Skip to main content

Application Of Employment Law During Financial Delegation

Volume 130: debated on Monday 28 March 1988

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

I beg to move amendment No. 386, in page 155, line 36, at end insert—

`(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as leading to any consequential diminution of rights for employees in respect of employment conditions already enshrined in existing statutes and local authority agreements.'
Clause 167 gives this Secretary of State and any future incumbent of the office sweeping powers on employment law. They will enable the Secretary of State, at a stroke of his pen, to change the employment law for all those who work in teaching and non-teaching posts in those schools covered by local delegated financial management.

These powers have been granted to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, not to the Secretary of State for Employment. I noticed when re-reading the Committee debate that the Minister of State said that there would be consultation with the Department of Employment. That is at least the minimum, but it is scandalous that the Secretary of State for Education arid Science should have this almost unfettered right to alter employment law rights for thousands of individuals.

7.15 pm

These powers, by the back door, through stealth, give the Government the ability to change rights which have been built up over more than a century. They give the Government rights to change the law on health and safety— —a law which has given individual employees statutory protection against certain health and safety hazards The Government have moved significantly against the drift of European labour law. That law tried to build up the tights of individual employees, but the Government have tried consistently and systematically to reduce those rights.

The Bill will allow all these rights which have been built up over the past 20 years, starting with the conditions of employment legislation in the 1960s and continuing through the employment protection legislation, to be amended by the Secretary of State. All those important rights — the right to time off to carry out public functions, such as duties as a magistrate or as a local authority member and the right of women employees to have maternity leave — can be changed by the Government.

There are also problems with procedures for recognition. Although this matter is not directly covered by clause 176, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), worried many of us in Standing Committee when he referred to the possibility of the right of non-teaching members of staff to be represented by a trade union being taken away because of the process of local financial management. We would strongly object to that, because the democratic right to belong to and be represented by a trade union are crucial to a pluralistic society.

The Government are taking powers to change our employment laws in an education rather than employment Bill. That is interesting, because it comes from a Government who repeatedly lecture the trade union movement that trade unions must abide by the law and by agreements. Much of the industrial relations framework in education has been based on current employment law and agreements. The Government seem willing to get rid of those agreements at a stroke. If they do that, they have no right to lecture trade unionists on the way in which they should stick by and honour agreements.

What do we hear from Ministers in response to our fears? In reply to a debate in Committee, the Minister of State offered us three excuses, or reasons, for the Government's position. First, she said that we should not worry; that the measure applied only to schools covered by local financial management. But the schools to be covered will be all secondary schools and all primary schools with more than 200 children. A substantial proportion of education employees will be affected. It is no use saying that not many people will be affected by the clause. Many people will be affected. Furthermore, it is no excuse for the Minister to say, "We know that this is an outrage, but do not worry too much because it will not affect many people." If it were an outrage inflicted upon a minority, I suspect that we should be even more worried about it.

Secondly, the Minister offered the simple explanation that the powers will be used only when the Secretary of State considers them to be necessary or expedient. That argument has been used by Ministers on many occasions. They say, "Trust this Secretary of State; he is a good man. He will use these powers in a way that is reasonable because he is a reasonable man." The Secretary of State seems to be having great difficulty in convincing the public that he is a reasonable man. Mr. Two Per Cent. seems to have more success with his own Back Benchers than he does with the general public. The weakness of that argument is clear. It fails simply because, if it is necessary and expedient and this Secretary of State will use the power reasonably, by inference it admits that another Secretary of State will not use the power reasonably. We condemn the power for that reason.

Of course, we have little trust in the Secretary of State because he considered it necessary and expedient to take away from 400,000 teachers the right to bargain collectively with their employers. If he can do that at a stroke, he can take away other employment rights.

Thirdly, there are the reassuring words of the Minister when she said that we should not worry about the clause and the Government's intentions. In Committee, the Minister replied to my intervention with the following words:
"I can see no reason why there should be any consequential diminution of rights for employees as a result of the clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 25 February 1988; c. 1808.]
If that is the Government's intention, we ask them simply to accept the amendment, because it is based on the Minister's words. If the Minister is true to her word, she will give us that reassurance tonight. If she asks us to withdraw the amendment simply because it is not technically correct, we shall do so; but if she does not accept the spirit of the amendment her words in Committee will have little value and worth and many thousands of teachers and non-teaching staff will be worried by the absolute powers in relation to their employment rights that the Secretary of State and Government are taking.

