HC Deb 14 July 1981 vol 8 cc1009-25

'(1) At the end of section 62 of the Finance Act 1976 (exceptions from general charge) there shall be inserted— (8) Section 61 above does not apply where the benefit consists—

  1. (a) in providing the employee with medical treatment outside the United Kingdom (including providing for him to be an in-patient) in a case where the need for the treatment arises while the employee is outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of performing the duties of his employment; or
  2. (b) in providing insurance for the employee against the cost of such treatment in such a case;
and for the purposes of this subsection, medical treatment includes all forms of treatment for, and all procedures for diagnosing, any physical or mental ailment infirmity, or defect. ".

(2) Section 68 of that Act (medical insurance) shall cease to have effect.

(3) In section 15(7)(a) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 and in section 61(2) of the said Act of 1976 for the words "to 68" there shall be substituted the words "to 67".

(4) This section has effect for the year 1982–83 and subsequent years of assessment. '.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lawson

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may also take the following amendments:

Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (2) at end insert 'except so far as it applies to members of the family or the household of the person employed.'.

Government amendment No. 140.

Amendment No. 141, in clause 69, page 62, line 11, at end add 'except for members of the family or the household of the person employed'.

Mr. Lawson

As will be clear to the House, especially to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), the new clause replaces clause 69. The bulk of it—namely, subsections (2), (3) and (4)—is exactly the same as clause 69. The new part is subsection (1), which is introduced in response to the proper point made in Committee by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. He was concerned about the case of the employee who requires medical treatment when he falls ill while working abroad for his employer. He was concerned that there should be full cover in the Bill for such a case—as there has been for lower paid employees under the 1976 legislation—to provide an additional statutory concession that extended the cover to the higher-paid employees. He asked that that point be fully met. He also asked that it should be done by means other than an additional statutory concession.

In Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary undertook to make arrangements to deal with the matter, and that we have done. New clause 32(1) deals fully with the case of an employee who requires treatment when he falls ill while working abroad. In giving full coverage for both the lower and higher paid employees, it gives a statutory form to what has hitherto been the additional statutory concession A5(b). I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh Central is fully satisfied that we have met his point.

The more substantial matter which falls to be debated is amendment (a), which is basically the same as amendment No. 141, which the Opposition tabled to clause 69. Amendment (a) seeks to limit the scope of the clause. The clause, whether in its original form or as new clause 32, pursues our manifesto pledge of 1979 to restore tax relief on employer-employee medical insurance schemes. There was a long debate in Standing Committee.

The purpose of the amendment is to remove tax incentive benefits of a family nature. Enlightened employers make provision for private medical insurance schemes for their employees. Frequently they extend the schemes by virtue of what are known as family schemes, which leading insurance companies offer, to include provision for the families of employees.

We believe that that is to be encouraged. It accords with our general belief that alongside the National Health Service there should be a thriving private medical sector. It accords also with our views on the importance of the family unit in society. It is right that when extending this concession we should encourage an amployer who sees some value in including his employees' families in the arrangements. That is what the Opposition seek to prevent.

It may be suggested that the provision of private medical treatment for an employee may be in his employer's business interest because of the greater flexibility of the timing of hospital treatment. It may be argued further that there can be no commercial justification for making provision for the employee's family. That is the line that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will probably develop. No doubt he will argue that it is a pure perk and of no benefit to the employer.

Mr. Cook

That is right.

Mr. Lawson

We do not accept that. Regard by an employer for the welfare of his employee by including his family in the arrangements should not be discouraged. It is often in an employer's commercial interest to do so because his business can be as much disrupted if an employee has to be absent to take care of his family when his, the employee's, wife is admitted to hospital at an inconvenient time as it would be if the illness were that of the employee himself. There are practical considerations to be taken into account but I place less weight on those.

The amendment would require the Inland Revenue to apportion every family premium between that part applying to the cover for the employee himself and the part that covers the family. It would be required to take a tax charge on the latter part only. There would be some administrative complexity. For all these reasons I shall ask the House in due course to reject the amendment.

Mr. Cook

With the new clause we come to the end of that happy period during which both sides of the Chamber were touching gloves, as the Minister of State put it, and being remarkably urbane to each other. The new clause opens up a profound area of disagreement between the Government and the Opposition. I shall gently lower the Financial Secretary into the area of disagreement by welcoming the form of the new clause. As the hon. Gentleman indicated candidly, frankly and generously, I raised the issue in Committee. I do not know whether that was an attempt to gain my recognition of the new clause. However, he generously recognised that I had done so.

