Lords amendment: No. 28, in page 23, line 5, at end insert—
(1A) Where the Commissioner provides assistance under section 19 above in relation to any proceedings, it shall be his duty to do so on such terms, or to make such other arrangements, as will secure that any person against whom those proceedings have been or are commenced is informed that assistance has been or is being provided by the Commissioner in relation to the proceedings.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider sub-amendment (a), and Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 30. I understand that the Opposition may wish to 265 divide on sub-amendment (a), so I shall call the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) to speak to that amendment.
§ Mr. Strang
I have to make it clear that Lords amendment No. 28 was moved in the House of Lords by the Government in response to an undertaking that the Minister gave in Committee. That undertaking related to the circumstances where the commissioner for trade union members had given, or was about to give, assistance to a trade union member. We argued, convincingly I think, that it was only reasonable that a trade union should know whether a trade unionist taking the union to court was being supported in that way. Obviously, that would be a substantial consideration in terms of the advice and funding that the trade unionist would receive from the commissioner.
In such circumstances the trade union might decide to adopt a different tack and perhaps be more conciliatory. Alternatively, the effect may be the opposite. Nevertheless, the principle is valid and the Government accepted the principle. It is fair to say that the Minister acknowledged that the argument was valid in relation to legal aid and that it was hard to see why, if someone was advised that a person was in receipt of legal aid in proceedings to which he was a party, a trade union should not be advised that a trade unionist was receiving assistance in a case to which the trade union was a party.
What is wholly unsatisfactory about the Lords amendment is that it enables the commissioner to advise a trade union after the proceedings have been commenced. We do not believe that that does justice to the undertaking that the Government gave us. I am not suggesting that this is a deliberate failure to implement the undertaking. However, the whole point of the undertaking was that the trade union would be given notice in advance of the proceedings getting under way.
Instead of the wordsagainst whom those proceedings have been or are commencedthe amendment should readagainst whom those proceedings are to be commencedWe obtained very few concessions from the Government in Committee and the one or two concessions that have been achieved, either in response to promises in Committee or as a result of changes in the other place, have been minor. It is rather unfortunate, to put it mildly, that they have failed to do justice to the undertaking they gave in this context in Committee.
§ Mr. Nicholls
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) may be doing himself less than justice by saying that he did not receive many concessions from us. I remember that he and his hon. Friends made several points very well and we did agree to make concessions. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that when he put this point to me in Committee he was pushing at an open door. I hope that he will not think that I am sliding away from the point and, if he does, I will slide straight back in a moment. However, there are obvious parallels between the commissioner's assistance and that provided by the legal aid fund. Of course, there are obvious dissimilarities as well because, as with all analogies, they are not exact. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman was pushing against an open door and, perhaps because the analogies are not 266 exact, I was not able to come up with something there and then to what may seem a fairly straightforward point. That is indicative of the fact that perhaps it was not quite as easy as we would have liked.
The amendment places a duty on the commissioner, where he provides assistance in relation to proceedings, to do so on terms or make other arrangements that will ensure that any person against whom those proceedings have been or are commenced is informed of that assistance. However, if one were to say that the notification should take place at the moment proceedings were instituted, that would raise all sorts of difficulties, such as what would happen if that moment was missed. What would the consequences of that be?
In our amendment we have tried to ensure that if a trade union is up against a person with the commissioner's assistance, it should know about that. That obligation will be imposed by the commissioner on the assisted person to make absolutely certain that notification is given.
I understand the terms in which the hon. Gentleman tabled the Opposition's amendment (a). However, the Lords amendment makes it clear that the duty to inform will apply when the assisted person becomes party to the proceedings or when the commissioner's assistance is granted if a person is already a party to the proceedings at that time. That is an important point. It is up to the commissioner to specify any details about the timing of the notification in the terms on which his assistance is granted or to determine the timing in the arrangements he makes. In practice, it can be expected that parties against whom proceedings are taken will be informed of the commissioner's assistance when the proceedings are instituted. As I have said, that would not be possible if they began before he gave his assistance.
The Opposition's amendment would mean that notification would have to be given before proceedings began. It fails to deal with the case where proceedings start before any assistance is given. For that reason, the amendment is undesirable.
