Column 342we shall not get any more out of the Government and at least this new clause will be of benefit for one-parent families. Therefore, I welcome it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act shall be amended as follows :
(a) in paragraph 3 of Schedule 13 (computation of period of employment), the words "for sixteen hours or more" shall be left out.
(b) paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Schedule 13 shall cease to have effect.'.-- [Ms. Richardson.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
In schedule 13 to the 1987 Act (Computation of the perod of employment--
(a) for the references to "sixteen hours" in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 there shall be substituted references to "ten hours". (
(b) for the references to "eight hours" in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 there shall be substituted references to "five hours.".'.
Ms. Richardson : New clause 1, if passed, would mean that all employees would qualify for major employment rights from their first day of employment. By major employment rights I mean such rights as the right to seek redress before an industrial tribunal, the right to redundancy pay, the right to time off to look for another job when the employee has been made redundant, the right for the job back after maternity leave and to a higher rate of maternity pay. Currently, employees qualify for those rights after two years' continuous service if they work more than 16 hours a week or after five years' service if they work between eight and 16 hours a week. New clause 1 would put all employees on the same footing. From day one of their employment, regardless of how few or how many hours they work each week, all employees would qualify for full employment rights and, much as they do now, would be protected against discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or trade union membership. All women would qualify for the higher rate of maternity pay--90 per cent. of salary. In this day and age, it is scandalous that women must work for two years to achieve that right. If they do not do so, they receive only £35.25 a week. The Government surely realise that the financial needs of a pregnant woman are not affected by their having worked for six months or one year. The plain fact of the matter is that if a woman is pregnant, she is pregnant, and all the other considerations do not affect her condition. The qualifying criteria disproportionately hit women. Nine out of 10 part-time workers are women. Nine out of 10 people who must work five years or more part time to obtain rights, or who fall completely outside employment rights, are women--the disadvantaged majority of the population.
Three-fifths of part-time workers are women with dependent children. Labour Members do not devalue
Column 343part-time work. We recognise its value to employers and its practicality for employees, which is why we feel strongly that part-timers should have full and proper rights.
Part-time work has become a major feature of the British economy since the last war. In 1951, only one in 25 employees worked part-time, but today it is as many as one in four. Many of the new employment opportunities about which the Government are wont to boast are part-time. All projections show that the trend will continue into the 1990s. Surely it is time that the Government recognised the changing labour market and adjusted our employment laws accordingly. Apart from Ireland, we are the only country in the European Community to discriminate between part-time and full-time workers. Is that not a scandal? The Select Committee on European Legislation described the legislation as "arbitrary".
Labour Members object to employers employing more and more part-timers precisely because part-timers have few or no employment rights. Companies use part-timers because they allow them what the Government call a "flexible labour market". Labour Members are interested in a flexible market, but we want it to be genuinely flexible and to bend in favour of employees and employers. Any part-time employer will confirm that the market is flexible in favour of the employer.
Too often the Government talk of the flexible attitude to employment when what they truly mean is the right of management to hire and fire at will. Companies use part-timers to save on wages. A woman in part-time, non- manual employment earns on average 48 per cent. of a full-time man's wage, and 61.3 per cent. if she is in a manual industry. It is scandalous to think that in 1989 women still earn so little compared with a man's average wage. The true position is likely to be worse as those figures are based on the new earnings survey, which excludes employees whose earnings fall below the threshold for income tax. It is estimated that 25 per cent. of part- time workers are not included in the survey. If one made a projection, it would show that the figures are much worse than they are at present.
Companies use part-time workers to avoid pension payments and holiday entitlement. Using two part-timers instead of one full-timer, they can save on national insurance contributions. Labour Members are in favour of job sharing, but we are not in favour of job splitting, which is preferred by employers. The National Union of Public Employees, which represents many part-time workers, has made some simple but interesting calculations. An employer employing two part-time workers on £39 a week pays no national insurance contributions, but for a full-timer on £78 a week the employer must pay in excess of £5 a week. Part-timers lose out on contributory national insurance benefits, and if they are sacked they are not entitled to unemployment benefit. They can also lose out on profit- sharing agreements, occupational sick pay, special leave entitlements, early retirement provisions, staff discount schemes and subsidised loans. All those benefits are offered not to part-timers but to full-timers. Part- timers lose out all round. Employers exploit that, and in their actions enjoy the full support of the Government. This Government increased the qualifying period from six months to two years for employment rights. A couple of years ago, this Government veteod an EEC draft directive--they are fond of doing so--designed to give equal rights to part-timers and full -timers throughout Europe. In the 1986 White Paper, "Building Businesses
Column 344Not Barriers", this Government proposed reducing employment rights still further. The proposals included changing the eight to 16 hours threshold to 12 to 20 hours. Employees falling within those hours would have to work five years to qualify. Those working less than 12 hours would lose all their rights. I appreciate that the Under- Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), is not present--yes, he is ; that shows just how invisible he is --but at the beginning of the year he said that the proposals could not come into force. I wonder whether he will repeat that assurance. He has been making many notes as I have been speaking. Will he assure the House that he will not attempt to subject race, sex or trade union discrimination to any qualifying criteria?