This is a challenge to the Minister. Is she true to her word? Are the Government true to the Minister's word? If not, we are worried. If they are, we are delighted, and hope that she will accept the amendment.

Clause 176 is possibly the most draconian clause in a draconian Bill. The Bill is bespattered with the words:

"The Secretary of State shall by order"
and it then mentions regulations. It is necessary to understand the precise wording of clause 176. The teachers' organisations and all the unions that are interested in their members who work in schools fear clause 176 more than almost anything else. It is lamentable that the guillotine allows us only until 7.45 pm to discuss this very important subject. I hope that there will be a vote on it, but I do not know what my hon. Friends have decided.

We are hoping that there will be no vote, because we expect the Minister to stick to her words in Committee.

My hon. Friend has more faith in the Minister than I have. I would want to vote on the amendment.

Clause 176 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications in any enactment relating to employment".
It then uses the following words which are used continually throughout the Bill:
"as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the operation".
As I was reading that for the umpteenth time in a monumental Bill, which is as big as five ordinary Bills, and which, no matter how long we discuss it, has been discussed insufficiently, and as we have only a few minutes to discuss this matter, I decided to turn casually to any two pages in the Bill. Those two pages and many others contain exactly those words.

The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is laughing like a Cheshire cat at this draconian piece of legislation which will undo negotiations that have existed for more than 100 years. It is appalling that Conservative Members are so docile that they go along with this catch-all clause which allows the Secretary of State to tamper with employment legislation, with teachers, school meals workers and anyone working in schools and "by order" to do anything that he wishes.

Conservative Members do not understand that the words in the Bill are draconian. The Minister kept saying in Committee, "We hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this because we accept the spirit of the amendment." It was said time and again that the Government accepted the spirit of the amendment. The spirit of the Bill, and the clause in particular, attacks everything that we hold dear in the education system.

People have come here representing the vast majority of the people in ILEA, the head teachers, those who work in schools, parents and all the organisations of teachers and head teachers. They are all looking with care at clause 176. The amendment adds a subsection to that clause that will not be withdrawn. It provides:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed as leading to any consequential diminution of rights for employees in respect of employment conditions already enshrined in existing statutes and local authority agreements."
I have spoken before about the centralisation of powers by this elective dictatorship with a majority of more than 100, dizzy with success and with power concentrated in the hands of one particular Minister. Such a concentration as is proposed would need a Pentagon instead of the DES; it would need a building vaster than the DES. Conservative Members do not understand exactly what they are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to the fact that the negotiating rights of teachers were withdrawn. When any democratic right is enshrined in legislation, the Government pass a new piece of legislation, destroy the democratic right and say, "That is democracy, because we have a majority." That was one of the problems we faced when Lord Hailsham said that the Labour Government were an elective dictatorship, and when Lord Pym warned that it was dangerous for a Government to have such a large majority.

Clause 176 is only a little clause but it is feared by the teachers' organisations, the unions and other people who work in the schools. It will deprive teachers of the rights they have now. Those rights will be concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State, whom we do not trust to use them properly. Those powers would also be put in the hands of any subsequent Secretary of State. Therefore, I would love to think that our amendment No. 386 will be accepted by the Government.

7.30 pm

The hon. Member for Sheffield. Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) finished so suddenly that he caught me by surprise. During his speech he said that this clause was an affront, not just to the network of rights held by teachers now, which have been negotiated as part of their employment rights for the past 100 years, but, perhaps more importantly, was an affront to the democratic system in Britain. I say that because I believe that that is the main burden of the clause.

We are concerned by the centralised power in the Bill. My concern with the Bill lies as much in the fact that it will damage our democratic system as with the fact that it will damage our education system. I do not believe that putting 183 powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, whether of this Government or any subsequent one, is good for our democratic system. This clause is, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough said, the most dangerous clause in the Bill without exception. As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, it could be the instrument by which we take away the rights that teachers have to redundancy provision and could even attack the basis on which they receive their redundancy pay. It might attack their rights to trade union time off and time off for public duties and maternity leave as well as attacking other essential parts of their employment provision, which are part of the way in which we construct employment for teachers.

