§ 'Nothing in this Act shall lead to employees of public telecommunications operators having less right to take industrial action than the generality of workers in other industries.'. —[Mr. Stott.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.]
§ Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I wish to make it clear to the House that I have an interest in the debate, which I declare freely, in that I am sponsored as a Member of Parliament by the Post Office Engineering Union which has a more than passing interest in the Bill.
I tender the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), whose absence is recognised by the Ministers.
We have sought in the past two years to correct what is generally known and understood to be an anomaly relating to those employed by British Telecom and the Post Office as to their right to take industrial action. Regrettably, so far, throughout the long proceedings of the previous and present Bills. we have not secured a satisfactory answer from the Government or the Government's Law Officers. That was why we tabled in Committee an extensive amendment which was debated fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk. East. Regrettably, the Government saw fit not to support our efforts on that occasion. I hope, bearing in mind what I will say, that they will consider accepting the new clause.
I shall try briefly to set out the historical background to the new clause. In November 1976 my sister union, the Union of Post Office Workers, boycotted mail to Grunwick. Doubts arose as to whether post office workers could withdraw their labour legally. The issue was not put to the test until January 1977 when the National Association for Freedom asked the Attorney-General to institute an injunction against the union about plans to boycott post and telecommunications to South Africa. The Attorney-General refused to grant the injunction, but the National Association for Freedom obtained the support of the Appeal Court, presided over by Lord Denning. The court decided that the unions were violating the Telegraph Act 1863 and issued an injunction.
Lord Denning said that it was clearly an offence to "wilfully delay" or to interfere with telephone calls or to procure others to do so.
1019 However, the House of Lords decided in July 1977 that the Appeal Court had acted wrongly in granting the injunction, but the Law Lords endorsed Lord Denning's view that to black telephone calls was a criminal offence. The union's victory in the House of Lords only shielded telecommunications workers from civil injunctions. They remain just as vulnerable to criminal prosecution if they decide to withdraw their labour.
Lord Diplock said:That such conduct … would constitute a criminal offence punishable upon indictment by imprisonment or a fine is plainly beyond argument.Section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863, which is the relevant section, states:If any Person in the Employment of the Company — Wilfully or negligently omits or delays to transmit or deliver any Message; Or by any wilful or negligent Act or Omission prevents or delays the Transmission or Delivery of any Message".It is quite clear that it is an offence to interfere with telecommunications. It is equally clear that section 45 of the Telegraph Act was directed primarily to what might be termed "criminal" rather than "trade union" disruption. Only by the judicial extension of the law in 1976 and 1977 were workers challenged on taking industrial action.
At the conclusion of the first day's hearing in the Appeal Court on the South Africa action in 1977, Lord Denning, when referring to section 45 of the Telegraph Act, noted that anyone who solicits or procures the prevention or delay of any telegraphic message is guilty at common law as an aider and abettor.
He concluded his observations on the statutory provisions by saying:Many statutes are not at all clear but those are clear beyond doubt.Lord Justice Lawton regarded the legal position as plain. Lord Justice Ormrod said:We are dealing in this case with the plainest breach of the criminal law which it is possible to imagine and equally clearly with explicit threatened future breaches.The case then had a full hearing, after which further judgments were given. Lord Denning refuted the suggestion that the statutory provisions were outdated and should be regarded differently in a modern industrial context. That would be his view, given his reputation. He said:Those enactments are so clear that I see no reason for anyone to require the position to be tested in the courts. If the trade union, or its officers, asked for the advice of any lawyer, the answer must have been: You cannot do it. It is contrary to the law.In general terms, those interpretations were endorsed by the House of Lords judgment in July 1977.
As a result, British Telecom workers, with their colleagues in the Post Office, are in a unique position which is, above all, an anomaly—as a comparison with other public service industries shows.
Under section 4 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875, gas and water workers were on the same footing as telecommunications workers. They were considered guilty of a criminal offence if they did anything wilfully to deprive people of their gas or water supplies. The same applied to electricity workers under section 31 of the Electricity (Supply) Act 1919. However, those provisions relating to gas, water and electricity workers 1020 were repealed under schedule 9 of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. For some reason, similar provisions for telecommunications workers were not repealed then.