The Labout party is committed to full employment rights for all employees. If people take part time-work because no full-time work is available, we shall endeavour to ensure that the absence is genuine and that an employee's pay does not suffer. We shall also endeavour to unscramble the vicious circle in which many women find themselves. For many women, part- time work is the only way of combining work and family responsibilities such as running the home, looking after children and sick, disabled or elderly relatives and, often, their husbands. Some 63 per cent. of women who work part time have dependent children, compared with only 21 per cent. of women who work full time. The reduction in social services engineered by the Government, together with their dismissive attitude to child care facilities, makes this problem worse.
Yesterday, I briefly took part in a debate on child care which was organised by the European Movement. All the parties were invited and all except one sent a representative to discuss their plans. Guess which one did not? The Tory party. That fact was noted.
Unfortunately, part-time work is not always available in the better-paid occupations and, as a result, women returning from maternity leave are often forced into low-paid part-time jobs, and the vicious circle continues. The only way out is to open up to part-time workers jobs in all occupations and at all levels. The first step is to guarantee the same rights for everyone. The trade union movement is aware of this idea and in the past two years has taken major steps to recruit part-time workers. The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union have carried out a "Link Up" campaign and have done an excellent job in informing the nation's 6 million temporary and part-time women workers of their limited rights. When new clause 1 becomes law--either now, if the Minister accepts it, or after the next general election when there is a decent Employment Act--those rights will be the same as for everyone else.
I challenge the Government : if they are committed to the idea of women joining the work force and to the concept that part-time work is a good thing for people to do, and not just something that is convenient for employers, they will support the new clause. We shall rejoice at that.
Column 345New clause 18 differs from new clause 1 because we believe that there should be a qualifying period, although it is short compared with that provided for in the present statutory provisions. We argue that there should be a minimum number of average hours worked per week before an employee can take a claim to an industrial tribunal. We make that distinction because we are not in favour of abolishing the qualifying period. There must be some benchmark by which it is decided that a person is in regular employment. On purely practical grounds, I foresee difficulties under new clause 1 in determining whether a person is in employment.
Many of the arguments that I would advance in support of new clause 18 are similar to those that were advanced by the hon. Member for Barking. Given demographic forces, it is clear that the size of the work force is likely to fall over the coming decades and that people will be persuaded to return to the labour market to do part-time work. That trend has already begun. On Second Reading and in Committee it was said that the Bill's purpose was to sweep away barriers and to encourage people to return to the labour force. New clause 18 would provide one way to encourage people to take up part- time work.
Working 10 hours a week is equivalent to working a few hours every afternoon. The offer of rights to part-time workers could act as a positive incentive to bring people back into the labour market. Steps should be taken to give people more rights. People in part-time employment often do not have as many rights as full-time workers or have the protection offered by health and safety legislation. One of the subsequent new clauses deals with that matter, about which the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is concerned. Psychological barriers prevent people from taking up part-time work.
On a more technical matter, employees can lose some of their rights even if they have been working for a company for more that five years if they do not work more than an average of eight hours a week. As people get older, they may see more sense in working fewer hours. Society would find it unacceptable if the rights of people who had spent a considerable part of their lives working for a company declined as their working hours decreased.
I shall not detain the House because the hon. Member for Barking has covered many points. When legislating on employment rights, it is our duty not to ignore the contribution made by a substantial part of the work force who are working part time and, as the Treasury Bench constantly reminds us, playing a valuable part in our economic life. They are entitled to rights and protection. We should encourage more people to join the labour force. New clause 18 would do that in a more modified way than new clause 1. We believe that there must be a qualifying period. Although we shall support new clause 1--to show our support for the principle behind it--I believe that new clause 18 would, in practice, be more workable.
Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent) : My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) put our case so powerfully and conclusively from the Labour Front Bench that I thought that the Minister would immediately get up and say that he accepted the new clause, and we could have disposed of it. I can think of no good argument that he can
Column 346produce against my hon. Friend's speech. It appears, however, that the Government may be thinking of resisting our proposition. There has been a transformation in the labour market in terms of the numbers in part-time employment. The House of Commons and anyone who seeks to protect workers must take account of all the new developments. The last Labour Government surveyed what was happening and introduced for the first time provisions to protect maternity grants and introduced provisions to protect women. I cannot pretend that we took the legislation as far as we would have wished, but we did our best. We put into operation the Equal Pay Act 1970, which had been introduced five years before by Barbara Castle when she was at the Department of Employment and Productivity.
Given the development of our labour market, it is necessary to have legislation of this character. The Minister will probably protest and say, "This new clause will make it more difficult to take people back into employment or get people into employment." That is a good excuse for having no protection. The Government will probably continue resisting these measures until the last moment. They will be swept away because of their attitude on this and other matters. This measure will have to be introduced by a Labour Government--that is by far the best approach. Alternatively, the Government may be humiliated on this matter, as they have been on so many others. The discussions in the European Parliament are bound to affect legislation of this kind. There is no doubt that at some stage the Government will have to decide whether to catch up with the legislation that is made under European Community arrangements. The Government have a shameful record in having dodged the principles and practices introduced in reasonable European reforms. They have an even more shameful record, if that is possible, in going back on understandings under International Labour Organisation arrangements which have been in existence for generations. They have shown that, wherever they can, they seek out some way in which to retreat from the advances that have been made in this area.
The case has now become overwhelming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking explained, part-time employment has properly become an essential part of employment. We are not complaining about that. However, the Government and the country generally must accommodate such work and ensure that we obtain justice for women, young people and others who are part-time workers. The only way in which that will be achieved is by a change in the law. I hope that the Minister will show a little generosity and accept new clause 1. If he does not accept new clause 1, either a similar proposal will be introduced by the next Government or it will be introduced even more quickly, because the Government will have to bow to what is done in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred to Britain's record in this matter. Only Britain and Ireland lag behind other European Community countries and that is shameful. Part-time employment has increased in many other EC countries in exactly the same way and it is a common phenomenon of modern society. This Government are pretty well the most reactionary Government in Western Europe and that is why, I presume, we shall get another no from the Minister today.
Mr. Nicholls : This has been a short debate, but it has not been without its interesting points. Before I deal with the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I want to deal with some of the general propositions advanced by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson).
We are dealing with two approaches to the same problem. First, there is the optimistic--or unrealistic--approach of the hon. Member for Barking. Perhaps one might call it the whole hog approach. New clause 1 proposes that the hours qualifications would go entirely. Secondly, there is the realistic--or half hog--approach of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who seeks to reduce the present 16 hours and eight hours to 10 hours and five hours respectively. In both cases, one has to address the question whether that would increase employment opportunities and whether it would produce any significant advantages for those presently working full and part-time, whether male or female.
The hon. Member for Barking told us about the figures for women who are part-time workers. I appreciate that in a short speech some concepts are run together, but the assumption running through this debate, as in other similar debates, is that to be a part-time worker means that one has no employment rights because one works fewer than 16 hours a week. That is not correct. Many women are already covered by employment protection legislation. I will quote some figures from the spring 1988 labour force survey. In March 1988, 57 per cent. of women were covered by the main employment protection rights and a further 38 per cent. worked a sufficient number of hours per week to qualify for employment protection, once they had done the necessary qualifying service. Only 6 per cent. of women worked for fewer than eight hours a week and, on that basis, were ineligible for all employment rights.
The same point emerges in relation not only to women, but to part-time workers generally. The 16-hour threshold includes many who are working part -time. Figures from the labour force survey show that 57 per cent. of all those working part-time--that is, fewer than 30 hours a week--work for 16 hours or more and are, therefore, eligible for the main employment protection rights after two years' continuous service, in the same way as ordinary full-time employees. The assumption that part-time workers will be deprived for ever of the ability to have employment rights is remarkable and quite wrong. The hon. Lady went on to make two further points, one of which encouraged me and the other of which discouraged me and confirmed me in my original opinions. It was encouraging that she made the point, fairly, that the Labour party was not against part-time work. Praise for the sinner that repenteth. It was good to hear that progress was being made. Many of the debates in Committee I have attended seem to have run on the basis that part-time work was always exploitive work, which people took merely because they could not obtain full-time work. The figures are against that. The hon. Lady has helpfully taken the debate further by saying that there is nothing wrong with part-time work per se. However, she then went on to say that many employers were deliberately engineering their employment operations to ensure that they had only part-time workers who could not qualify for employment rights.
