Skip to main content

Director's Powers (Insider Dealing)

Volume 113: debated on Tuesday 31 March 1987

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

'(1) The powers of the Director of the Serious Fraud Office under section 2 of this Act shall be exercisable in any case in which it appears to him that there is good reason to do so for the purpose of investigating the affairs or any aspect of the affairs of the futures market.

(2) For the purposes of this section "Futures Market" means any market, the prices of which are published, enabling persons or undertakings to make forward dealings in physical or financial commodities, assets, or currencies.'.— [Mr. Soley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We have now reached a serious part of the Bill that deals with fraud. The new clause seeks to deal with insider dealing on the futures market. We hope to close some of the opportunities for fraud that are available in the City of London and other areas of the country.

The Bill introduces a new concept—a concept that is welcomed on both sides of the House—of the serious fraud office. A number of Acts designed to deal with insider dealing have not been as effective as they should have been. The Companies Securities (Insider Dealings) Act 1985 and the Financial Services Act 1986 have not dealt fully with insider dealings. A strong view is still held in society that it is easy to get away with major fraud and that, somehow or another, it is allowed to happen and not too much effort is being made to prevent it.

The Government have taken a significant step in the right direction by establishing the serious fraud office. However, having listened to the previous debate, I should have thought that every member of the Tory party would support not only the deterrent aspect of punishment for fraud but, more important, the introduction of a major new measure to catch fraudsters, to ensure that they do not get away with what are often millions of pounds worth of money which belong to other people. As has often been said, fraud has become a regressive tax on society, and it takes money out of the pockets of particular individuals and groups.

We must consider double standards in this connection. In 1986 there were no fewer than 138,000 prosecutions for fraud against people on supplementary benefit, yet in the City of London in 1984 there were only 77 arrests and only 18 prosecutions. It seems that far greater resources are used to catch people who defraud social security, when a far smaller amount of money is involved, than are used to catch major fraud when the amounts are much greater—running into thousands or millions of pounds on some occasions.

There is also some evidence of friction between the police and the Department of Trade and Industry in investigations. I hope that the establishment of the serious fraud office will eventually help to reduce that.

We also acknowledge that, in Committee, the Government increased the sentence for fraud from two years to seven years. But an increase in sentence is not a deterrent unless one is caught. Conservative Members mistakenly believe that one can deal with crime by increasing the length of sentences. That is dependent not only on the state of desperation of people who commit crime but on the chances of getting away with crime. The chances of getting away with major fraud crimes are considerable. The Securities and Investments Board and DTI figures show that since 1980 only 110 cases were reported, and of those only nine were prosecuted. They were largely small-fry cases.

The purpose of the new clause is to incorporate the futures market. The example that I am about to describe is the one about which I have most evidence, although there are other cases in which there may be similar problems.

6.30 pm

The potato futures market is a fairly recent operation. It commenced trading in 1980. It was modelled on the Dutch example. There is a significant and vital difference between the British and Dutch potato futures markets. The Dutch futures market involves totally free enterprise industries whose futures react to natural fluctuations of supply and demand, and they have no central system of state aid affecting trade. But in the United Kingdom potato production is controlled by the potato marketing scheme and the Potato Marketing Board. In effect, the Potato Marketing Board moves on market support, quotas, grading and other matters of that nature. That produces an immediate effect on the futures market. The Potato Marketing Board's process of continually collating statistics from growers, customers, and Customs and Excise and releasing monthly forecasts provides the information on which people can base insider trading.

Prior to the monthly information releases, Potato Marketing Board members and staff are in a privileged position. As they prepare the forecasts, they can at once predict how the potato futures market will react, and trade accordingly either on their own accounts or through friends or relatives. On various occasions, there have been press reports of dips or rises in prices immediately prior to the board's monthly statistical releases. The problem is a real one.