Indeed, the peculiarity of the position of BT employees was even acknowledged by official industry spokesmen for the Conservative party when it was in opposition. On 17 February 1978, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), now the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, said that he supported the restricted right of industrial action against the employer. He made a telling point when he said:We recognise Post Office workers feel that they are in a unique position. They feel that whilst others, such as electricity workers, have the right … the Post Office workers are in an anomalous position, and I should find it difficult to argue that the Post Office workers are more like policemen than like power workers."—[Official Report, 17 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 885.]In Committee, one of his colleagues, the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) unequivocally said:we believe that it is proper for postal workers to have the right to strike against their employer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 21 June 1978; c. 8.]I assume that the hon. Gentleman included in that not only postal workers but those employed by British Telecommunications. It is all one family.
The question therefore arises whether British Telecom workers can take industrial action when engaged in a trade dispute with their employer. There is no doubt that BT's employees are legally prevented from indulging in "sympathy" or "secondary" action. We do not seek to challenge that. We are here concerned only with action against the employer. As we shall show, "lesser" forms of industrial action than an all-out strike are ruled out by section 45 of the 1863 Act. But what would happen if BT's employees were to institute an all-out stoppage?
In his 1977 judgement Lord Denning suggested that industrial action against the employer by the Post Office workers might not fall foul of the law. However, he was far from categoric. He said:In 1971 there was a strike in which the postal workers stopped work for several weeks. I would not be prepared to assert that this was a breach of the criminal law. It could be said that, by stopping work, they did not wilfully detain or delay the mail. It was, moreover, a trade dispute for which the union was not liable in the Civil Courts. Howsoever that may be, no action was taken in the Courts at that time to test the legality of the action.That phrase, "to test the legality", is important.
During the passage through Parliament of the British Telecommunication Bill in 1981, the Government appeared to argue that the rather tentative view expressed by Lord Denning should allay the union's fears. On 30 January 1981, the Minister for Information Technology wrote to us. I think that he is familiar with the contents of his letter. He said that Lord Denning's judgmentpoints clearly to the view that the right to strike is unaffected. The law therefore, seems to be as you wish it to be.Similarly, on 3 March, the Attorney-General attended Standing Committee B and agreed that there was no fetter under the Telegraph Act 1863 to Post Office workers withdrawing their labour as such.
It should be noted that the views of both Ministers were expressed in very qualified terms. Consequently, the union obtained legal advice that does not support the contention that BT workers have a clear right to withdraw their labour. The Union of Communication Workers obtained counsel's opinion in 1977 and again in 1981, which stated 1021 that in the event of an all-out strike, the position was, at best, too uncertain for comfort and, at worst, made it illegal for BT to contemplate such action.
We urge the Government to reconsider the issue, because we have two conflicting legal opinions on a very serious matter. I see the Solicitor-General listening to me. I was interested to note that he indicated to the Committee that the unions had a legal right to take industrial action. However, we contend that there is some doubt about that. The last thing that we want to do is to have to test that doubt in a court of law. Thus, the position is unsatisfactory.
We are dealing with two unions, the Union of Communication Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union, and they have a history in industrial relations that is second to none. I believe that until recently my union had had, in 90 years, only one official stoppage for one day. However, as the Minister knows, there have been one or two difficulties over Mercury. That is the sort of union that we are talking about. I am talking not about individuals who run to the barricades at the drop of a hat, but about responsible individuals who are employed by BT, and whose record in industrial relations is second to none.
Similarly, colleagues in the Union of Communication Workers have an exemplary record. The only incident that I can recall occurred some years ago when they took official action. I think that that was in 1977, when the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were in power. Thus we are dealing with responsible trade unions, and it is essential that the House should get this legislation right.
