Skip to main content

Companies (Political Contributions)

Volume 50: debated on Tuesday 6 December 1983

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

3.30 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit political donations by companies so that such donations are paid by assenting shareholders in proportion to the size of their shareholdings and to regulate the method of payment; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is designed to put company political contributions on the same basis as trade union contributions in order to ensure that what is sauce for the employee goose is also sauce for the employer gander and to bring the swan song of any possibility of imputations of the purchase of honours.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, the number of Conservative Members leaving the Chamber because of the motion for the introduction of the Bill?

Hon. Members frequently leave the Chamber after Prime Minister's Questions.

It is my personal view that political parties should be helped by the state, because neither the political system nor the electoral system would work without political parties. Their role is vital and they should not be forced to depend for financial help on the vested interests which will always want—and sometimes get—a quo pro quid. Until the day comes when they can obtain financial help from the state, we can only provide for equal treatment and full accountability. At present equal treatment and full accountability do not exist.

Company donations to political parties are decided by chairmen and oligarchies of directors, who can hardly be said to be accountable for their decision to shareholders. Some contributions may not even be declared to the shareholders, because there is no enforcement procedure under the Companies Act 1967. If a shareholder objects to a donation, he is forced into the impossible position of fighting his own company and campaigning against it in order to change that decision. There is a strong possibility that company political donations may be ultra vires, because they have never been authorised by a court, and most companies do not have express power to make contributions to political parties.

I therefore propose that companies' donations shall be permitted only when authorised by a ballot of shareholders. It is, after all, the shareholders' money that is being handed out in this fashion. That ballot should be repeated at regular intervals, for instance, every 10 years. The ballot should authorise the setting up of a company political fund which is financed by deductions from the dividends of those shareholders who do not opt out of the donation. Those who did not opt out would pay tax on their donation to a political party as if it were a distributed dividend. In other words, the donation would be treated like a union subscription, which comes out of post-tax income.

This proposal would bring us into line with American practice, where companies cannot make political donations. It would also mean that the whole procedure would be above board, because it will be supervised by the registrar of companies. It guarantees that everyone not only knows what he is giving but consents to it. That is a vital precaution when 30 per cent. of the equity of quoted companies is owned by pension funds.

It is monstrous that pension funds should be forced, as they are at present, to make political donations. For money that should be theirs to be given away by the companies in which they invest conflicts with the duty of trustees to maximise the income for their pensioners. Equally importantly, the measure will cast light on an area that is at present dark and obscure. Where there is such ignorance, it can be implied that undesirable practices are going on. Indeed, that imputation becomes particularly striking when it is noted—as the independent Labour research department found—that a comparison of eight honours lists with the donations made to the Conservative party shows a correlation between generosity to the Conservative party and the conferring of honours.

There are, after all, only three possible arguments for companies giving money to the Conservative party. The first is the fear that the nasty Labour party will come in and nationalise the firm. Of course, that is only a bogy to frighten the timorous. It is a sort of political halloween lantern, because it has hardly been meaningful for the past 10 years or more. The second argument is that business will do better under the Tories. However, that is absolutely wrong. Not only has business done consistently better under Labour Governments, but this Conservative Government have managed to achieve a greater fall in production, a greater deficiency in demand, a greater decline in manufacturing and a deeper depression than in any other advanced industrial country. So if business men were rational capitalists instead of being masochists—but of course one never knows with these public school men—they would not pay the Conservative Government to make that pain more severe.

That leaves only one further argument—the desire for honours. That is a perfectly honest and honourable desire, but it should never be advanced in any way by company donations. Yet the trends make it look as though that may be the case. Only a small number of peerages and knighthoods go to people described as directors of public companies. Indeed, only 41 such honours have been given in the eight honours lists. Nevertheless, 28 of those 41 went to companies that had given a total of £2·7 million to the Tory party.