I do not want to go over the ground that was covered in Committee. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will recall that when it was put to me and to my hon. Friend the Minister that notification of the commissioner's assistance should be given as soon as that assistance was available, we resisted that.
We believe that the Lords amendment ensures that if a trade union finds that action is being taken against it by John Smith and that John Smith has the full weight of the commissioner by his side, the union should know about that. Although that may not have been achieved in the way that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East would have liked, his justified and evident concerns are met by the amendment.
§ Mr. Strang
We are not satisfied with that. The amendment is a step in the right direction but, leaving aside the detailed wording of our amendment, we intend to force a vote. We shall do so if only to demonstrate our view that the commissioner should bend over backwards to ensure that the trade union is advised as early as possible that he is providing assistance to one of the union's members.
§ Mr. Clelland
It seems entirely unreasonable that, when a trade union is to have proceedings instituted against it, it should be informed in retrospect that the commissioner 267 is to assist those taking the proceedings. We object in principle to the commissioner. I pointed out in Committee, and I have mentioned again today, that the installation of a commissioner of this sort is contrary to the Government's attitude towards the legal aid system where considerable savings—about £10 million a year—are being made. I can think of a number of people living in my constituency who have been rejected when applying for legal aid for legitimate cases purely on the ground that the compensation that would result from a successful case would not be sufficient. Yet here we have circumstances in which a union member can take what might be considered to be a frivolous action against a trade union and may be supported through a sort of legal aid system by a commissioner. Also, the proceedings can begin before the trade union is informed that that is to be the case.
By the production of the Bill, the Government have already displayed their antipathy towards trade unions. Surely the legal system that is to apply to the Bill should be fair to both sides. The Government lean over backwards to assist anyone who wants to frustrate a trade union in its activities or its organisation or to take a trade union to court. Such a person will be given financial assistance and all sorts of legal advice. At the same time, the trade union is to be disadvantaged, not only in this clause but in other clauses of the Bill, by not being told until after the commencement of proceedings that the commissioner is to support the person taking the union to court.
If the Government want to continue this charade that they are being fair to both sides—we keep hearing from the Minister that the Government are only trying to be fair to trade unions—they ought to accept our amendment. After all, trade unions are not bodies that stand aloof from their members. The trade union consists of its members and they will be disadvantaged for the advantage of a single rebellious member who, for his own reasons, might want to engage his trade union in court proceedings.
We feel that the Minister has not gone far enough to explain why trade unions are to be disadvantaged in this way and that the Government ought to give more consideration to our very reasonable amendment.
§ Mr. McLeish
I endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). It was widely felt in Committee that many of the suggestions and provisions in the Bill were in some respects quite incredible, in the proper sense of that word. We find it quite alarming that the Government should have suggested that they are tidying up certain provisions when we are faced with amendments that seek to further the attack on trade unions and put them at a disadvantage in the workplace in relation to any action that might be taken in which the commissioner is involved.
It may seem strange that the House may divide on this amendment, but, while the words are only three in number, it provides a significant insight into how the Government view the question of trade union reform. Essentially, we are seeking to ensure that there is an element of natural justice. There can be few situations in which a person—in this case a trade union—can have an action taken against him but not be informed of it until the action is started. My hon. Friend made the analogy with 268 the legal aid system. It certainly seems inappropriate, even in such an odious Bill as this, to turn the issue of natural justice on its head.
Why on earth cannot the Government accept the reasonable, common-sense view that a person has a right to be informed before an action is started against him? This is the essential point about which we are concerned, and it seems right that we should divide on such an important issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge referred to the question of the commissioner and the clauses in the Bill that deal with his activities. We were opposed to these provisions in Committee and we remain concerned about them. That concern turned to anger when we absorbed the content of the Lords amendment, and we had to respond by putting forward our own change of words.
The discussion this evening has highlighted the continuing smokescreen that the Government seek to put up. The Government would like to convey to the nation that these are moderate, sensible reforms which bring trade unions to book in the interests of their members. There could be a debate nationally on that issue. Where there can be no debate, and where Parliament could be brought into disrepute, is when we are discussing issues in the Bill in terms of Lords amendments and our amendments in which the very nature of the right to know and of natural justice is being threatened by a Government who constantly wax eloquent about the rights of individuals and, in this case, the right of a person acting on behalf of the trade union.
