|Previous Section||Home Page|
Column 1183unable to claim compensation at present. Of course it is true that no amount of money can properly compensate for a permanent loss of good health or a permanent disability, but at least we should try to create the legal conditions under which some of those who have been so badly affected can seek compensation, and by doing so alleviate the problems faced by individuals and their families.
Mr. Redwood : It may help the House to make progress if I intervene at this point in the debate. I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady. I know the strong views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) in previous debates. I have problems with new clause 8. They are legal difficulties with which I shall not detain the House unduly but which relate to the very point raised by the hon. Lady. Substituting the company's insurer for the company itself as the defendant to an action for damages or personal injuries poses a number of legal difficulties which the Government find difficult to accept.
However, it is much more important for the House to learn not about the legal problems but about what I propose to do about the underlying problem which has been described in Committee. I suggest that the House accepts amendments Nos. 287 and 288 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North. Clause 131 already extends the two-year period to 20 years, because the Government wanted to tackle that problem. If the House accepts both my hon. Friend's amendments, I hope that it will agree that we have gone a long way towards dealing with some problems which can be quite tragic. That would require the House to accept the principle of retroaction. When I first examined the case and read the Committee proceedings, that caused me some difficulty. I have been swayed by legal representations that I have seen in which many good lawyers suggest that on this occasion it would be reasonable. If the House is united in wanting retroaction, I shall happily accept my hon. Friend's amendments.
Mr. Nicholas Baker : I am absolutely delighted by what my hon. Friend has just said. I moved the amendments in Committee because it seemed to me that there was an injustice. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) described the problem. She is more familiar with it
Column 1184than I am as she has more constituents affected by industrial diseases. It is clearly an injustice that people should be prevented from claiming compensation simply because a company has been dissolved. As a lawyer, I, too, was concerned about the retrospective element but medical science has advanced so much, we know so much more about industrial disease and we know that they take longer to appear. To that extent, one could argue that this is not a retrospective piece of legislation. It is recognising that there is a wrong and I am delighted that we are doing something about it. Amendment No. 288 provides for claims to be made for up to 20 years against companies that have been dissolved. I have difficulties with direct remedies against insurers and in making the time unlimited. I think that 20 years should be sufficient.
This is a great step forward for people who have suffered industrial injuries, and I am delighted with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that the House will join me in supporting the amendment.
Ms. Quin : I should like to welcome the comments that the Minister made. Obviously, we still favour new clause 8, but the acceptance of the 20 -year period and retroactivity is a considerable victory for those who are concerned about the many cases of injustice that have occurred.
There was some confusion in Committee when we debated the amendment. The Minister's predecessor believed that the Bill's provisions would deal with the majority of cases. We subsequently realised that the Bradley case and others would not be covered by clause 131, but they will now be covered by the new formula that the Minister has accepted.
Ms. Quin : I do not want to introduce dissent into what appears to be agreement. Mrs. Bradley's case, and others, will be dealt with effectively by the amendments, the principle of which has been accepted. I welcome that, and we will therefore not press new clause 8 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The following sections are inserted in Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 :
365A--(1) The directors of every company to which this section applies shall communicate to each person in the company's employment at the end of its financial year general but explicit information as to the performance, structure, activities and financial year general but explicit information as to the performance, structure, activities, financial position, employment position, investment prospects and plans of the company during that year.
(2) This section and section 365B apply to every public limited company and every private company which is a subsidiary or a parent company of a public limited company if either the company or the group of companies to which it belongs have not less than 200 employees at the end of the financial year in respect of which information under this section is to be supplied or at the time at which the consultation required by section 365B is to take place as the case may be.
(3) If at the end of the financial year the company is a parent company or a subsidiary company the information referred to in subsection (1) shall be provided in respect of the group of companies of which it is a member and in respect of the company itself. (4) The information required to be provided by this section shall be delivered in writing to each employee no later than the end of the period applicable to the company under section 244 (period allowed for laying and delivering accounts and reports).