Much more damaging is the fact that this clause enables the legislation democratically passed through the House to be obviated by the Secretary of State for the day at the stroke of a pen. When we pass legislation we do so for the whole nation. Yet we are allowing a single Secretary of State to say that it will not apply to teachers, probably a majority of teachers, in certain circumstances. How can the House give the Secretary of State for Education arid Science that power which, as far as I know, is not given to any other Secretary of State? How can Conservative Members, who subscribe to the process of democracy arid the processes of the House, simply allow circumstances in which the Secretary of State can, at a whim, say that what is passed in the House does not apply because he says so?

The Minister may say that that must be done by order passed via the negative resolution procedure of the House. She knows, as I do, that that is a farce and a charade. At best, it would mean a debate in Committee, and we know that that would not be brought before the public's attention. We know perfectly well that there is no possibility of a Secretary of State, who wished to use those powers, being overturned by such a system. Therefore, that does not provide the safeguards we need.

I believe that the clause makes a mockery of the process of Parliament. I do not understand how Conservative Members can allow a Secretary of State, of this Government or any subsequent Government, the power to override legislation that passes through the House in respect of employment for teachers. Conservative Members should have a care because in this clause, as in so much else, the power they now give to their own Secretary of State could fall into the hands of others arid could be the instrument by which a Labour Secretary of State or Democrat Secretary of State could do things that they would find inimical. I recall the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in 1976 bringing forward legislation that enabled him to create workers' cooperatives. The Conservative party, which was then in opposition, asked from where he got the power to do that. He pointed sweetly to the Conservative Government's own Industry Act 1975. That is where he got the power from and that is what will happen with a subsequent Secretary of State who will hold the power to overrule legislation passed by the House.

I do not believe that Conservative Members should so lightly place power in the hands of the Secretary of State, which is what will be done if the clause is passed. In so doing, I believe that they will damage the established rights of teachers, which have been put together over so many years, and will potentially damage the system of democracy and the power of the House. I hope that Conservative Members, some of them at least, will find the stomach and the will to vote against this, for that reason, if for no other.

I have listened carefully to what has been said by Opposition Members. I must say that they are grossly exaggerating the scope of clause 176. The scope of the clause is restricted simply to the powers that the Secretary of State gives to schools in relation to financial delegation.

Perhaps I should remind the House of the Government's approach to staffing in schools and colleges with financial delegation. Staffing costs will amount to about 80 per cent. or more of the budgets of those institutions. Therefore, when delegating powers to governing bodies we must make those powers meaningful, and that must include the management of staff. Therefore, the Bill provides for the governing bodies of institutions with financial delegation to select staff for appointment, to have control of discipline and grievance procedures and of suspension and, where necessary, to require the dismissal of a member of staff.

Governing bodies will, of course, have at their disposal full professional advice from the chief education officer of the local authority and his staff and from the head teacher or college principal. We believe that that professional advice will be crucial, and we introduced several amendments and gave a range of assurances in Committee to make it entirely clear that the advice will be given and that the governing bodies will have to consider it. However, at the end of the day, if financial delegation is to mean anything, the governors will be responsible for taking decisions. Many of those decisions will be taken by the governing bodies of schools and colleges with financial delegation, even though the local education authority will remain the employer of staff, other than in aided schools. Therefore, it is appropriate that governors should be accountable for management decisions, and that is the essence of clause 176.

Local education authority interests were rightly concerned that LEAs might be held to account for an unfair dismissal, for example, when they had had no control over whether the person was dismissed. They have been reassured when we have told them that the governing body will have to respond for its actions before an industrial tribunal, because of the operation of clause 176.

There is a precedent for that distribution of responsibility in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Where an aided school dismisses a teacher whom it employs on the instruction of the LEA, it is the LEA and not the school governors which appears before an industrial tribunal, since it has taken the relevant decision.

Such transfers of responsibility will equally be in the interests of the staff. For example, section 23 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides that an employee has the right not to have action short of dismissal taken against him for the purpose of preventing or deterring him from becoming a member of an independent trade union. In circumstances where the governing body manages the school, it must be right that the governors should not be able to take such action and should be held to account before an industrial tribunal if they were to do so. Similarly, under sections 27 to 29 employees have the right to time off work for trade union duties and activities and public duties, and there are similar responsibilities and duties that governing bodies will have to undertake in respect of matters such as maternity leave, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).