Column 3485.15 pm
I must repeat one of the points I made a few moments ago. Many part-time workers qualify for full employment rights. The idea that any employer with sense or with any hope of being able to carry on a profitable business would be looking not for well motivated workers who would help his business and profits but would seek to employ people with no employment rights as the be-all and end-all of his employment system is bizarre. Although I hear what the hon. Lady says, I must point out that I have never seen evidence that employers are doing that on any meaningful level, although I agree that there is always an exception who can be quoted to justify a spurious rule. The hon. Lady asked what had happened to the proposals contained in "Building Businesses Not Barriers", which would reduce the hours still further. It would be a somewhat sterile debate to go too far down that road, except to say that we received a number of representations, which were often critical, about those proposals from those whom we hoped might benefit from them. The proposals are still there, but I need say no more than that. They were not included in the Employment Bill and that is the end of the matter. The hon. Lady asked for an assurance that the Government were not thinking of altering the law so that there would be some sort of qualifying period for race and sex discrimination cases. There is no question of that.
Surely we do not increase people's employment prospects by telling an employer, "The moment you employ this person--from week one, day one, hour one--he has got the full range of employment protection rights and can use those against you. You may even be taken at once to an industrial tribunal. You may succeed there, but you are vulnerable right away." The history of employment protection legislation is a question of balance--a phrase often used, but one that I must use again. On one hand, we have to ensure that those employees who have shown a commitment to their employers and to their work receive employment protection rights. On the other hand, we must ensure that those rights are not so instant and draconian that employment is positively discouraged. To suggest that that process would be advanced by giving people employment rights instantly is a dubious proposition.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, with his half-hog approach, felt that new clause 18 would have the effect of sweeping barriers away. I appreciate that only half of what I said to the hon. Lady is applicable to him. At least he has conceded--I am not sure how willingly--the principle that there should be some qualifying number of hours, but he also feels that the number of hours should be halved. It depends where one draws the line. I accept that the effects of new clause 18 would not be as deleterious as those of new clause 1, but they would go so far in a particular direction that they would be a force for ill rather than for good.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that he could think of no good argument for resisting new clause 1. That was a remarkable statement. I can think of one argument that I could give to the right hon. Gentleman, although in itself it is not a good argument. That argument is that when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment all those years ago--in 1975--the Employment Protection Act introduced the hours thresholds that we are talking about now. In the past 10 years, the Government have shown themselves to be
Column 349willing to deal with legislation that was passed by Labour Governments. Those thresholds have not been attacked by us. We have been prepared to say that the thresholds that were introduced by a Labour Government--introduced by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent as Secretary of State--were appropriate then and are appropriate now. Citing the right hon. Gentleman as authority for anything would not usually convince my hon. Friends that we have got it about right. Of all hon. Members, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the thresholds cannot say that there is no good argument in favour of them.
Mr. Wallace : The Minister said that there is a balance to be struck. He clearly thinks that the new clause does not get the balance right. He must surely recognise that, since the legislation was first introduced and put on the statute book by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), things have changed. More people are in part-time employment. With the labour force changing, we want to attract more people to part-time employment. Given the significant changes in the structure of the work force, how would a balance that was struck in 1975 still be appropriate in 1989?
Mr. Nicholls : That is probably a fair point. However, 1975 was so long ago that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has perhaps forgotten that he was responsible for the legislation. I do not agree that, merely with the effluxion of time and successful Government policies for reducing the rate of unemployment, the levels are now unacceptable.
Mr. Nicholls : I will not enter the debate on those terms. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no good argument and then attacked the proposals that he himself brought in. That requires some sort of explanation, but we did not get one. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made a better point. He said that perhaps we should consider the matter afresh and ask whether the hours are still acceptable. We believe that the balance must still be struck in this way.
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : The Minister really cannot get away with that. The Government have a policy-- [Interruption.] The Minister can hear all right. He used to hear all right upstairs in Committee. He must realise that the Government's policy is to create more and more part-time work. That is what they are about. Opposition Members are always squealing about full-time work. About 2 millon people cannot get a flipping job, and all that the Minister and the Government can do is to provide part-time work. Opposition Members are thinking about the future. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) talked about. Never mind 1975. We are talking about the future and the Government's policies on part-time work. The Minister should address that point. He completely ducked my right hon. Friend's intervention. Now come on, let's be knowing.
Mr. Haynes : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.I might be 63, but I am not an antique, and I resent that type of remark from a young whippersnapper. He does not know what work is. He is a lawyer. I know what flipping work is, after 35 years in a pit, mate.