(5) If the requirements of this section are not complied with before the end of the period referred to in subsection (4) every person who immediately before the end of that period was a director of the company is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine and for continued contravention to a daily default fine.
(6) It is a defence for a person charged with such an offence to prove that he took all reasonable steps for securing that those requirements would be complied with before the end of that period.'.-- [Mr. John Garrett.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
The following sections are inserted in Part XI of the Companies Act 1985 :
365B--(1) Subject to subsection (5) the directors of every company to which this section applies shall communicate in writing to the representatives of its employees precise information of the kind laid down in subsection (2) as to any proposed decision by the board of the company or, in so far as they are aware of it, of its holding company as to the matters specified in subsection (3).
(2) The information required to be communicated by subsection (1) is that which will reveal to the employees' representatives the grounds for the proposed decision, its legal, economic and social consequences for the employees concerned and the measures planned in respect of those employees.
(3) The obligation in subsection (1) shall apply to any proposed decision liable to have serious consequences for the interests of a significant number of employees of the company or of other companies in the group of which it is a member and in particular proposed decisions relating to the closure or transfer of the whole or a substantial part of the company or group's undertaking, substantial restrictions or modifications of the activities of that undertaking, major changes in working practice or production methods, the introduction, cessation or variation of co- operation or structural links with other undertakings, companies or businesses and measures relating to the health and safety of employees of the company or group.
(4) The information to be provided under subsection (1) shall be supplied not less than thirty days before it is proposed
Column 1186to make the decision in question and before that decision is made the directors shall formally consider any representations submitted by the employees' representatives.
(5) Information, the disclosure of which could substantially damage the interests of the company or group of companies, is not subject to the requirement of disclosure in subsection (1) but formal notification of the fact that a decision may be made to which subsection (3) applies must be served on the employees' representative and full information must be disclosed to the industrial tribunal if an application is lodged by the employees' representatives under subsection (6) for a decision as to whether the information falls within this subsection.
(6) The employees' representative may apply to an Industrial Tribunal for a ruling that a decision is proposed to which this section applies or that information as to which a notification under subsection (5) has been received is not such that its disclosures would damage the interests of the company or group of companies. (7) Any application made under subsection (6) shall be made by the employee's representative within seven days of receiving notice under subsection (5) or of receiving information leading him to believe that a proposed decision is likely. Such application shall be determined by the Tribunal within fourteen days of the application and there shall be no appeal against its decision. The Tribunal may dismiss the application or make such order as it thinks fit for the disclosure of information and the consultation of the employee's representative under this section. The Tribunal shall not disclose to the employees' representative or any other person the information it has received which the company claims is subject to subsection (5) unless the application of the employees' representative is upheld as regards that information.
(8) During the period from the submission of an application under subsection (7) to its determination by the Industrial Tribunal no steps shall be taken by the company to make or execute the proposed decision.'.
Mr. Garrett : I am pleased to see an outbreak of harmony, which was the rule in Committee, with the Government and the Opposition arriving at a much better Bill as a result of discussing the issues. I hope that that will be true in relation to new clauses 9 and 10. The new clauses embody proposals for an European Community directive on procedures for informing and consulting employees--the Vredeling directive, which was last discussed at the EC's labour and social affairs council in 1986 and is due to be discussed again this year.
The EC charter of fundamental social rights produced in May this year, and due to be discussed at the summit in December, includes the main principles of the new clauses, and it is right that the House should have the opportunity to consider them again.
The charter foresees a particular need for rights of information and consultation to be extended to workers where technological change has far- reaching implications for the work force, where restructuring or mergers have an effect on employment or where workers from other member states are particularly affected by their employers' policies.
In nine of the 12 member states, works councils representing employees have to be kept informed by management about important developments. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom is one of the three states where no such rights exist.
The new clauses are self-explanatory. They differ from the Vredeling directive in that they refer to a company or group of companies having not fewer than 200 employees. The original Vredeling draft referred to 100 employees, but after a vote in the European Parliament the figure was
Column 1187raised to 1,000 employees. We see no reason why medium-sized companies should not be covered by these provisions.