I shall quote from an article in the 16 September 1982 issue of Big Farm Weekly. That may sound an unlikely name in a Home Affairs debate—it might sound more at home in an agriculture debate—but it underlines the important and serious point. It states:
"Potato Marketing Board members have been accused by traders of insider trading on the potato futures market—which, though not actually illegal in commodity markets, is regarded in commercial circles as a heinous offence.
The simple fact is that Potato Marketing Board members and staff often have access to figures on plantings, supplies and yields well before that information is released to the general public. Obviously it is possible to trade on the basis of this information.
Of all the soft commodity markets operating in this country the potato futures market is unique in that it is the only one where one organisation has a virtual monopoly on supply information.
Insider trading is now illegal in stocks and shares as well as being banned under the Stock Exchange regulations. At the same time all futures market traders have a clause written into their contracts of employment forbidding them to trade for themselves. However, no such restrictions apply to individuals—whether they be in a position of privilege or not—in trading on either the physical commodity or the futures markets.
Futures traders see this lack of constraint—particularly in the potato market— as iniquitous. As one trader succinctly put: 'If I tried trading off my own account and was caught at it I wouldn't even touch the sides of the door on my way out, and I wouldn't be able to get a job with any of the other companies.'
For their part, the traders fear that the market will lose credibility if insider trading becomes rife, and public knowledge. and they therefore lose business."
In 1982, an editorial in the Farmers Weekly stated:
"The potatoe futures market is a well established institution. It is widely used by merchants, processors and farmers to hedge against market movements and, as such, provides extra confidence to those who need to operate long-term contracts. It must, therefore, retain a spotless reputation."

In 1982, there was an awareness in agricultural markets and circles that insider trading on futures of this type was a problem. The rumours suggested behaviour which could be construed as illegal, and would certainly have been construed as unacceptable. The editorial in the Farmers Weekly continued:
"The hoard's prompt rejection of the current crop of rumours is timely. It will ease minds and cement confidence.
But perhaps a change in the law, with the extension of the ban on insider trading to include futures markets as well as the stock market, would be the best way to stop rumour mongers in their tracks."

Clearly, at that stage, the Farmers Weekly took the view that, although it was a rumour, the rumour, rather than the issue, was the problem. We now have further evidence that it is more serious than that.

Two years later, on 17 February 1984, Farmers Weekly published a news item headed:
"Hunt for 'mole' at Potato Board HQ."
That is a suitable title, one might think, in the circumstances. The article states:
"A telephone call to Farmers Weekly from a since-untraceable potato merchant claiming to have the figures and asking whether the board had issued a comment on them, alerted us to the fact that the figures were in someone's hands.
An inquiry into the futures market proved that at least one floor trader also had the figures and had traded on them.
That floor trader claimed his client had the information by Wednesday morning direct from an inside PMB source.
While refusing to disclose the name of the client, the futures floor trader said he was a farmer in the Sussex-Hampstead area."
Even though so-called insider trading is not actually illegal in the commodities market, the leaking of confidential information of that type is regarded by board chiefs as an abuse of a privileged position. Although it might seem unusual, in referring to the futures market in potatoes, we need to recognise that we are talking about a large and lucrative market in which price fluctuations can lead to large gains if one is able effectively to predict prices, in exactly the same way as applies to stocks and shares.

The argument that we put to the Government is that insider dealing on the futures market is as important in principle and probably, in certain cases, as important as the amount of money involved, as insider dealing in stocks and shares. That is why we put forward new clause 5 as an important new step in the Bill.

An article in the 27 January 1984 issue of Farming News states:
"The announcement, made by telex"
that is, dealing with the prices and the consumption rate between June and November—
"detailed a sharp fall in stocks and a rise in consumption, trends which were likely to lead to a rise in the price of potato futures.
Anyone in possession of such price-sensitive information ahead of the official announcement would be in a good position to trade profitably.
And this, in fact, is what would seem to have happened."

The official announcement, made after the close of business the next day, Tuesday January 17, showed an 899,000-tonne fall in stocks and a 20,000-tonne increase in consumption over the same month a year earlier.

The following morning, the market reacted to the announcement. Prices soared by more than £9 a tonne and 575 lots totalling 23,000 tonnes of potatoes were traded.

That is evidence of a serious abuse of privileged information which could lead to people making significant sums of money in a way which is unacceptable in the normal behaviour of the futures market and those legally involved in it, and, as I have said already, it would be illegal in dealings in stocks and shares on the stock market.

The same magazine has a section called "Big Farm Diary", which says:
"Potato Board chairman Geoffrey Grantham and his colleagues refuse to be impressed by the argument that they ought to be debarred from trading on the London futures market because their inside knowledge gives them an unfair advantage over others. They challenged critics to produce firm evidence of 'insider' trading by Board members."
That is a fair point. The article went on:
"Meanwhile, the Board is sticking to its policy of releasing market-sensitive information to all concerned as soon as it comes to hand—so that Board members can't be accused of taking advantage of prior knowledge. Mr. Grantham and his colleagues appear to be satisfied that this is a sufficient answer. At a very friendly PMB lunch for journalists in London last week, some of us among the guests ungraciously raised this sensitive point over the brandy. The urbane Mr. Grantham was no more put out by this than he is by rebellious interventions at this AGM. As he sees it, the Board members who are using the futures market are the ones who have got their buttons on—so why bring in a ruling which would deprive producers of their valuable services?"