Indeed, all eight peerages to directors and chairmen of companies went to men who shared certain characteristics. They are all dominant influences on their companies and are thus in a strong position to influence the decision to give to the Conservative party. Secondly, their companies all gave substantially in the period from 1979 to 1982 inclusive. All but one gave substantially in the year that their chairmen or chief executives were elevated to the peerage. The one exception is Lord Matthews, whose company, Trafalgar House, gave £40,000 to the Conservative party the year before he was elevated and £40,000 the year after he was elevated — a total of £120,000 from 1979 to 1982. All the others gave both in that period and in the year of their creation. Thus, Sir William Cayzer's company, British and Commonwealth Shipping, gave £95,000 in the year that he became a baron, and £218,000 over the period 1979 to 1982. Sir Robert McAlpine's company, Newarthill, gave £33,000 in the year that he was made a baron, and £129,000 over the period 1979 to 1982. So it goes on, to the extent that those eight companies contributed 10 per cent. of the traced Tory income from companies. What is happening is totally contrary to the spirit and intention of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, and merits a full independent inquiry.

Indeed, the correlation is particularly striking when it is realised that 18 companies have given £90,000 or more to Tory funds in the past four years. Fourteen of them have had one of their directors honoured by the Tory Government. The companies that have dominated Tory fund-raising have been honoured at twice the rate of companies that have dominated the economy.

When it comes to honours, a concern about integrity should dictate that those whose companies make donations should have to innovate more, work harder and export more before they obtain an honour, just to discount the imputation that the honour was conferred because of their donations. Yet the reverse is happening. The trends show that those company directors who obtain honours have to work harder, innovate more and export far more if their company does not donate to the Conservative party than those whose companies do.

This is not a party political matter, and nor would I want it to degenerate into a comparison between Tory motes and Labour beams. The problem concerns the integrity of our honours system and merits an inquiry. My Bill would bring the whole matter of contributions into the open and place it on a democratic and accountable basis. The information from the registrar of companies will be made available under the Bill to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee which, while it has power to object to certain individuals as unsuitable, and while it appears that it gets some indication of political contributions — and one would like to know what indication it gets—does not have the whole picture and cannot discern the type of pattern to which the evidence that I have unveiled today points. Somebody should be able to do so. That failure devalues our honours system.

For that reason, and to ensure justice between the competing interests in society, I ask the House to support my Bill. Money, I suppose, is bound to talk. We in this House have a duty to stop it swearing.

3.40 pm

The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for the time and trouble that he has saved us by trailing in the columns of The Times, with the assistance of Mr. Peter Hennessy, what he proposed to say. Therefore, we know what the hon. Gentleman is on about, and the pretence that this is not a party political measure is a thin one.

Simply on a point of fact about the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the Companies Acts, he should have taken the time and trouble to find out that under section 19 of the Companies Act 1967 political donations have to be stated in the annual report and accounts of the company. If the hon. Gentleman is right in what he said about the holdings of pension funds, I think that he is stretching the credulity of his hon. Friends too far if he says that a pension fund which holds 30 per cent. of the shareholding in any given company is forced to make a political contribution. If it wants to put down a motion at the annual general meeting, it can, and it will.

The truth of the matter is that this is a party political attack. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the independent Labour research department, we can see just how party political it is. That is not exactly an impartial or unbiased body. We hear from The Times that it is funded by 50 national trade unions. We know from our knowledge of Labour history that it has spent many years on the Labour party's proscribed list, when the Labour party cared about those things; and we understand that in 1974 the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition, was elected a member of its editorial board. I understand that in 1977 the right hon. Gentleman became a member of its executive council—the only Member of Parliament to be so honoured. I believe that Mr. Douglas Eden, in an article in the Wall Street Journal in September this year, pointed out that, at the time that the right hon. Gentleman was elevated in that way, eight out of 15 of his colleagues on the executive council and 11 out of 19 of his colleagues on the editorial board were known for their Communist affiliations.