We are aware--who is not?--that the Prime Minister is resolutely opposed to the provisions of the proposed social charter. I understand that the Department of Employment this week issued a document opposing any legislation on worker participation. Our view is that consultation with employees along the lines proposed in our new clause will eventually be enacted and enforced.
The requirement is modest--that a company should explain its performance and financial and employment prospects to its employees once a year and discuss its plans with its employees. New clause 10 proposes that companies shall consult employees' representatives on decisions that are likely to have serious consequences for the interests of a significant number of employees in respect of such matters as closures, transfers, changes in production methods and health and safety at work. Refusal to provide such information on the grounds of potential harm to the interests of a company may be referred to a tribunal for adjudication.
We are all aware of the value of freely sharing information with the workers in an enterprise and encouraging participation in its conduct. These new clauses are in the mainstream of European thought, but I am sure that the Government are likely to demonstrate that they are outside it.
Indeed, like so many of our proposals for the improvement of the Bill, the new clauses are in line with good management practice in Britain. They would give momentum to the wider adoption of good practice in relation to consulting employees on the major issues that affect their lives at work. In a British Institute of Management discussion paper which I received today, the results of a survey of company employee paticipation in Britain show the extent to which formal methods exist for participation in our companies. The most common form of paticipation is the briefing meeting at which company policies are explained to employees--very much along the lines of what we propose. Nearly half of all companies have them and 70 per cent. think that they are effective or very effective.
In the Netherlands and France, these provisions have already been enacted. In West Germany, the two-tier board structure provides for them. It is time that we moved in that direction. Although the number is dwindling, too many companies in this country are remote, authoritarian and still treat their employees as chattels. In the great wave of redundancies which took place in 1980 and 1982 and which are beginning to recur, certainly in my constituency, as a result of current levels of interest, thousands of workers were dismissed with minimum notice, little consultation and little sharing of experience between managers and workers. We believe that workers have a right to be consulted and to be involved in the decisions that shape their lives.
Mr. Cousins : My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) has rightly referred to the Prime Minister's attitude to workers' rights. In one moment of enthusiasm she even described this modest proposal, and proposals like it, as "Marxist". It may well be that a few small bonfires are being lit in Highgate tonight, and
Column 1188Heaven knows, there may be some reason for that. Those of us who recollect the discussions in Standing Committee will recall the reference to Karl Marx of Brent which enlivened our proceedings a little.
The proposals in new clauses 9 and 10 have nothing to do with Marxism. Tonight the Government are being tested. The philosophical position which gives rise to the new clauses goes back not to the Communist manifesto of 1848 but to the papal encyclical "Mater et Magister" of the 1890s. The test is whether the Conservative party is prepared to accept the new clauses and start becoming a proper European Christian Democrat party or to remain stuck in an isolationist, reactionary mould which will ultimately exclude them and their successors from all significant influence in Europe's political affairs.
This is an important matter. The new clauses raise issues which are fundamental to the Government's position in Europe. Every Christian Democrat party in Europe, which in their politics are generally thought of as Right-wing parties, associate themselves with the principle of consulting workers by statute. So far, however, the British Government do not, but today they have the opportunity to reverse their stance and to start engaging in the sensible dialogue that will ultimately be inevitable and necessary, not with us but with their own future political candidate allies, should any be foolish enough to take the conservative party seriously.
The new clauses advance limited, simple proposals which, if the Government do not accept them tonight, they will have to confront in other forms on other occasions in the near future. The proposals are some way down the track that the Government will have to accept. Would it not be better for the Government, for workers and for the Government's standing in Europe if they moved now, before being pushed into another humiliating retreat and surrender on such a simple and fundamental matter?
It is not simply a case of falling into line with Europe. Steps have already been taken which will inevitably raise the issue of workers' rights in a concrete form throughout British industry. European company statutes have already gone so far as to create the European economic interest group- -a curious term for the European company.