Again, Mr. Speaker, I remind you that this is a matter of considerable sums of money involving acts which would be illegal if carried out on the stock exchange in any way.

The wording of the new clause will allow the new serious fraud office to investigate on its own initiative. It is a way of legislating to make sure that the futures market, not just in potatoes but in a number of cereals and other areas as well, could be brought under the auspices of the SFO.

If the Government are serious in their intentions, as I know they are, to do something about fraud, I hope that they will accept the new clause. It makes no major difference to the Bill's thrust. I have not created a new offence because to do so would have produced problems of bringing it into line with the way in which the Bill is presently worded.

The new clause simply makes clear that the SFO can and should investigate such matters because the evidence is that insider trading is taking place on the futures market. That is not just a persistent rumour, which, as I have demonstrated, has been around since 1982, but a considerable suggestion that that activity is not only known about but frowned upon by many people who are themselves involved and do not like such activities. But, more importantly, it is, as I have already said, a criminal offence if carried out in stocks and shares on the stock exchange. It is unacceptable that we should make insider dealing in stocks and shares an illegal, criminal offence of fraud without involving the futures market.

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I think he readily understands that the difficulty that lies in the way of our accepting the new clause is precisely, as he said towards the end of his speech, why he is not making insider dealing on the futures market a criminal offence. At the moment, other than securities, the futures market will be regulated when the Financial Services Act 1986 comes into force, but insider dealing is not at this stage a criminal offence.

The position of the serious fraud office on the sort of issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned can be summed up by saying that if they involve serious fraud, the director of the SFO will be able to instigate an investigation, but not otherwise. It is perfectly proper that that should be so, and if the new clause were to be accepted he would be investigating matters that might not be a criminal offence.

Obviously, I cannot help the hon. Gentleman with the particular case that he raised, nor would he expect me to, but I understand that the Association of Future Brokers and Dealers hopes to become the recognised self-regulating organisation for investment business in futures and options under the Financial Services Act. Whether insider dealing in other items traded on the futures market should be made a criminal offence is kept under review, but the Department of Trade and Industry considers that the futures market falls more properly within the framework of regulation than the criminal process.

It is the key aim of the Financial Services Act to establish a regulatory regime to cover those dealings in futures which are made for investment services purposes or traded on an investment exchange recognised under the Act. The Secretary of State has powers to investigate investment businesses under the Act, and those powers will be brought into force later this year. Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman concedes, we are set on a major effort against fraud. The creation of the SFO and the powers that it has been given under the Bill will be major step forward in that respect.

6.45 pm

The hon. Gentleman has created a one-winged aircraft with the new clause. There is no proposal, nor at this stage should there be, to widen the scope of the insider dealing offence to cover the areas that he has in mind. That being so, the director of the SFO would not be serving any useful purpose in mounting an investigation that was not related to a serious or complex fraud, but if a serious or complex fraud were to arise it would be within the powers of the SFO to mount that investigation. However, as I say, these matters are kept under review and there will no doubt be an opportunity to return to them.

If fraud were involved, there could be a prosecution under an applicable provision of the criminal law. The Opposition's point is rather foolish, because there is no specific need to have an SFO to deal with frauds which happen to occur in the context which the Opposition put forward. I was a member of the Financial Services Bill Committee, and although I am sure that all that will be helpful in due course, it does not mean that without it people cannot be prosecuted for fraud.

I hope that I made that point abundantly clear. If there is serious fraud in the futures market, as in any other market, the SFO can investigate. The new clause appears to invite an investigation unrelated to an existing criminal offence. Where there is a criminal offence, as my hon. Friend says, if the director of the SFO considers it to be a serious and complex fraud, he can investigate it.

I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith does not think that I am giving him the brush-off. I certainly do not intend to do that. However, the only way in which the new clause would work is if a decision were taken to make insider dealing in commodities a criminal offence. As the hon. Gentleman knows, at the moment it is a criminal offence only in relation to company securities under the Company Securities (Insider Dealings) Act 1985. Any further action will have to wait on the need, which does not yet arise, to make a wider provision. At the moment, I would prefer to place my trust in the arrangements that have been entered into under the Financial Services Act. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having given his new clause a considerable airing, will see fit to withdraw it.

I am far from happy to hear the Minister say that he recognises the need for internal regulation but not the need to create a criminal offence. That is undesirable, particularly in view of the evidence that I have produced of a continuing concern within the particular market to which I have been referring over a number of years—five years at least.

I recognise that the drafting of the new clause is not perfect, but I would have been much happier if the Minister had said that this is a serious matter, that the Government regard fraud on the stock exchange as a serious matter and that, therefore, insider dealing of this type should also he a serious criminal offence.