It was suggested in Committee that we might list the relevant changes to employment law in the Bill itself. As I said then, we do not yet have a fixed view of what will be appropriate in every case. Therefore, we believe that it is right to consult the local education authority interests and the trade unions representing both teaching and non-teaching staff before the Secretary of State makes an order.

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall finish my point, because it may help the House.

I give a firm undertaking that, after Royal Assent, we will consult those interests on the content of an order under the clause and that we shall listen very carefully to the views that are put to us. The process will be entirely public and the order will not be made without full consultation.

The Minister says that the Government have no final view on the implications of the clause and that the matter will now go out to consultation, which we welcome. How does she square her first comment with her remarks in Committee? I am sure that she was speaking for the Government when she said:

"I can see no reason why there should be any consequential diminution of rights for employees as a result of the clause"—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 25 February 1988; c. 1808.]
Is she still saying that, or have the Government changed their position?

I do not think that what I have just said undermines the importance that the Government attach to consultation or to ensuring that we take into account all the different interests and views put forward in reaching a conclusion about making an order under the clause. It is on that basis, which I believe to be absolutely right and very open, that we shall be proceeding.

We can understand the process of consultation. Is the Minister now saying that the matter will go out to consultation with the Government's view clearly stated that there should be no consequential diminution of rights? Is that what the Minister is saying?

I think that the hon. Gentleman's concern about the diminution of the rights of employees under the clause is somewhat misplaced. I do not see that we are doing anything different from what has been practised in the voluntary-aided and special agreement schools, in which the governing bodies have had considerable freedom in relation to the employment of staff. It seems to me that there are powerful constraints on any diminution of rights. There are powerful constraints on the governing bodies, in two forms. First, no governing body is likely to take action representing a diminution of employees' rights. The governing body will know perfectly well that it will be advised by its local education authority on exactly how to proceed. That will be a powerfull constraint. Similarly, local education authorities have discretion to say that the financial delegation schemes applying in their schools should be withdrawn from a school if they believe that the governing body of that school is not acting properly.

I wonder whether I can tempt the Minister simply to answer the question. Do the Government have a view? If they do, it may be beneficial in the context of the consultation process. Is it still the Government's view that there should be no consequential diminution of rights? The Minister keeps saying that it will not happen, but we want to know whether the Government want it to happen or whether they will resist it. Is the Minister's answer to that question yes or no?

I hope to make it clear that the clause is not about diminishing employees' rights, but about ensuring that power and responsibility for the governing bodies go hand in hand. The amendment is unnecessary, and it is also unacceptable because it could lead to disputes about what employees' rights are and what constitutes diminution of them. For example, some might be tempted to claim that it is a diminution of rights simply to have decisions made at school rather than at local education authority level. We do not accept that. We make no secret of the fact that many decisions will be taken at school level under financial delegation and that, therefore, employment rights should be seen to operate at school level. I hope that I have managed to reassure the House about the Government's intentions and that the Opposition will withdraw the amendment.

Far from being reassured, we are even more worried. I offered hope to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), but I suspect that his experience in this matter was well founded. The Minister has again worried us with her reply. All that we needed the Minister to do was to reinforce the proposition that there would be no diminution in employees' rights. She would not give us that commitment. We can come to only one conclusion: that local financial management will he used as a vehicle by which employment rights for teaching and non-teaching staff will be reduced. On that basis, we shall push the amendment to the vote and hope that Conservative Members who have understood the argument will support us.

It being a quarter to Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution [23 March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 300.