The European company is with us. Because of the statutory position of companies and the tradition of social legislation, which is not a matter of controversy between the political Left and the Right in other European countries, the Government will have to accept, if not now, then later, incorporation in company statute of the principles of consulting workers and of workers' rights.
It is even more curious that the Government accepted that what leads them down this track in the Employment Act 1982, which was incorporated in the Companies Act 1985. I refer to the requirement for a company to demonstrate in its annual accounts what it has done about employee involvement. Companies are required to report on four issues, two of which are precisely what new clauses 9 and 10 propose.
It is curious that the Government made a great point of philosophical principle about a company not being required to consult its employees and workers or to give them information about key matters of concern to them, but they are willing to require companies to lodge in their accounts a requirement to consult shareholders about what the company does about informing workers. What
Column 1189tortured logic is it that makes the Government happy to advocate that a company should talk to its shareholders but not to its workers about what it does about workers' rights?
In 1982, the Government quite voluntarily got into an untenable position. In 1985, they shifted that contradiction from employment legislation to companies legislation. It is entirely logical that we should ask the Government to confront that, and to come up with a sensible reply.
We have heard a lot tonight about compliance. It would be interesting to know what the Government have done to ensure compliance with the provisions on employee involvement which they themselves created in the Companies Act 1985. All that appears to have been done in that respect is to carry out two surveys on a sample basis of what companies were up to. Those surveys demonstrate clearly that there is a declining number of companies--and that is to be welcomed--which fail to carry out the provisions originally in the Employment Act 1982 and now in the Companies Act 1985 on the requirement to report their shareholders about workers' rights. None the less, in the last survey carried out in 1988, of the sample taken, more than 10 per cent. of companies failed completely to carry out any of their requirements under the Companies Act 1985.
If the Government are not prepared to accept new clause 9 and new clause 10 to carry them gently a little further forward towards taking workers seriously, as they will inevitably have to do later, it would be interesting to find out tonight what they propose to do to carry out the proper enforcement of their own legislation requiring companies to report to shareholders on these matters under the Companies Act 1985. We have heard much about compliance and high standards tonight, yet there is not a shred of evidence that any company has had any action taken against it to force it to carry out its duties under the 1985 Act on its responsibilities on employee involvement. That is a shameful state of affairs, which can only reduce still further the credibility of the Government's position on the matter.
It is no wonder that our European partners are suspicious of the Government's intentions in this respect. But for the other sensational matters which have come before the House today, this debate and the Government's position on new clause 9 and new clause 10 might well have been recorded and studied closely elsewhere. I appreciate, of course, that after today's events, this humble matter is unlikely to catch the headlines. None the less, there will be and there are already people-- including the partner Governments in Europe and the other Christian Democrat politicians in Europe, whom the government would like to see as their political partners--who will look carefully at the Government's response on this. They will be disappointed if the Government do not respond to new clauses 9 and 10 in the same fashion as the Minister responded to new clause 8. It is not just a question of bringing about compulsory compliance with matters which will eventually be raised against the Government from European sources, but a matter that the Government themselves should be considering. What was the logic of putting into the Companies Act 1985 the requirement to consult shareholders about employee involvement if the matter was not taken seriously? There are areas which the Government are prepared to admit are significant enough to warrant companies
Column 1190studying their relationships with their workers most carefully. One of the most significant of those is training. Training is an issue that the Government have sought to detect in the employee involvement statements which have been delivered as a result of that requirement in the Companies Act 1985. What a sad story the statements tell, and how inadequately companies have reported to their shareholders on such key matters. The truth is that the economy will not be turned around unless workers are consulted and informed and unless they play a part in taking key decisions in their companies.
We should not imagine that when we refer to workers we mean manual industrial workers. Our work force is increasingly comprised of highly skilled, non-manual workers. Above all the Government should seek to mobilise the energy of those workers in the service of their companies and they should do so other than through shareholding schemes.