I come back to what I said in my opening comments about the dangers of the double standards which the Government impose in investigating fraud of one type as compared with another. We know that major efforts are made, and virtually no public expense is spared, to catch those who defraud on supplementary benefit. I make no complaint about the need to deal with such fraud, but it is a gross double standard to put enormous resources into doing that and then to rely on internal regulation to deal with offences which, if committed with stocks and shares, could lead to up to seven years imprisonment under the Bill as it is now drafted and two years under the Bill in its previous form.

We should not encourage such a double standard. If we do not vote on the new clause, we shall be sending out a message to the country that, although we consider fraud in relation to such matters as supplementary benefit serious enough to imprison many people for it, we regard this type of fraud—which may involve many thousands, or, in the case of the stock exchange, millions of pounds—as far less serious. We have not thought through the consequences of the legislation to include such matters as the futures market.

Unless the Minister is prepared to tell me that he will consider the new clause and come back with a provision in the Bill to make such fraud an offence, we shall ask for a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 245.

Division No. 129]

[6.55 pm


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)Duffy, A. E, P.
Alton, DavidDunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Archer, Rt Hon PeterEadie, Alex
Ashdown, PaddyEastham. Ken
Ashton, JoeEdwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Fatchett, Derek
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Faulds, Andrew
Barnes, Mrs RosemaryFields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Beckett, Mrs MargaretFisher, Mark
Beith, A. J.Flannery, Martin
Bell, StuartFoot, Rt Hon Michael
Benn, Rt Hon TonyForrester, John
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Foster, Derek
Bidwell, SydneyFoulkes, George
Blair, AnthonyFraser, J. (Norwood)
Boothroyd, Miss BettyFreud, Clement
Boyes, RolandGarrett, W. E.
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)George, Bruce
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Godman, Dr Norman
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)Golding, Mrs Llin
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)Gould, Bryan
Bruce, MalcolmGourlay, Harry
Buchan, NormanHamilton, James (M'well N)
Caborn, RichardHamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Hardy, Peter
Campbell, IanHarrison, Rt Hon Walter
Campbell-Savours, DaleHart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)Haynes, Frank
Carter-Jones, LewisHealey, Rt Hon Denis
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Heffer, Eric S.
Clarke, ThomasHogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Clay, RobertHolland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Clelland, David GordonHome Robertson, John
Clwyd, Mrs AnnHowarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)Hoyle, Douglas
Conlan, BernardHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Corbett, RobinHume, John
Corbyn, JeremyJanner, Hon Greville
Craigen, J. M.Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Cunliffe, LawrenceJones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Deakins, EricKennedy, Charles
Dewar, DonaldKirkwood, Archy
Dixon, DonaldLambie, David
Dobson, FrankLamond, James
Dormand, JackLeadbitter, Ted
Douglas, DickLewis, Terence .(Worsley)
Dubs, AlfredLitherland, Robert

Lofthouse, GeoffreyRooker, J. W.
Loyden, EdwardRowlands, Ted
McCartney, HughSedgemore, Brian
McDonald, Dr OonaghSheerman, Barry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon GregorShields, Mrs Elizabeth
McTaggart, RobertShore, Rt Hon Peter
McWilliam, JohnShort, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Madden, MaxSilkin, Rt Hon J.
Mallon, SeamusSkinner, Dennis
Marek, Dr JohnSmith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Martin, MichaelSnape, Peter
Mason, Rt Hon RoySoley, Clive
Maynard, Miss JoanSpearing, Nigel
Meacher, MichaelStott, Roger
Meadowcroft, MichaelStraw, Jack
Michie, WilliamTaylor, Matthew
Mikardo, IanThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Millan, Rt Hon BruceThomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Nellist, DavidTinn, James
Oakes, Rt Hon GordonTorney, Tom
O'Brien, WilliamWainwright, R.
Park, GeorgeWallace, James
Pendry, TomWardell, Gareth (Gower)
Pike, PeterWareing, Robert
Prescott, JohnWeetch, Ken
Radice, GilesWhite, James
Raynsford, NickWinnick, David
Redmond, MartinWoodall, Alec
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)Young, David (Bolton SE)
Richardson, Ms Jo
Robertson, GeorgeTellers for the Ayes:
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)Mr. Ron Davies and
Rogers, AllanMr. Sean Hughes.


