wish to use the eight-week period that remains before the firm closes and their members get the chop to endeavour to do something about the situation.
All this led to my visit to Companies House this morning to find out what I could about Fordcombe Holdings and related companies. Incidentally, the name "Fordcombe Holdings" does not exist in any of the books which I examined in the Library. I have discovered that the company in question was purchased out of the air, as it were, for nothing. It was created in Bristol, was locked away for a few weeks, then took the name of Fordcombe Holdings and took over the firm in Birmingham. That firm now exists as a front for another company, and that is why the trade unions argue that they are unable to obtain the information they need.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That argument may come in later on the Bill, but the question of take-over does not apply on this amendment.
§ Mr. Rooker
I believe that it is highly relevant that when a firm changes hands the workers should know the full facts. It is in their interest to find out as much information as they can for purposes of collective bargaining, and that is a matter to which these provisions relate. I am trying to illustrate my argument by bringing into focus a situation in daily life.
§ Mr. John Fraser
I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend unduly, but there is nothing in the Lords amendment which restricts the divulging of information to trade unions. If he would like to see me about the problem, I should be happy to help him. However, I emphasise that nothing in the amendment 1643 restricts the divulging of information to workers. It merely places an obligation on a company to disclose matters to the Stock Exchange.
§ Mr. Rooker
I accept what the Minister says, and indeed the strictures of Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that is not the position as it is understood to exist. Workers may not be given correct information. Indeed, in the present case that information is being held back and restricted.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is hanging his coat on the wrong hook. This is not the amendment on which he should be advancing his case.
§ Mr. Rooker
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have begged the question, because I intended to intervene only once in today's proceedings other than when prompted by the Opposition Member who was talking about price-sensitive information. I have searched through the 200 or so Lords amendments and I am sure that there are three or four hooks that I could have chosen on which to raise this matter.
As we have talked about disclosure of information as the main business, I think it would assist the House if I brought both things in together. The group of workers to whom I have referred have their jobs hanging in the fire over this legislation. That is what they have been told by the company. That is the advice they have been given outside this place. It may be incorrect advice. In the last two weeks the company and all the houses in the road outside it have been mortgaged, and in tracing back the information we find that one of the largest public group building companies in the country—namely, McAlpine—has been operating as a front organisation under assumed names. When that organisation tells members of the company, under the Stock Exchange rules, what has been done in regard to stripping the company's assets and putting workers out of work on 19th December, it will be possible in many ways to get round the position by means of the Lords amendment. It is being done by creating companies to take over others so that the real owners cannot be found. Companies such as the one I have mentioned—the real owners—will be 1644 affected by this and will be worried about their price-sensitive information on the Stock Exchange. The McAlpine company, Kerelaw Holdings Ltd., has 14 members of the McAlpine family as shareholders but not one of them is a director, and the directors are not paid money. It is simply a front organisation for stripping the assets of this little company in Birmingham and putting 120 people out of work.
§ Mr. John Fraser
May I say to my hon. Friend that we take the view that, even before this Bill becomes law, employers ought, especially in a potential redundancy situation, to disclose the maximum amount of information and to have the maximum amount of consultation with their work force. It is our hope that the Bill will be on the statute book as soon as possible, and I hope that my hon. Friend will help it on its passage towards Royal Assent.
As I said earlier, there is nothing in the amendment which prevents disclosure of information to the workers. What is at issue is whether the information relatting to assets should also be disclosed through the relevant stock exchanges.
I can do little other than repeat the arguments that I used in my opening. First, there is an element of uncertainty in the wording of the Lords amendment. It uses the word "could"—that there could be an effect on assets. When I was unwise enough to use that sort of wording in the Sex Discrimination Bill I was attacked by the Opposition and took it out of the Bill. Secondly, there is no sanction. Thirdly, if we were to agree to the Lords amendment we should be giving the Stock Exchange the power to legislate, because it could change its requirements, and this would have the effect, as it were, of its almost passing subsidiary legislation, with the obligation which could be picked up from the Lords amendment.
§ Mr. Peter Hordern (Horsham and Crawley)
The amendment does not give the Stock Exchange any further powers than it now possesses. The only power it now possesses is the listing power—that is to say, whether a company should have its shares quoted on the Stock Exchange.
The difficulty that the Stock Exchange is now put into is that, if information by law must be given to trade unions, and 1645 if that information is price-sensitive, the Stock Exchange is likely to feel that its own rules have been offended against, and it might therefore have to consider whether the quotation of the particular company should remain on the list. That is the difficulty in which the Stock Exchange is placed by virtue of the Bill as it stands today.
§ Mr. John Fraser
I do not think that invalidates my point about the Stock Exchange having almost the power to legislate. If it changes its rules there is no sanction, but there is at any rate a legal obligation imposed by the Lords amendment which could be used in respect of that change of its rules.