The position as enunciated by the Attorney-General during the Committee stage of the 1981 Bill, and by the Solicitor-General in Committee this year, is that BT workers would not be acting illegally if they undertook an all-out strike in a trade dispute with their employer. I have already said that there is some dubiety about that, and that there is conflicting legal opinion. However, the important point is that BT workers are still left in a unique position compared with almost every other worker in the land. It means that British telephone operators are expected to be more akin to members of the police and armed forces than to people who work on the railways or in the electricity industry. But that indefensible anomaly is compounded by an absurdity under which BT workers are forced under the legislation to take the most extreme form of industrial action available to them, as the Attorney-General interprets the law. We have presumably to move towards taking the most extreme action. It may be legal to close down the service completelyl—"That's legal, lads, close it down"—but any lesser forms of industrial action, any peripheral industrial action that could be engendered at local level and resolved fairly quickly over a period of a few days, is illegal.
If the union has a grievance, it cannot ban overtime, it cannot work to rule, it cannot mount short-term stoppages or withdraw co-operation in certain aspects of the service. In short, the work force cannot take selective or, some might argue, reasonable industrial action. All that is left to the union is to go for an all-out strike to escape the penalties of the court.
Either the Governmen are being dishonest and devious in placing British Telecom workers in this unique position, thereby feeding on their sense of duty and loyalty to stop all industrial action, since they will be reluctant to go for 1022 an all-out strike, in which case why do the Government riot simply ban the workers from doing that; or the Government have been completely irresponsible by forcing BT workers to go on strike in order to indulge in those lesser forms of industrial action that are illegal, according to the Attorney-General. It is nothing less than an incitement to maximum disruption and to bad industrial relations.
It is an absurdity if Ministers and the Law Officers are telling the House that it is perfectly permissible for the POEU or the UCW to indulge in an all-out stoppage, but that it is illegal for it to indulge in peripheral industrial action.
We are asking the Government whether they want to enshrine that nonsense in legislation or support us in our attempts to clarify what everybody understands to be art anomaly. Even Ministers agree that it is an anomaly. We have only to consider what is happening on the current industrial relations scene with the National Graphical Association following the enactment of bad industrial relations laws to see the force of the law in industrial relations.
Does the Minister want to go down in history as the man who refused to acknowledge this anomaly? Does he want to go down in history as the man who perpetuated the situation in which the BT unions who take industrial action —not on an all-out scale, but regionally or occupationally — and are subsequently taken to court for illegal action? I do not want that to happen, and nor, I suspect, does the Minister. I therefore hope that after this long, hard and bitter struggle we can at least write some sense into the Bill before we progress further.
§ The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker)
First, I apologise for the fact that I shall be giving a rather croaking reply to the debate, but I was not going to let a mere cold stop me from speaking after sitting through over 300 hours of debate on the Bill. The new clause deals with the interruption of messages and, if human frailty interrupts my message, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to take over.
The subject matter of the new clause that the hon. Gentleman moved has been debated five times already, during the proceedings on the previous Bill and the proceedings on this Bill. During the course of those debates the House has had the advice of three separate Law Officers. Their advice has been very clear, as I shall point out.
The new clause attempts to qualify the operation of clause 43 in relation to the previous Bill and in relation to this Bill. The matter has therefore had a very thorough airing.
Let us be clear what the advice of the Law Officers is. It has been given by the present Attorney-Genera: when he was Solicitor-General, the former Solicitor-General and my hon. and learned Friend the present Solicitor-General.
The Attorney-General's advice in 1981 was that section 45 of the Telegraph Act 1863, which clause 43 in part replaces, was directed at dereliction of duty concerning one or more messages and that a complete withdrawal of labour could not have those characteristics. It followed that, in his opinion, it was inconceivable that a prosecution in respect of the offences in question would succeed in the event of a strike that involved a total withdrawal of labour. I confirm that again because I was asked about the position 1023 in the case of a total withdrawal of labour. When there is a total withdrawal of labour the present Attorney-General, the former Solicitor-General and the present Solicitor-General have made it clear that there is no suspension of the right to strike.