Aitken, JonathanCash, William
Alexander, RichardChalker, Mrs Lynda
Alison, Rt Hon MichaelChannon, Rt Hon Paul
Ancram, MichaelChapman, Sydney
Arnold, TomClark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Ashby, DavidClark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Aspinwall, JackCockeram, Eric
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.Colvin, Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Coombs, Simon
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)Cope, John
Batiste, SpencerCouchman, James
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyCranborne, Viscount
Bendall, VivianCrouch, David
Benyon, WilliamCurrie, Mrs Edwina
Bevan, David GilroyDickens, Geoffrey
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnDorrell, Stephen
Blackburn, JohnDouglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterDover, Den
Body, Sir Richarddu Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Bonsor, Sir NicholasDunn, Robert
Boscawen, Hon RobertDurant, Tony
Bottomley, PeterDykes, Hugh
Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaEggar, Tim
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)Emery, Sir Peter
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Evennett, David
Boyson, Dr RhodesEyre, Sir Reginald
Brandon-Bravo, MartinFairbairn, Nicholas
Bright, GrahamFallon, Michael
Brinton, TimFarr, Sir John
Browne, JohnFavell, Anthony
Bruinvels, PeterFookes, Miss Janet
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.Forman, Nigel
Buck, Sir AntonyForsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Budgen, NickFox, Sir Marcus
Butcher, JohnFranks, Cecil
Butler, Rt Hon Sir AdamFraser, Peter (Angus East)
Butterfill, JohnFreeman, Roger
Carlisle, John (Luton N)Fry, Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Carttiss, MichaelGarel-Jones, Tristan

Glyn, Dr AlanMcQuarrie, Albert
Goodhart, Sir PhilipMadel, David
Goodlad, AlastairMajor, John
Gorst, JohnMalone, Gerald
Gow, IanMarland, Paul
Gower, Sir RaymondMather, Sir Carol
Grant, Sir AnthonyMaude, Hon Francis
Greenway, HarryMaxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gregory, ConalMayhew, Sir Patrick
Griffiths, Sir EldonMellor, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)Merchant, Piers
Grist, IanMeyer, Sir Anthony
Ground, PatrickMiller, Hal (B'grove)
Grylls, MichaelMills, Iain (Meriden)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)Miscampbell, Norman
Hampson, Dr KeithMoate, Roger
Hanley, JeremyMonro, Sir Hector
Hargreaves, KennethMontgomery, Sir Fergus
Harvey, RobertMorrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Haselhurst, AlanMoynihan, Hon C.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)Mudd, David
Hawksley, WarrenNeale, Gerrard
Hayes, J.Nelson, Anthony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir BarneyNicholls, Patrick
Hayward, RobertNorris, Steven
Heathcoat-Amory, DavidOnslow, Cranley
Heddle, JohnOppenheim, Phillip
Henderson, BarryOppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Hickmet, RichardOsborn, Sir John
Hicks, RobertOttaway, Richard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hill, JamesPawsey, James
Hind, KennethPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hirst, MichaelPercival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Porter, Barry
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)Portillo, Michael
Holt, RichardPowell, William (Corby)
Hordern, Sir PeterPrentice, Rt Hon Reg
Howard, MichaelPrice, Sir David
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)Proctor, K. Harvey
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)Raffan, Keith
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Hubbard-Miles, PeterRathbone, Tim
Hunter, AndrewRees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Hurd, Rt Hon DouglasRenton, Tim
Irving, CharlesRhodes James, Robert
Jessel, TobyRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Roe, Mrs Marion
Jones, Robert (Herts W)Rossi, Sir Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRost, Peter
Kershaw, Sir AnthonyRyder, Richard
Key, RobertSainsbury, Hon Timothy
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)Shersby, Michael
Knox, DavidSilvester, Fred
Lamont, Rt Hon NormanSims, Roger
Lang, IanSkeet, Sir Trevor
Latham, MichaelSmith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lawler, GeoffreySpeed, Keith
Lawrence, IvanSpencer, Derek
Lee, John (Pendle)Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon MarkStewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Lester, JimStokes, John
Lilley, PeterTapsell, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)Temple-Morris, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Lord, MichaelThurnham, Peter
Luce, Rt Hon RichardTownend, John (Bridlington)
Lyell, NicholasTrotter, Neville
McCrindle, RobertViggers, Peter
McCurley, Mrs AnnaWakeham, Rt Hon John
Macfarlane, NeilWalker, Bill (T'side N)
MacGregor, Rt Hon JohnWaller, Gary
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)Watson, John
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)Watts, John
Maclean, David JohnWells, Sir John (Maidstone)
McLoughlin, PatrickWheeler, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)Whitney, Raymond

Winterton, NicholasTellers for the Noes:
Wood, TimothyMr. Michael Neubert and
Yeo, TimMr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.