§ Mr. Brittan
Does not the Minister agree that there is a precedent for the Stock Exchange being allowed to do something analogous to this? I refer to Section 39(2)(a) of the Companies Act 1948, passed by a Government of similar political complexion, which states thata prospectus giving the particulars and information aforesaid in the form in which they are so required to be published shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of the Fourth Schedule to this Act".Does he not agree that the wordsso required to be publishedmean "as required by the Stock Exchange", therefore enabling changes in requirements which may be made from time to time to have the force of law?
§ Mr. Fraser
I am well aware that the statutory requirements for the publication of a prospectus can be bypassed if one complies with the Stock Exchange rules, but I think there is this difference. The publication of a prospectus is a
§ once-for-all event. The obligation to publish information is a continuing event.
§ I turn now to the point about parity between shareholders and workers. One cannot have absolute parity between shareholders and workers. Workers are people whose livelihood and future are very much bound up with negotiations in which disclosure is important. One cannot always have parity between a shareholder holding a piece of paper and a man who is devoting his life to a job.
§ I wonder whether there is really a problem which is not soluble simply by the stock exchanges changing the rules. I do not believe that there is so severe a problem. After all, for many years in the past the most reputable and good companies have been disclosing this kind of information to workers' representatives. I have been from company to company in which weekly and monthly forecasts of sales and profitability were given to the workers' representatives. No real problem has emerged.
§ I submit that the amendment goes about it in the wrong way. If there is felt to be a need to have a disclosure of information for the protection of shareholders, the right way to go about it is for the stock exchanges to change their rules and not put an undue obligation on companies to disclose information of the same nature as they disclose to trade union representatives.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 222.1647
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Lamborn, Harry||Rose, Paul B.|
|de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Lamond, James||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Delargy, Hugh||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Dempsey, James||Leadbitter, Ted||Sandelson, Neville|
|Doig, Peter||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Edge, Geoff||Litterick, Tom||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|English, Michael||Loyden, Eddie||Sillars, James|
|Ennals, David||Luard, Evan||Skinner, Dennis|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Small, William|
|Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||McCartney, Hugh||Snape, Peter|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||MacCormick, Iain||Spearing, Nigel|
|Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)||McElhone, Frank||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Faulds, Andrew||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Stallard, A. W.|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)||Mackintosh, John P.||Stoddart, David|
|Flannery, Martin||Maclennan, Robert||Stonehouse, Rt Hon John|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Stott, Roger|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||McNamara, Kevin||Strang, Gavin|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Madden, Max||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Ford, Ben||Magee, Bryan||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Forrester, John||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Swain, Thomas|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Marks, Kenneth||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Freeson, Reginald||Marquand, David||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Garrett), W. E. (Wallsend)||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|George, Bruce||Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Thompson, George|
|Gilbert, Dr John||Maynard, Miss Joan||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Ginsburg, David||Meacher, Michael||Tierney, Sydney|
|Gould, Bryan||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Tinn, James|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mendelson, John||Tomlinson, John|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Mikardo, Ian||Tomney, Frank|
|Grocott, Bruce||Millan, Bruce||Torney, Tom|
|Harper, Joseph||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Molloy, William||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)|
|Hatton, Frank||Moonman, Eric||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Hayman, Mrs. Helene||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Ward, Michael|
|Henderson, Douglas||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Watkins, David|
|Hooley, Frank||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Watkinson, John|
|Horam, John||Newens. Stanley||Watt, Hamish|
|Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Noble, Mike||Weetch, Ken|
|Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Ogden, Eric||Weitzman, David|
|Huckfield, Les||O'Halloran, Michael||Wellbeloved, James|
|Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian||Welsh, Andrew|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Orbach, Maurice||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||White, James (Pollok)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Ovenden, John||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Hunter, Adam||Owen, Dr David||Whitlock, William|
|Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Padley, Walter||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Palmer, Arthur||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Park, George||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Parker, John||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Janner, Greville||Parry, Robert||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Pendry, Tom||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Jeger, Mrs Lena||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Prescott, John||Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)|
|Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)||Price, William (Rugby)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|John, Brynmor||Radice, Giles||Woodall, Alec|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Reid, George||Woof, Robert|
|Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Judd, Frank||Roderick, Caerwyn||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Mr. J. D. Dormand and|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Rooker, J. W.||Mr. James Hamilton.|
|Lambie, David||Roper, John|
|Adley, Robert||Bell, Ronald||Brocklebank-Fowler, C.|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Biffen, John||Brotherton, Michael|
|Alison, Michael||Biggs-Davlson, John||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Blaker, Peter||Buchanan-Smith, Alick|
|Arnold, Tom||Boscawen, Hon Robert||Buck, Antony|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Bottomley, Peter||Budgen, Nick|
|Awdry, Daniel||Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Bulmer, Esmond|
|Banks, Robert||Braine, Sir Bernard||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)|
|Beith, A. J.||Brittan, Leon||Carlisle, Mark|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.