Against that background, I suggest that the conclusions of any such independent body are no more credible than its credentials. I do not intend to waste time on the conclusions in its report except to say that it is preposterous to suggest that a great company such as GEC would be prepared to pay £50,000 to Conservative party funds to buy a life peerage for its chairman and a knighthood for one of its executives. That is so preposterous a charge that it is not worth dwelling on any of the others.

What is the real burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument? He talked about integrity. What he is saying is that the integrity of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee is open to attack, and he is attacking it. That is the gravamen of his charge. The history of the committee will be known to the House. The House will remember how, in the 1920s, it was set up to prevent any repetition of the scandalous sale of honours by Mr. Lloyd George and the Liberal party. Hon. Members on the Liberal Benches will remember that, as we do. The House will also recall from its own more recent memory how the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee came to public attention more recently as a result of what The Times of yesterday described as
"Lord Wilson of Rievaule's notorious resignation list of 1976."
—known more commonly arid widely as the "Lavender notepaper mob."

We all know what concern that caused to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), Lord Wilson's successor as Prime Minister. We know that he was thinking about doing something, in the right hon. Gentleman's typical way, but, before he got round to acting, the 1979 general election took place and it was left to my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister to act. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who wishes to introduce this silly little measure, has failed in his researches even to look at the statement that my right hon. Friend made in the House on 26 November 1979 from which I quote. There are two statements in it which need to be quoted to put this question of integrity into perspective. My right hon. Friend said:
"All recommendations for honours for political and public services will be examined by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee before they are submitted to the Queen for her approval.
I should also like to announce one other change in the role of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. I have asked the committee to examine any names that I add to the recommendations at CBE level and above which are submitted to me through the official honours machinery in respect of services in all fields other than that of political services. The committee has readily agreed to do so. This further extension of the committee's function will, I believe, help to maintain the integrity of the honours system." — [Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 880.]
There is no reason for any hon. Member to suppose that those directions have been relaxed, and all the signs are that they have, if anything, been made more stringent.

What we have before us today is a shabby and scurrilous attack on the integrity of the members of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. Lord Shackleton, a distinguished Labour peer, is Chairman of the committee, Lord Franks, a distinguished Liberal peer, is one of its members, and Lord Can, a distinguished Conservative peer, is the third of its members. Their integrity is being attacked today and, in view of what we know about the Leader of the Opposition's connection with the Labour research department, I am a little surprised that we have not had him brandishing from the Dispatch Box a photograph of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shaking hands with all three noble Lords. This is a sordid little proposal, and it should be voted down without further ado.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you put the Question, may I ask you to consider allowing this debate to be adjourned? It may shock the House to know that, during the period of office of the last Labour Government, an oil company offered a substantial donation to the Labour party when the allocation of oil rights in the North sea was about to be made. That donation was refused by the Labour party, mainly because of the sensitivity of the position, the donation being given to the Minister at the time. The Labour party then took a decision never to accept donations from limited companies or any other form of grouping that could be considered to be an influence concerning the favour of either the allocation of oil rights in the North sea or the allocation of titles or favours of that type.

Under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) asked both me personally and other leading members of the Labour party who had access to Labour party funds at the time carefully to scrutinise the matter to ensure that not one person who appeared on his list or on any other recent list had made a donation of any type to the Labour party; and the fact that no one had done so was verified——

Order. This sounds like a continuation of the debate rather than a point of order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order?

Under the 1925 Act, the charges made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), which I believe to be true, could, if proved, mean imprisonment for the Prime Minister.

Because of the seriousness of the situation, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the debate to stand adjourned until further information is made available.

If I sense the mood of the House aright, it is that the House wishes to come to a decision on this matter.

Order. If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is given leave to bring in his Bill, all such matters can be gone into.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 271.