Division No. 234]

[7.45 pm


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)Boyes, Roland
Allen, GrahamBradley, Keith
Archer, Rt Hon PeterBrown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Armstrong, HilaryBuchan, Norman
Ashdown, PaddyBuckley, George J.
Ashley, Rt Hon JackCaborn, Richard
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Callaghan, Jim
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Barron, KevinCampbell-Savours, D. N.
Battle, JohnCanavan, Dennis
Beckett, MargaretCartwright, John
Benn, Rt Hon TonyClark, Dr David (S Shields)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Bermingham, GeraldClay, Bob
Bidwell, SydneyClelland, David
Blair, TonyClwyd, Mrs Ann

Coleman, DonaldLivsey, Richard
Cook, Robin (Livingston)Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Corbett, RobinLoyden, Eddie
Corbyn, JeremyMcAllion, John
Cousins, JimMcAvoy, Thomas
Cox, TomMcCartney, Ian
Cryer, BobMacdonald, Calum A.
Cummings, JohnMcFall, John
Cunliffe, LawrenceMcKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Dalyell, TamMcKelvey, William
Darling, AlistairMcLeish, Henry
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)McNamara, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)McTaggart, Bob
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)McWilliam, John
Dewar, DonaldMadden, Max
Dixon, DonMarek, Dr John
Dobson, FrankMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Doran, FrankMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Douglas, DickMartin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Duffy, A. E. P.Maxton, John
Dunnachie, JimmyMeale, Alan
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs GwynethMichael, Alun
Eastham, KenMichie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Evans, John (St Helens N)Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fatchett, DerekMorgan, Rhodri
Faulds, AndrewMorris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Fearn, RonaldMowlam, Marjorie
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Mullin, Chris
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)Murphy, Paul
Fisher, MarkNellist, Dave
Flannery, MartinOakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Flynn, PaulO'Brien, William
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelO'Neill, Martin
Foster, DerekOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
Foulkes, GeorgeOwen, Rt Hon Dr David
Fraser, JohnPatchett, Terry
Fyfe, MariaPendry, Tom
Galbraith, SamPike, Peter L.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)Prescott, John
George, BrucePrimarolo, Dawn
Godman, Dr Norman A.Quin, Ms Joyce
Gordon, MildredRadice, Giles
Graham, ThomasRandall, Stuart
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)Redmond, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Grocott, BruceReid, Dr John
Hardy, PeterRichardson, Jo
Harman, Ms HarrietRoberts, Allan (Bootle)
Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyRobertson, George
Healey, Rt Hon DenisRobinson, Geoffrey
Heffer, Eric S.Rogers, Allan
Henderson, DougRooker, Jeff
Hinchliffe, DavidRowlands, Ted
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Ruddock, Joan
Holland, StuartSalmond, Alex
Home Robertson, JohnSedgemore, Brian
Hood, JimmySheerman, Barry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Short, Clare
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Illsley, EricSmith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Ingram, AdamSnape, Peter
Janner, GrevilleSoley, Clive
John, BrynmorSpearing, Nigel
Johnston, Sir RussellSteinberg, Gerry
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)Stott, Roger
Kinnock, Rt Hon NeilStrang, Gavin
Lambie, DavidStraw, Jack
Lamond, JamesTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Leadbitter, TedTaylor, Matthew (Truro)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Lewis, TerryThompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Litherland, RobertTurner, Dennis
Livingstone, KenVaz, Keith

Wall, PatWise, Mrs Audrey
Walley, JoanWorthington, Tony
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)Wray, Jimmy
Wareing, Robert N.Young, David (Bolton SE)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wigley, DafyddTellers for the Ayes:
Williams, Rt Hon AlanMr. Frank Haynes and
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)Mr. Frank Cook.
Winnick, David