The then Solicitor-General confirmed this advice in relation to what was then clause 38 of the Telecommunications Bill in March this year. He was at pains to emphasise three points. The first point was that because clause 43 creates a criminal offence if a person deliberately interrupts a message it will always be interpreted in favour of the liberty of the subject. Secondly, he emphasised that intention is the essential ingredient and thirdly, that the offence is one that is committed by an individual so that the individual charged would have had to have done the act of preventing or delaying the transmission or reception of a message, and to have done it with the intention of preventing it before he could be convicted. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General told the Standing Committee only a matter of weeks ago that, as regards an all-out strike, the employees of a public telecommunications operator are in a position no different from the generality of employees. I emphasise that again because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said there was some doubt. There is no doubt on that score.
It is clear that the criminal offence in clause 43 could have an impact in the case of industrial action falling short of a strike. I think that is probably agreed between us. I am not quoting my right hon. Friend's exact words, but he told the Committee in this regard that not all industrial action falling short of a strike will be criminal. He dealt with this in column 896 of the Standing Committee proceedings on 24 November.
The question of a criminal offence having been committed in a particular case will arise only if the action has the intention—I emphasise intention—of preventing the transmission or reception of a message. As a first step towards demonstrating intention, the prosecution would have to show that what occurred was in breach of the terms of the individual's contract of employment. Intention would be present if, for example, the action was targeted discriminatingly against one particular customer rather than having the general purpose of disrupting all telecommunications—in other words, if the individual charged had gone for one particular customer or operator.
That is the legal position according to the advice that has been given. I hope the hon. Members will not think I have detained them unnecessarily in repeating it. It is only against that background that we can judge whether the new clause would be a suitable addition to the Bill. In the Government's view, and against that background, it would not be.
This is a difficult area, by which I mean that the legal and policy issues are complex. I do not wish to refer to the recent industrial action that has taken place concerning the POEU because it is still before the courts. But, up to that action, I agree that the POEU and the UCW behaved responsibly in conducting industrial relations. They broke down in recent events, but I do not want to comment further because the case will be heard after Christmas.
It is a difficult area and, because of that, we think that clause 43 is about right. Despite the arguments put forward by the Opposition in Committee and on the Floor of the 1024 House, I am prepared to defend the practical implications of that legal advice. We have heard it claimed that clause 43 puts the employees of public telecommunications operators in a peculiarly unfavourable position in terms of their right to take industrial action as compared with employees generally.
It is not just the employees of BT, but the employees of all public telecommunications operators who are defined in the Bill; all those persons—companies, they will be, in effect—who have the right to be public telecommunications operators and the advantages of being public telecommunications operators because clause 43 applies to them just as it does to BT. Therefore it is not just a matter for BT, the POEU and the UCW.
The question that we must ask ourselves is not whether clause 43 is unjustified in the absence of a similar provision, for example, in gas and electricity legislation, but whether it is right in the context of telecommunications. In that context it is possible, because of the nature of the industry and the technology of telecommunications systems, for a few employees to take action that falls well short of an all-out strike and that is aimed deliberately at disrupting the transmission of messages to and from a particular customer. Whether the action is taken because of a grudge against a selected customer or whether the aim is to put pressure on the operator in question—whether it be BT, Mercury or one of the cellular radio networks, or whether the aim is to identify a particularly important customer and put pressure on the operator—it seems to me right that we should inhibit that in clause 43.
While it would be wrong to stop those involved in providing such services from engaging in genuine industrial action—either by striking or, as the term is sometimes used, by working to the terms of their contracts of employment—it would be equally wrong now, in an era when the vital importance of telecommunications is increasing, to remove the safeguards against the interruption and delay of messages that have existed in our legislation since 1863. I do not believe that this is the time to lower the defences of the customer, of the public telecommunications operators and of the public, and I therefore ask the House to reject the new clause.
§ Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
The Minister of State spoke with laryngitis. I did not sympathise with him over his croaky voice because he speaks too much. Having insisted on keeping us up night after night in Committee, he should have been able to put his case more strongly than he did today. We can only hope, therefore, that he will remain more silent in the future.
The Minister has blown the gaff. He has decided to stay in the 19th century in terms of labour legislation. All other workers in other industries have at least taken two steps forward and one backwards during this century, but telecommunications workers are to remain in the days of Disraeli. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman admires Disraeli more than he does the Prime Minister, but that is no excuse for keeping telecommunications workers operating under outdated legislation.