I believe that we are right to divide on our amendment. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) in this commitment. It is wholly ridiculous that a Bill can come back from the Lords in a much worse state than it was in when it went to the Upper House. I shall support the amendment.
§ Mr. Allen
This item within this clause is a particularly obnoxious piece of legislation, and the way that it has been brought from the Lords has made it even worse. Many of my hon. Friends were very concerned in Committee about the way that this came into being, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) made some extremely forceful interventions on this point. We are very sad that the Lords have not done the job that the Upper House is there to do—improve the legislation rather than send it back to this House in an even worse condition.
One of the major problems that we highlighted in this area of concern related to the certification officer, who has performed his duties admirably over a number of years. I say that having had some dealings with him. In creating a trade union commissar in complete opposition to that certification officer, we may find that neither function is performed adequately or properly. The great attribute of the certification officer was that, despite the ups and downs that there are always in negotiations and discussions between trade unions and semi-state authorities such as the certification officer, he had won some respect for a certain degree of neutrality. Now we are seeing as a result of this amendment a trade union commissar to assist individual trade union members to take action against their own unions, and one whose neutrality, I suspect, will not be beyond doubt. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but I believe that it needs to be put on record. I do not believe that the majority of trade unionists will receive the news of a trade union commissar with anything other than great 269 shame and suspicion. The trade union commissar will be seen as part of the whole package of legislative reforms drafted by this Government.
§ Mr. Holt
The hon. Gentleman referred to the commissioner as if he were a single individual. I draw his attention to the schedule, which says that we are talking about a commissioner in posts and that there are to be six commissioners, apart from 75 posts for certification officers. So we are not talking about one man and his views; we are talking about an army of bureaucrats.
§ Mr. Allen
I am very grateful for that intervention; it is most helpful. It is in the same way that many of us look at the certification office. There is the certification office, but there are a number of individuals working there and only rarely does the senior person get involved. The trade union commissar will operate on the same basis and, referring further to that schedule, the amount that will be expended on this office will be £1.5 million in the first year. In each of the following two years, it will be £1.7 million. The problem is that there will be pressure on the office, in these times of tight public expenditure, to justify its existence. It will have to keep coming forward with new cases, inciting and inspiring individual trade unionists to take up cases, even when they may not be cast iron cases. They may be cases that the court, in the first instance, or the certification officer will refuse to entertain. Under the new agency system in the Civil Service, a person may feel that there must be payment by results, otherwise the £1.7 million may be cut off.
§ Mr. Winnick
As to whether there is to be one or half a dozen trade union commissars, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if one of the people appointed were to be Mr. Eric Chalker, who for some time has been campaigning for democracy in the Tory party? If he were appointed, he would see that trade unions are 100 times more democratic than the Tory party.
§ Mr. Allen
Mr. Chalker would probably be one of the first people under the hammer of the commissar.
As we often said in Committee, the trade union movement needs no lectures from the Conservative party, which denied the vote to working people. The majority of people in this country did not have the vote until 60 or 70 years ago, mainly because of the Conservative party's inability to extend the franchise. At that time, the Labour party was creating the democratic trade union movement—well in advance of the extension of the franchise that was grudgingly given to people to elect Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be aware that a book has been opened on who will be the first trade union commissar. The running was between David Hart, the Secretary of State for Social Services, who was going through a particularly bad time some time ago, Frank Chapple, who was quoted at fairly long odds, and, coming up on the rails, Sir Ian MacGregor.
§ Mr. Nicholls
After such a fascinating debate, it would be churlish of me not to reply.
I do not think that I can do anything to assure the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) about our intentions. For reasons that I have never been able to work out, he seems to suspect the worst of us. Bearing in mind the similarity of our constituencies' names, I hope that one day he will agree to pair with me.