Tonight we have said much about accountancy. The turnover of labour in accountancy firms is now running at about 20 per cent. or more. The country is in the grip of a philosophy which advocates advancement through change of job. There is nothing wrong with that, but we should remember that we are approaching a time when the number of workers will decline. It is desperately important to retain skilled workers who can work together on a continuing basis with their colleagues.
All too often, teams of highly skilled, non-manual workers are thrown to the wind. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) saw the loss of such workers--priceless assets--from Marine Design Consultants based in his constituency. In the past, workers whose experience was of great value not only to their companies, but to the economy, were simply discarded. The Government cannot continue to shirk their obligations in this respect.
We are not talking about the industrial workers of the past, but about highly skilled and motivated non-manual workers who want to be part of a team within their company. I hope that the Government recognise that new clauses 9 and 10 present them with an opportunity to mobilise the energy and integrity of such workers in support of their economic policies. I note that the Leader of the House is present. No doubt he is familiar with the Government's economic policies, although they appear obscure to some of us.
Mr. Cousins : That would be entirely forgiveable. Tonight we have witnessed a sensational example of the difficulties which arise if an enterprise fails to involve its senior workers in achieving its objectives. That failure at worker involvement may come to haunt the Government.
New clauses 9 and 10 pose a simple test of the Government's attitude to the work force and of how they intend to respond to the European social charter. It is most important for the Government to sort out whether they want to be a Christian Democratic Government in the social tradition of Europe or whether they wish to remain an isolationist, localised Government obsessed with their own ideas. Tonight, above all nights, we have seen them in that light. I hope that the Government will accept the new clauses.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley) : I am delighted to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).
The new clauses do different things. New clause 9 gives employers the duty to make an annual report to their employees. I agree that it is good practice to do so. Indeed, all companies have to publish a report of some sort-- [Interruption.] Yes, they do--an annual report, and in the main, they have to cover many of the issues referred to here. I should have thought that it would be eminently sensible to cover all the matters which are relevant to shareholders, customers and workers, and to ensure that copies of the report are made available to employees. That seems an excellent example of the best sort of industrial practice.
The difference between us is whether it is right to turn from good practice to trying to impose a requirement of that sort by statute. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central asserted that there is a great ideological dispute between us--between Marxism and liberal Tory economics, but I very much doubt that. Throughout these highly successful 10 years of industrial regeneration, we have sought to put minimum burdens on industry, whereas the hon. Gentleman is always hankering for controls, regulation and statutes.
New clause 10 goes much further and requires employers to give 30 days' notice of decisions which might have serious effects such as closure ; transfer ; changes in the activity of the company, its working practices or production methods ; mergers ; takeovers ; and health and safety matters. If it so happens that a company believes that the decisions that it has to make will be of a sensitive nature, it can apply to the industrial tribunal on the grounds that it might do substantial damage to the company if these were to become public. The company must then await the verdict of the industrial tribunal before approaching a decision.
New clause 10 is a far more serious and inhibiting provision than new clause 9. It would mean considerable delay before decisions could be taken. The judgment of what could be a sensitive decision which could do great damage--not only to that company, but perhaps to other companies and to the whole operation of the market in buying and selling those industrial units- -would no longer be within the jurisdiction of the directors but would lie with the industrial tribunal. That in itself is an inhibition which would place a great disadvantage on our boards of directors. Furthermore, the delay inherent in these procedures would have serious consequences for the ability of directors to take decisions in what are sometimes fast-moving situations.
The curious thing about these provisions is that they seem to apply to the company itself and its board of directors. Presumably, if the company is a foreign and not a European company, and the members of the board of directors are not resident here, it would be hard to enforce the provisions. That would give an enormous advantage to foreign rather than European owned companies in this country.
Mr. Ridley : The advantage is that they would not have this great delay and uncertainty about their ability to take decisions. An even stronger example is that the real upset and worry that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central mentioned is for workers whose companies are taken over--not for those in the company doing the taking over. How a company seeking to take over another is supposed to give notice and go to the industrial tribunal about its intentions to take over that other company certainly beats me.