Division No. 87]

[3.50 pm


Alton, DavidEwing, Harry
Ashley, Rt Hon JackFatchett, Derek
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Barnett, GuyFisher, Mark
Beckett, Mrs MargaretFlannery, Martin
Beith, A. J.Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Foster, Derek
Bidwell, SydneyFreud, Clement
Blair, AnthonyGarrett, W. E.
Boothroyd, Miss BettyGodman, Dr Norman
Boyes, RolandGould, Bryan
Bray, Dr JeremyHamilton, James (M'well N)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Hardy, Peter
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)Haynes, Frank
Bruce, MalcolmHealey, Rt Hon Denis
Caborn, RichardHeffer, Eric S.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Home Robertson, John
Campbell-Savours, DaleHowell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Canavan, DennisHowells, Geraint
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)Hoyle, Douglas
Carter-Jones, LewisHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cartwright, JohnHughes, Roy (Newport East)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Clarke, ThomasHughes, Simon (Southwark)
Clay, RobertJohn, Brynmor
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cohen, HarryKaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Coleman, DonaldKennedy, Charles
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Conlan, BernardKinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)Kirkwood, Archibald
Corbett, RobinLambie, David
Corbyn, JeremyLamond, James
Cowans, HarryLeadbitter, Ted
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)Leighton, Ronald
Craigen, J. M.Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Crowther, StanLloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Cunliffe, LawrenceLofthouse, Geoffrey
Cunningham, Dr JohnMcCartney, Hugh
Dalyell, TamMcDonald, Dr Oonagh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)McGuire, Michael
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)McWilliam, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)Madden, Max
Deakins, EricMarek, Dr John
Dewar, DonaldMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Dixon, DonaldMartin, Michael
Dobson, FrankMason, Rt Hon Roy
Dormand, JackMaxton, John
Douglas, DickMaynard, Miss Joan
Dubs, AlfredMeacher, Michael
Duffy, A. E. P.Meadowcroft, Michael
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.Michie, William
Eastham, KenMikardo, Ian
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ellis, RaymondMiller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)
Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Nellist, DavidShort, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Oakes, Rt Hon GordonSkinner, Dennis
Orme, Rt Hon StanleySmith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr DavidSmith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Park, GeorgeSmith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
Patchett, TerrySoley, Clive
Pendry, TomSpearing, Nigel
Penhaligon, DavidSteel, Rt Hon David
Pike, PeterStewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)Stott, Roger
Prescott, JohnStraw, Jack
Radice, GilesThomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Randall, StuartThorne, Stan (Preston)
Redmond, M.Torney, Tom
Richardson, Ms JoWainwright, R.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)Wallace, James
Robertson, GeorgeWardell, Gareth (Gower)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)Wareing, Robert
Rogers, AllanWilliams, Rt Hon A.
Rooker, J. W.Wilson, Gordon
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)Winnick, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)Woodall, Alec
Rowlands, Ted
Sheerman, BarryTellers for the Ayes:
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.Mr. Allan McKay and Mr. George Foulkes.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Adley, RobertCope, John
Alexander, RichardCormack, Patrick
Alison, Rt Hon MichaelCorrie, John
Amery, Rt Hon JulianCouchman, James
Ancram, MichaelCrouch, David
Aspinwall, JackCurrie, Mrs Edwina
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.Dicks, T.
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)Dover, Denshore
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Baldry, AnthonyDunn, Robert
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Durant, Tony
Batiste, SpencerDykes, Hugh
Bendall, VivianEdwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)Eggar, Tim
Benyon, WilliamEmery, Sir Peter
Berry, Sir AnthonyEyre, Reginald
Best, KeithFallon, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnFarr, John
Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnFenner, Mrs Peggy
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterFinsberg, Geoffrey
Body, RichardFletcher, Alexander
Boscawen, Hon RobertFookes, Miss Janet
Bottomley, PeterFowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)Fox, Marcus
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Franks, Cecil