In one sense, I should like to take the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) with me. It is one thing to be criticised for not making concessions, but, having made one, to be criticised for doing so seems harsh, even in a harsh profession. The hon. Gentleman said that his objection to the Lords amendment was based on the fact that if one is about to be sued one should know who is standing behind it. In asking for that he is asking for more than the legal aid system provides. It is possible for a person to be legally aided for months before he institutes proceedings. His solicitor is under no obligation to file a notice of issue of civil aid certificate until proceedings are instituted. We impose an obligation on the commissioner to ensure that the trade union knows who it is up against. The hon. Gentleman is being too suspicious in thinking that there is something doubtful about the fact that we cannot frame this legislation in precisely the same terms as the parallel system.
§ Mr. Nicholls
For the reasons that were canvassed in Committee. A person may go to the commissioner with a grievance that could be cleared in an initial interview. The commissioner may be able to make inquiries, do a little leg work and say to the member, "This is not worth while." It would not be useful if the moment the person went through a door the commissioner said, " Nice to see you; let me assist you. I shall just phone the union and say what I am up to."
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) foresees a commissioner, son of commissioner and commissioners being spawned. If he reads the Bill he will see that the commissioner will have a staff, which is all that this provision relates to. The idea at present is that there should be one commissioner, who should have a staff.
§ Mr. Holt
I recommend that my hon. Friend looks at the debates that preceded the introduction of industrial tribunals. He will see that the tribunals were intended to be swift, non-bureaucratic and non-legalistic. It was intended that they would be based on the common sense of those who worked in the industry. What has happened in reality is that if one is fired from one's job one is lucky to get before an industrial tribunal in under 15 months. If one does not take a barrister, one will lose.
§ Mr. Nicholls
One could possibly take a good solicitor, but I do not want to be accused of touting.
In any judicial system there is always a possibility that it will not work as fast as one would like. My hon. Friend is concerned about the initial intention that tribunals should be as simple as possible, which is a laudable aim. Perhaps his experience in this regard is greater than mine, but industrial tribunals provide a more streamlined and simple service than the courts. However, it is not the sort 271 of process that might take place under a palm tree somewhere. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be only one commissioner.
I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) will not think it unkind if I say that I have heard his speech many times before, and will probably hear it again. He made the wild allegation that, even before a public official is appointed, he is satisfied that that public official will not act in a way that preserves his neutrality. There will be a number of sectors in which the commissioner will be entitled to intervene. He will not be under an obligation to do so, but he will be entitled to intervene. If the commissioner's track record were that he was taking every crackpot, hare-brained case to court, the hon. Gentleman would have had the best of the argument. Having listened to his speech many times—I do not commend a reading of the hon. Gentleman's speeches to anybody—I cannot accept that he is on to a winner. He based his argument on saying that a public official yet to be appointed will act in a partial way.
Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 5, leave out 'have been or are' and insert 'are to be'.—[Mr. Strang.]
§ Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—
§ The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 220.274
|Division No. 325]||[8.18 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)|
|Allen, Graham||Dixon, Don|
|Anderson, Donald||Doran, Frank|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Dunnachie, Jimmy|
|Ashton, Joe||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth|
|Barnes, Harry [Derbyshire NE)||Eadie, Alexander|
|Barron, Kevin||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Battle, John||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Beckett, Margaret||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Beith, A. J.||Fisher, Mark|
|Bell, Stuart||Flannery, Martin|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Flynn, Paul|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Foster, Derek|
|Blair, Tony||Foulkes, George|
|Blunkett, David||Fraser, John|
|Boateng, Paul||Galbraith, Sam|
|Bradley, Keith||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||George, Bruce|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)||Gordon, Mildred|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Gould, Bryan|
|Buchan, Norman||Graham, Thomas|
|Buckley, George J.||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Caborn, Richard||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Callaghan, Jim||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Hardy, Peter|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Haynes, Frank|
|Canavan, Dennis||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Henderson, Doug|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Clay, Bob||Holland, Stuart|
|Clelland, David||Home Robertson, John|
|Coleman, Donald||Hood, Jimmy|
|Corbett, Robin||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cousins, Jim||Howells, Geraint|
|Cox, Tom||Hughes, John (Coventry NE)|
|Cryer, Bob||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Darling, Alistair||Illsley, Eric|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Ingram, Adam|
|Janner, Greville||Prescott, John|
|John, Brynmor||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Radice, Giles|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Redmond, Martin|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Reid, Dr John|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Richardson, Jo|
|Lambie, David||Robertson, George|
|Lamond, James||Robinson, Geoffrey|
|Leighton, Ron||Rogers, Allan|
|Lestor, Joan (Eccles)||Rooker, Jeff|