We are not only leaving an anomalous situation for BT employees, we are extending it to Hull; it is being extended beyond the UCW and POEU to the General Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union in Hull 1025 and to those who organise in Mercury and in cellular radio. In other words, the Minister is extending the area of restriction, and that we oppose very strongly indeed.
The Minister said that we had had the advice of three Law Officers. I agree, and I listened to each of them. They were worth 6s 8d each; I got it wrong in Committee when I said that they cost seven and a tanner. Either way, we got three for a quid. We explained our fear about the clause denying the lads the right to strike, and we got conflicting advice. One lawyer said that it did not and another said that it did. If the majority view is as explained by the Minister, we ask him to resolve the problem by putting the legal advice in writing and including it in the Bill.
If we are told that that is the situation, what harm can there be in putting it in writing? If the Law Officers say, "Do not worry, you have the right to strike," why not get the draftsman to express that in legal language in the Bill so as to remove all doubt? That is a common enough parliamentary usage of language. I am sure that the Law Officers are sincere in giving their judgment, so let us avoid any dubiety by writing it into the Bill. We do not want one set of lawyers saying one thing and another set saying something else, and then the lawyer who has been given a soft job as a judge having to decide. We want certainty, so let us have it in writing. The Minister has given no good reason why the doubts that exist should not be removed in that way.
The position is daft. The Law Officers said in Committee, "You have the right to strike so long as you make a proper job of it." In other words, if a man has a condition of employment requiring him to work for 39 hours a week and he refuses to work for any of those hours, he is in the clear. In that situation he has the right to strike and to stay off work for 39 hours. But there cannot be an overtime ban if it is scheduled overtime. That is what we were told by the Law Officers.
In other words, it is one thing to strike for 41 hours in a week, but if a man strikes for two hours and works 39, he can be put in clink for two years. What an absurdity. That is the advice that we have had and the situation that the Minister is defending tonight. Union members can be penalised and given two years in clink for banning overtime. If they say that they will not do anything at all they are in the clear. It is an incitement to full industrial action.
§ Mr. Golding
One of the things I have had to suffer in recent months has been sendentary interventions. My patience has been tried. The hon. Gentleman says, "No, it is not," but of course it is an incitement to all-out action. If the Minister were to come with me to a branch meeting and address the members he might say, "You have a choice, lads. If you stop work for two hours next week, ban overtime and work for 39 hours you can be put in clink for two years. If you do nowt, if you stay away entirely and frustrate telecommunications completely, nobody can put a finger on you." That is an incitement to an all-out strike. It is intolerable.
What the Law Officers say about working to rule is daft. I did not think anyone could ever be clobbered for working to rule. Sometimes in Committee we get close to it. At least in the House when it is found that rules are daft, as we found in Committee in regard to moving 1026 amendments, very quickly the gaffers change the rules. They cannot clobber people for sticking to the rules but they can make a new set.
The Law Officer said, "If the lads do not work at all and say, 'Stick your job, we are not coming to work,' nobody can touch them." On this subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find it hard not to descend to the vernacular. If they obey the instructions of the manager they can be put in prison for two years. That is what the Law Officer told us the law was. Is that not bringing the law into disrepute? The Law Officer would say.. "It has nowt to do with me. I am just advising you what the law is." That was his defence in Committee. When one of my hon. Friends attacked him because of the nonsense he said. "It has nothing to do with me. I am just telling you what the law is."
I am glad the Minister has not repeated the advice this afternoon because we could not afford another 6s 8d. The Minister of State has responsibility because it is his law. It is not good enough for him to say that we will stay in the 19th century and that we will perpetuate a system under which there will be uncertainty as to the right of workers to take industrial action. He should not say to the workers, "You can take certain action, we believe, but lesser action you cannot take. If you take it, you will be liable to severe penalties of imprisonment."
I hope that the Government have second thoughts. My advice to my hon. Friends is to vote for the new clause because it is rational and in the interests of the freedom of British Telecommunications., Hull and Mercury engineers. They should vote for the new clause because it will take us out of the 19th century into the 20th century in regard to industrial relations.