These proposals do not remotely fit the modern fast-moving industrial world of which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central spoke. He described the difference between the two sides of the House as being between Marxism and market economics, and then pretended that he understood about the fast-moving industrial changes of today. His contention that his proposals are designed to facilitate those changes does not remotely fit the facts--that in such a world the decision makers must be given the chance to take decisions properly.
An example of the sort of inhibitions that new clause 10 might cause was to be seen in an action brought by the trade unions in the High Court in 1987. The unions claimed that they had not been consulted on the transfer involved in the privatisation of the dockyards, as was required by the Dockyard Services Act 1986, which contains the very provisions the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central seeks in the new clause. They arise under the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, which implemented a European directive negotiated by the Labour Government.
The unions admitted at the hearing that their aim throughout had been to delay privatisation and the High Court found that all reasonable steps had been taken to inform and consult the workers. Mr. Justice Millett said in his judgment :
"If there is a lesson to be learned from what has taken place, it is that effective consultations cannot take place with those who do not wish to be consulted".
The Opposition would vest these sometimes genuine and sometimes obstructionist powers in the hands of people who sometimes do not want to be consulted.
There are two defects in the Oppositions's approach. First, they want to enshrine in statute, regulations and controls that which we believe should be left to the judgment and decisions of boards of directors, operating in their own best interests and in the best interests of their workers in a highly competitive economy. All unnecessary regulations will make them less likely to be able to provide the improvements in conditions and pay that the employees rightly deserve and expect.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)--typically of the Opposition--has waged a war against the shareholder. He is, I suppose, the most extreme example of this syndrome. Yesterday he boasted about his book. It might be interesting for the House if I gave it a little more publicity- -
Column 1193Mr. John Garrett rose--
"Where there is no substantial public equity stake on which to build, we shall establish voting control without necessarily buying the equity The golden share already establishes the principle of separating voting rights from the other incidents of equity ownership".
He says elsewhere :
"Our concern is to provide mechanisms which provide real control to employees over the enterprise to which they devote their working lives We also believe that employees should have increasing access to such major decisions as plant closures and takeovers or mergers".
That is what lies behind the new clause. It is also what lies behind the social charter and the European initiatives that the hon. Gentleman has so prophetically--or perhaps I should say
There is a better book than the one by the hon. Member for Dagenham, and it is free. I shall give a copy to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). It is about the improvement and progress in employee involvement in Britain and the great benefits that have come by leaving such matters to those who practise industrial policy. They have responded and have found many important ways to involve workers in the affairs of their companies. That is why we have seen a great increase in industrial productivity and in the standard of living of people in successful industries. Those things are the result of not adopting Opposition policies.
Mr. John Garrett : It is my pleasant duty to welcome the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on, I think, his first appearance, at the Dispatch Box in his new role. We can look forward to many hours of entertainment from him and fully expect him to do for British industry what he did for the environment.
The right hon. Gentleman was not present in Committee, but he will know that the Opposition moved many amendments aimed at creating companies which are accountable not only to their employees, as the amendment proposes, but also to shareholders, consumers and potential investors. Far from opposing the shareholder, our amendments have tried to advance the concept of the accountable company. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has sat down or whether he gave way to me.
Mr. Winnick : I know that my hon. Friend is a generous person. He should perhaps try not to be too harsh on the Secretary of State bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has not been appointed to any of the offices discussed earlier. My hon. Friend should have some sympathy for the Secretary of State.
The Minister's answer to the proposals in our new clause is unsatisfactory and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Division Lobby.
Column 1194Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :
The House divided : Ayes 39, Noes 137.
Division No. 356] [10.58 pm
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Quin, Ms Joyce
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wareing, Robert N.
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes :
Mrs. Llin Golding and
Mr. Ken Eastham.
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Buck, Sir Antony
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Fishburn, John Dudley
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Fox, Sir Marcus
Glyn, Dr Alan
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mitchell, Sir David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)