As always, the hon. Gentleman is honest enough to attack the whole concept of part-time work. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said that there is nothing wrong with part-time work. I remember a famous exchange in the last Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman derided the fact that, if Government policies went the way in which they were destined to, we might be turned into a nation of waiters. The hon. Gentleman will not accept the word "antique", but he will agree that he has a traditional view of these matters. Bluntly, we have not. We see nothing wrong with service industries, or the concept of part-time work.
When we consider employment protection legislation, we must ask whether it works towards getting people jobs or kills off jobs. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent compared the Government's record with those of Governments in the rest of Europe. He omitted to point out that unemployment in this country is falling faster than in any other major industrialised nation. At the same time, the majority of part-time workers can actually enjoy the full protection rights to which I referred a moment ago. That shows that we have got the balance about right. It is a matter of judgment where that line lies. We think that we have got it right. The rates were applicable in 1975, and, so far, no case has been made for saying that they are no longer applicable.
Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge) : I am always interested to hear the Minister's response to these matters. He puts his arguments in such a way that he reveals the Government's real motive. He said that the Opposition's proposition would be tantamount to saying to an employer, "From day one, hour one, your employees can have full employment rights and can use them against you." That reveals a lot about the Government's attitude to employment rights. It certainly reveals the Minister's attitude to them. He apparently sees them not as rights to be bestowed upon employees to protect them against exploitation by employers, but as weapons to be used against employers, so, given the Government's favourable treatment of employers as opposed to employees, it is not surprising that they are keen to abolish employment rights. Hon. Members should be grateful to the Minister for at least clarifying the motives behind the legislation.
Ms. Richardson : I am pleased that the debate has suddenly livened up. Naturally, I am disappointed that the Minister should rubbish the serious point that part-time workers actually work. The assumption by some members of the Government and some parts of society seems to be that a part -time worker is a dilettante who does nothing-- [Interruption.] I do not attribute that remark specifically to the Minister. Some people believe that
Column 351part-time workers should not have any rights until they have earned them or qualified for them and done a certain number of hours' work, in case they run away. If, for some reason or other, all part-time workers withdrew their labour, the country would fall to pieces. I am not saying that we want more or less part-time work. I simply want the word "work" to be respected. People who do part-time work, whether they do it because they have other responsibilities and get no help from the Government to cope with those responsibilities--for example, at home--or whether they are able to do a full-time job, should feel that they are contributing something and getting some rights in return. That is all we are talking about. That is why, quite obviously, other European countries have become more enlightened than the United Kingdom.
I repeat that every country except the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom accords the same rights to part-time workers as it does to full- time workers. It does the Minister's case no good for him to rubbish our argument as pie in the sky that can never be achieved, when many other countries in Europe have achieved it. Their employers and Government institutions are coping with it. If the Government are serious about their concern that in the 1990s there will be an increasing need, because of demographic changes, for employers to look at the possibilities of employing women workers, they must look seriously and thoughtfully at what part-time work really means. It is no good wishing that, come the 1990s, women will somehow be able to cope with all their other responsibilities and turn up for full-time employment. There will be an increasing number of part-time workers, and more and more women, as they become more confident and articulate, will demand the same rights as full-time workers, to which, indeed, they are entitled.
I wish that the Government would wake up now, in 1989, to what will happen after 1990. They should think about the difficulties that they are now heaping upon the heads mainly of women by keeping these stupid restrictions. They should put this modest proposal into what is, generally speaking, their ragbag of an Employment Bill. Mr. Nicholls rose --
Mr. Nicholls : I entirely accept what the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has said, that part-time work has a valuable contribution to make. However, I do not accept what ran through her concluding remarks. The assumption was that, in some way, part-time workers at present are a sort of sub-culture and have no employment rights at all. Some 57 per cent. of all part-time workers already qualify for full rights. The hon. Lady talked--which is
understandable--specifically about women, but only 6 per cent. of women are not working for at least eight hours a week, and are therefore not gaining the necessary
Column 352hours to get themselves full-time rights in the end. Some 94 per cent. are working sufficient hours to get full employment rights in between two and five years.
We do not in any way devalue or deride part-time work. The proposition that must be dealt with is whether the job prospects of those who are currently in work, and those who would like to be, would be automatically enhanced by sweeping away any restrictions on the hours that must be worked. We do not believe for one moment that that case has been made out.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :
The House divided : Ayes 178, Noes 248.
Division No. 204] [5.32 pm
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Buckley, George J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Heffer, Eric S.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Johnston, Sir Russell
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Marek, Dr John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)