§ Mr. Stott
I listened with interest to what the Minister of State said in response to the arguments I put forward in defence of the new clause. I must confess that I am singularly unconvinced by what he said. It is always difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who spoke in his own inimitable style, but he drew the attention of the House once again to the anomolous position that members of the Post Office Engineering Union would probably be in if they were to take action other than an all-out strike. I indicated that we have sought counsel's opinion.
§ Mr. Stott
Yes, indeed, it cost us considerably more than 6s 8d. We took advice, as any sensible trade union would. The advice is contrary to that given by another lawyer, the Solicitor-General. At the end of the day, if the POEU were to initiate action other than an all-out stoppage, the final adjudication would probably be in a court of law. We do not want that to happen. It might make lawyers rich and it might enhance the reputation of the judiciary but it is not good industrial relations practice.
I want to quote counsel's opinion:What is in my opinion clear is that neither the union nor its members ought to feel confident that all-out strike action would not be regarded as constituting a contravention of section 45, notwithstanding the observations of Lord Denning and that in the long-term the only satisfactory solution is for the union to seek amending legislation to enable its members to participate in strikes and other forms of industrial action without fear of prosecution.That is the advice for which we paid a lot of money to a learned QC.
1027 The House of Commons writes the law. We do it badly at our peril. We have an opportunity to ensure that at least this part of this lousy Bill is written properly. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in attempting to do it.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 305.1030
|Division No. 98]||[5.38 pm|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Fraser, J. (Norwood)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Freud, Clement|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Garrett, W. E.|
|Barron, Kevin||George, Bruce|
|Beggs, Roy||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Beith, A. J.||Godman, Dr Norman|
|Bell, Stuart||Golding, John|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Gould, Bryan|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)|
|Blair, Anthony||Hardy, Peter|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||Haynes, Frank|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Bruce, Malcolm||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Home Robertson, John|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Campbell, Ian||Howells, Geraint|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hughes, Roy (Newport East)|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Clarke, Thomas||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Clay, Robert||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||John, Brynmor|
|Cohen, Harry||Johnston, Russell|
|Coleman, Donald||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Conlan, Bernard||Kennedy, Charles|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Kirkwood, Archibald|
|Corbett, Robin||Lamond, James|
|Cowans, Harry||Leighton, Ronald|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Craigen, J. M.||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Crowther, Stan||Litherland, Robert|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Dalyell, Tam||Loyden, Edward|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||McCusker, Harold|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Deakins, Eric||McKelvey, William|
|Dewar, Donald||Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Dixon, Donald||Maclennan, Robert|
|Douglas, Dick||McNamara, Kevin|
|Dubs, Alfred||McTaggart, Robert|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||McWilliam, John|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Madden, Max|
|Eadie, Alex||Maginnis, Ken|
|Eastham, Ken||Marek, Dr John|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)||Martin, Michael|
|Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Maxton, John|
|Fatchett, Derek||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Faulds, Andrew||Meacher, Michael|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Fisher, Mark||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Flannery, Martin||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Forrester, John||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||Nellist, David|
|Foulkes, George||O'Brien, William|
|O'Neill, Martin||Skinner, Dennis|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Park, George||Snape, Peter|
|Parry, Robert||Soley, Clive|
|Patchett, Terry||Spearing, Nigel|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Penhaligon, David||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Pike, Peter||Stott, Roger|
|Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)||Strang, Gavin|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Straw, Jack|
|Prescott, John||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Radice, Giles||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Randall, Stuart||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Redmond, M.||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)||Tinn, James|
|Richardson, Ms Jo||Torney, Tom|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Wallace, James|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Robertson, George||Wareing, Robert|
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)||Welsh, Michael|
|Rooker, J. W.||White, James|
|Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)||Wilson, Gordon|
|Rowlands, Ted||Winnick, David|
|Ryman, John||Woodall, Alec|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon R.||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. James Hamilton.|
|Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Alexander, Richard||Clegg, Sir Walter|
|Amess, David||Cockeram, Eric|
|Ancram, Michael||Colvin, Michael|
|Arnold, Tom||Conway, Derek|
|Ashby, David||Coombs, Simon|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Cope, John|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.||Corrie, John|
|Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)||Couchman, James|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Crouch, David|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Batiste, Spencer||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Dover, Denshore|
|Bendall, Vivian||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Benyon, William||Dunn, Robert|
|Berry, Sir Anthony||Durant, Tony|
|Best, Keith||Dykes, Hugh|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Eggar, Tim|
|Body, Richard||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Evennett, David|
|Bottomley, Peter||Fallon, Michael|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Favell, Anthony|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Bright, Graham||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Brinton, Tim||Forman, Nigel|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Browne, John||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Fox, Marcus|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Fraser, Peter (Angus East)|
|Burt, Alistair||Freeman, Roger|
|Butcher, John||Fry, Peter|
|Butterfill, John||Gale, Roger|
|Carlisle, John (N Luton)||Galley, Roy|
|Carttiss, Michael||Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Chapman, Sydney||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Churchill, W. S.||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Gorst, John|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Gow, Ian|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Grant, Sir Anthony||Mates, Michael|
|Greenway, Harry||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Mayhew, Sir Patrick|
|Grist, Ian||Mellor, David|
|Grylls, Michael||Merchant, Piers|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Hannam, John||Mitchell, David (NW Hants)|
|Hargreaves, Kenneth||Moate, Roger|
|Harvey, Robert||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Hawkins, C. (High Peak)||Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)|
|Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)||Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)|
|Hawksley, Warren||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Mudd, David|
|Hayward, Robert||Neale, Gerrard|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Nelson, Anthony|
|Henderson, Barry||Neubert, Michael|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Hickmet, Richard||Norris, Steven|
|Hicks, Robert||Oppenheim, Philip|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Osborn, Sir John|
|Hill, James||Ottaway, Richard|
|Hirst, Michael||Page, Richard (Herts SW)|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)||Parris, Matthew|
|Hooson, Tom||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Hordern, Peter||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)||Pawsey, James|
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Pollock, Alexander|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)||Porter, Barry|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hubbard-Miles, Peter||Powley, John|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Hunter, Andrew||Price, Sir David|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Irving, Charles||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Jones, Robert (W Herts)||Renton, Tim|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Kershaw, Sir Anthony||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'field)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Knight, Gregory (Derby N)||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)||Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|Knowles, Michael||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Knox, David||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Lang, Ian||Rost, Peter|
|Latham, Michael||Rowe, Andrew|
|Lawler, Geoffrey||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Ryder, Richard|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Sackville, Hon Thomas|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Lightbown, David||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Lilley, Peter||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Lord, Michael||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|McCrindle, Robert||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|McCurley, Mrs Anna||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Shersby, Michael|
|MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)||Silvester, Fred|
|MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)||Sims, Roger|
|Maclean, David John.||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Madel, David||Speed, Keith|
|Major, John||Speller, Tony|
|Malins, Humfrey||Spence, John|
|Malone, Gerald||Spencer, D.|
|Maples, John||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Marland, Paul||Squire, Robin|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Walden, George|
|Stanley, John||Walker, Bill (T'side N)|
|Steen, Anthony||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Stern, Michael||Waller, Gary|
|Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)||Walters, Dennis|
|Stevens, Martin (Fulham)||Ward, John|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Stokes, John||Watson, John|
|Sumberg, David||Watts, John|
|Tapsell, Peter||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Terlezki, Stefan||Wheeler, John|
|Thomas, Rt Hon Peter||Whitfield, John|
|Thompson, Donald (Calder V)||Whitney, Raymond|
|Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)||Wilkinson, John|
|Thornton, Malcolm||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Thurnham, Peter||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Townend, John (Bridlington)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)||Wood, Timothy|
|Tracey, Richard||Woodcock, Michael|
|Trippier, David||Yeo, Tim|
|Twinn, Dr Ian||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|van Straubenzee, Sir W.||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Viggers, Peter||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Waddington, David||Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.|
|Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Waldegrave, Hon William|
§ Question accordingly negatived.