|Lewis, Terry||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Litherland, Robert||Rowlands, Ted|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Ruddock, Joan|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Salmond, Alex|
|Loyden, Eddie||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McAllion, John||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Short, Clare|
|McCartney, Ian||Skinner, Dennis|
|Macdonald, Calum A.||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McFall, John||Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)|
|McLeish, Henry||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Snape, Peter|
|McTaggart, Bob||Soley, Clive|
|McWilliam, John||Spearing, Nigel|
|Madden, Max||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Marek, Dr John||Stott, Roger|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Strang, Gavin|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Martlew, Eric||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Maxton, John||Turner, Dennis|
|Meale, Alan||Wall, Pat|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Wallace, James|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Walley, Joan|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Morley, Elliott||Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Mowlam, Marjorie||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Mullin, Chris||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Murphy, Paul||Wilson, Brian|
|Nellist, Dave||Winnick, David|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Worthington, Tony|
|O'Brien, William||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Patchett, Terry||Mr. Frank Cook and|
|Pike, Peter L.||Mr. Ken Eastham.|
|Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Alexander, Richard||Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)|
|Allason, Rupert||Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick|
|Amess, David||Buck, Sir Antony|
|Amos, Alan||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Arbuthnot, James||Burns, Simon|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Butcher, John|
|Ashby, David||Butler, Chris|
|Atkins, Robert||Butterfill, John|
|Atkinson, David||Carlisle, John, (Luton N)|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Batiste, Spencer||Carrington, Matthew|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Cash, William|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Chapman, Sydney|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Chope, Christopher|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Conway, Derek|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Coombs, Simon (Swindon)|
|Boswell, Tim||Cope, John|
|Bottomley, Peter||Couchman, James|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Cran, James|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Bowis, John||Curry, David|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes||Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Day, Stephen|
|Brazier, Julian||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Bright, Graham||Dicks, Terry|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Morris, M (N'hampton S)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Moss, Malcolm|
|Dover, Den||Mudd, David|
|Durant, Tony||Neale, Gerrard|
|Dykes, Hugh||Nelson, Anthony|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Neubert, Michael|
|Evennett, David||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Fallon, Michael||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Favell, Tony||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Page, Richard|
|Forman, Nigel||Paice, James|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Patten, Chris (Bath)|
|Forth, Eric||Pawsey, James|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Portillo, Michael|
|Franks, Cecil||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Freeman, Roger||Price, Sir David|
|French, Douglas||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Fry, Peter||Rathbone, Tim|
|Gale, Roger||Redwood, John|
|Gardiner, George||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Riddick, Graham|
|Gow, Ian||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Rost, Peter|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Grist, Ian||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Ground, Patrick||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Hannam, John||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Harris, David||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Sims, Roger|
|Hayes, Jerry||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Speed, Keith|
|Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)||Speller, Tony|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Hill, James||Steen, Anthony|
|Hind, Kenneth||Stern, Michael|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Stevens, Lewis|
|Holt, Richard||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Stokes, John|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Summerson, Hugo|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Irvine, Michael||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Jack, Michael||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Janman, Tim||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Thorne, Neil|
|Key, Robert||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Kilfedder, James||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Latham, Michael||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Walden, George|
|Lightbown, David||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Lilley, Peter||Ward, John|
|McCrindle, Robert||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Macfarlane, Sir Neil||Watts, John|
|Maclean, David||Wheeler, John|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Whitney, Ray|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Mans, Keith||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Maples, John||Wilkinson, John|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Wilshire, David|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Mills, Iain||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Wolfson, Mark|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Wood, Timothy|
|Woodcock, Mike||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Young, Sir George (Acton)||Mr. Peter Lloyd and|
|Mr. Richard Ryder.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 30 agreed to, some with special entry.