Boyson, Dr RhodesFraser, Peter (Angus East)
Braine, Sir BernardFreeman, Roger
Brandon-Bravo, MartinGale, Roger
Bright, GrahamGalley, Roy
Brooke, Hon PeterGarel-Jones, Tristan
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)Glyn, Dr Alan
Bruinvels, PeterGoodlad, Alastair
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.Gow, Ian
Buck, Sir AntonyGower, Sir Raymond
Budgen, NickGreenway, Harry
Bulmer, EsmondGregory, Conal
Burt, AlistairGriffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Butterfill, JohnGriffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Grist, Ian
Carttiss, MichaelGround, Patrick
Channon, Rt Hon PaulGrylls, Michael
Chapman, SydneyGummer, John Selwyn
Chope, ChristopherHamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Hampson, Dr Keith
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Hanley, Jeremy
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Hannam, John
Cockeram, EricHargreaves, Kenneth
Colvin, MichaelHarvey, Robert
Conway, DerekHaselhurst, Alan
Coombs, SimonHawkins, C. (High Peak)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)Neubert, Michael
Hawksley, WarrenNewton, Tony
Hayes, J.Nicholls, Patrick
Hayhoe, BarneyNorris, Steven
Hayward, RobertOnslow, Cranley
Heathcoat-Amory, DavidOppenheim, Philip
Heddle, JohnOsborn, Sir John
Hickmet, RichardOttaway, Richard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.Page, John (Harrow W)
Hill, JamesPage, Richard (Herts SW)
Hirst, MichaelParris, Matthew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Patten, John (Oxford)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)Pawsey, James
Holt, RichardPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hooson, TomPercival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Howard, MichaelPollock, Alexander
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)Powley, John
Hubbard-Miles, PeterPrentice, Rt Hon Reg
Hunt, David (Wirral)Price, Sir David
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)Proctor, K. Harvey
Hunter, AndrewRaffan, Keith
Hurd, Rt Hon DouglasRees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Jenkin, Rt Hon PatrickRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Jessel, TobyRidley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Rifkind, Malcolm
Jopling, Rt Hon MichaelRippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithRoberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Key, RobertRobinson, Mark (N'port W)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)Roe, Mrs Marion
King, Rt Hon TomRost, Peter
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)Rowe, Andrew
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Knowles, MichaelRyder, Richard
Lang, IanSackville, Hon Thomas
Latham, MichaelSainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lawler, GeoffreySayeed, Jonathan
Lawrence, IvanShaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lawson, Rt Hon NigelSilvester, Fred
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Sims, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon MarkSkeet, T. H. H.
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Lightbown, DavidSmith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lilley, PeterSoames, Hon Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)Speller, Tony
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)Spence, John
Lord, MichaelSpencer, D.
Lyell, NicholasSpicer, Jim (W Dorset)
McCrindle, RobertSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
McCurley, Mrs AnnaSquire, Robin
Macfarlane, NeilStanley, John
MacGregor, JohnStern, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
McQuarrie, AlbertStewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)
Major, JohnStokes, John
Malins, HumfreyStradling Thomas, J.
Malone, GeraldTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Maples, JohnTemple-Morris, Peter
Marland, PaulThomas, Rt Hon Peter
Marlow, AntonyThompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mather, CarolThompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Maude, FrancisThorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Mawhinney, Dr BrianThornton, Malcolm
Mayhew, Sir PatrickThurnham, Peter
Mellor, DavidTracey, Richard
Merchant, PiersTwinn, Dr Ian
Meyer, Sir AnthonyWaddington, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)Waldegrave, Hon William
Moate, RogerWalden, George
Monro, Sir HectorWall, Sir Patrick
Montgomery, FergusWaller, Gary
Moore, JohnWalters, Dennis
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)Ward, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Moynihan, Hon C.Warren, Kenneth
Mudd, DavidWatson, John
Needham, RichardWells, John (Maidstone)

Whitfield, JohnYounger, Rt Hon George
Whitney, Raymond
Wilkinson, JohnTellers for the Noes:
Winterton, NicholasMr. Robert Atkins and Mr. Christopher Murphy.
Wood, Timothy
Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.