Adley, RobertDouglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Aitken, JonathanDover, Den
Alexander, RichardDunn, Bob
Alison, Rt Hon MichaelDurant, Tony
Allason, RupertEmery, Sir Peter
Amery, Rt Hon JulianEvans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Amess, DavidFallon, Michael
Amos, AlanFarr, Sir John
Arbuthnot, JamesFavell, Tony
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)Fenner, Dame Peggy
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Atkins, RobertFinsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)Forman, Nigel
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Baldry, TonyForth, Eric
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Batiste, SpencerFox, Sir Marcus
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyFranks, Cecil
Bellingham, HenryFreeman, Roger
Bendall, VivianFrench, Douglas
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)Fry, Peter
Bevan, David GilroyGale, Roger
Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnGardiner, George
Blackburn, Dr John G.Garel-Jones, Tristan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterGill, Christopher
Bonsor, Sir NicholasGilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Bottomley, PeterGlyn, Dr Alan
Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaGoodlad, Alastair
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bowis, JohnGorst, John
Brandon-Bravo, MartinGow, Ian
Brazier, JulianGower, Sir Raymond
Bright, GrahamGrant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Brittan, Rt Hon LeonGreenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Browne, John (Winchester)Gregory, Conal
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Buck, Sir AntonyGriffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Budgen, NicholasGrist, Ian
Burns, SimonGrylls, Michael
Butcher, JohnGummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Butler, ChrisHamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Butterfill, JohnHampson, Dr Keith
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)Hanley, Jeremy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Hannam, John
Carrington, MatthewHargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Carttiss, MichaelHargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Cash, WilliamHarris, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs LyndaHaselhurst, Alan
Chapman, SydneyHawkins, Christopher
Chope, ChristopherHayes, Jerry
Churchill, MrHayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Hayward, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Heathcoat-Amory, David
Colvin, MichaelHeddle, John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, JohnHicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Cormack, PatrickHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Couchman, JamesHill, James
Critchley, JulianHind, Kenneth
Currie, Mrs EdwinaHogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Curry, DavidHolt, Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)Hordern, Sir Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)Howard, Michael
Day, StephenHowarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Devlin, TimHowell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Dickens, GeoffreyHowell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Dorrell, StephenHunt, David (Wirral W)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, AndrewPawsey, James
Hurd, Rt Hon DouglasPorter, David (Waveney)
Irvine, MichaelPortillo, Michael
Irving, CharlesPowell, William (Corby)
Jack, MichaelPrice, Sir David
Jackson, RobertRaffan, Keith
Janman, TimRaison, Rt Hon Timothy
Johnson Smith, Sir GeoffreyRathbone, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Redwood, John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)Riddick, Graham
Jopling, Rt Hon MichaelRidley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Kellett-Bowman, Dame ElaineRidsdale, Sir Julian
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Kirkhope, TimothyRoe, Mrs Marion
Knapman, RogerRossi, Sir Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby North)Rost, Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)Rowe, Andrew
Knowles, MichaelRumbold, Mrs Angela
Knox, DavidRyder, Richard
Lamont, Rt Hon NormanSackville, Hon Tom
Lang, IanSainsbury, Hon Tim
Latham, MichaelSayeed, Jonathan
Lawrence, IvanScott, Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)Shaw, David (Dover)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lightbown, DavidShelton, William (Streatham)
Lilley, PeterShephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lord, MichaelShersby, Michael
Luce, Rt Hon RichardSkeet, Sir Trevor
Lyell, Sir NicholasSmith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
McCrindle, RobertSmith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Macfarlane, Sir NeilSoames, Hon Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)Speed, Keith
Maclean, DavidSpeller, Tony
McLoughlin, PatrickSpicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)Stanbrook, Ivor
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)Steen, Anthony
Madel, DavidStern, Michael
Major, Rt Hon JohnStewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Malins, HumfreyStewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Mans, KeithStokes, John
Maples, JohnStradling Thomas, Sir John
Marland, PaulSumberg, David
Marlow, TonySummerson, Hugo
Marshall, John (Hendon S)Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Maude, Hon FrancisTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir PatrickTemple-Morris, Peter
Meyer, Sir AnthonyThompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Miller, HalThompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mills, IainThornton, Malcolm
Miscampbell, NormanTownend, John (Bridlington)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Moate, RogerTracey, Richard
Monro, Sir HectorTredinnick, David
Montgomery, Sir FergusTrippier, David
Moore, Rt Hon JohnTrotter, Neville
Morris, M (N'hampton S)Twinn, Dr Ian
Morrison, Hon Sir CharlesWaddington, Rt Hon David
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)Waldegrave, Hon William
Moss, MalcolmWalden, George
Moynihan, Hon ColinWalker, Bill (T'side North)
Neale, GerrardWaller, Gary
Nelson, AnthonyWalters, Dennis
Neubert, MichaelWard, John
Newton, Rt Hon TonyWardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Nicholls, PatrickWatts, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)Wells, Bowen
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)Wheeler, John
Onslow, Rt Hon CranleyWhitney, Ray
Oppenheim, PhillipWiddecombe, Ann
Page, RichardWilkinson, John
Patnick, IrvineWilshire, David
Patten, Chris (Bath)Wolfson, Mark
Patten, John (Oxford W)Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, MikeTellers for the Noes:
Young, Sir George (Acton)Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on the remaining amendments moved by a member of the Government.