Mr. Lawson

It was more than generous.

5.45 pm
Mr. Cook

Even for himself, the Financial Secretary on this occasion was more than usually generous. I am glad that he has responded to my argument in Committee. We shall be arguing that there is no case for exempting from tax the medical insurance premiums paid for medical care within Britain. However, there were no grounds for taxing insurance premiums paid by companies to cover their employees who go abroad to work and who fall ill, where they have to meet the cost of medical care. It is clear that that was never a benefit in kind. It was quite properly a charge on the employer. In those circumstances the employee should not be rendered liable to an income tax charge.

The previous Labour Government are frequently criticised for imposing unreasonable, onerous and penal levels of taxation on the population. However, that Government saw fit to create an exemption for employees working abroad in the circumstances that I have outlined. As the Financial Secretary knows to his chagrin, in the Government's haste to give a stimulus to private medical care, a move which is contained in the rest of the clause, they went ahead with an original clause which, incidentally, abolished the exemption made in the 1976 Act. I welcome the fact that the Treasury Bench has come forward and rectified that error following it being pointed out to it. At least we have a clause in an approved form with the exemption preserved.

The Financial Secretary was equally generous in saying candidly that the bulk of the new clause is the same as the present clause 69, a clause to which we took exception in Standing Committee. The main thrust of the clause is to remove from taxation medical insurance premiums which are plainly intended as a benefit in kind. If the new clause is accepted by the House, we shall have in effect the same provision as is contained in clause 69 with the one modification that the exemption will be carried forward.

We have attempted by means of amendment (a) at least to limit the scope of the new clause. We have attempted to limit it in its scope and application to the employee and not to his family. I take with a large dose of salt the Financial Secretary's suggestion that by tabling the amendment the Opposition are striking at the heart of family life and the family as an institution in our society.

We are merely attempting to limit the damage that the clause will inflict, not perhaps on the family but on the revenue received by the Treasury. We were assured repeatedly in Committee that the Treasury needed every penny that it could obtain. However, in this clause we find a concession. Our purpose is to limit that concession. We are seeking to do so on the lines that were adopted when the clause was defended in Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the grounds of defence. One of the main ones adopted in defending the concession was that it could frequently be in an employer's interest for the employee to choose when to have surgery and, therefore, to be able to choose when to take his time off work at a time least inconvenient to the employer. I recognise that there may be substance in that argument. However, it is becoming a shade tenuous. Comparatively few employees will find that their employers are willing to come and go with them when it comes to their taking time off to have operations. I do not accept that there is any substance in the argument that the wife and children of an employee need to be similarly insured so that the children may also choose to have their operation at a tithe that is least inconvenient to the employer. That argument is plainly preposterous. It can be advanced in defence of the proposition contained in the clause only because the clause itself is illogical and rationally indefensible.

When the new clause takes its place in the Bill it will replace clause 69, which is placed in a chapter headed "Benefits in kind". There are four other clauses in the chapter. Each of those four other clauses provides for additional taxation of benefits in kind. We do not take exception to the principle of most of the clauses.

In principle, it is desirable that the employee should be subject to income tax on the basis of the cost to the employer of the benefit in kind. In practice, it was also apparently necessary for those clauses to be introduced because, as we were told each time we debated them the Treasury needs the money.

Having gone through those four clauses, in which additional tax revenue is raised by extending taxation to benefits in kind, we come to clause 69 or, when the Bill is marshalled after Report, to the new clause before us now. Here we find, instead of raising additional revenue by extending the scope of taxation of benefits in kind, an entirely novel concession, and extension and restoration of a concession which existed until five years ago. In other words, the principle that is otherwise applied in this chapter is reversed and money is given away rather than taken in.

I put it to the Financial Secretary, who has argued that the concession should apply not only to the employee but to the employee's wife and children and one knows not what other kin, that it would be plainly absurd for anyone to argue that the other benefits in kind in this chapter could be extended to the family of the employee without incurring a tax charge. Could it be argued, for instance, that members of the employee's family could be given concessions of car fuel, transport vouchers or credit tokens without attracting a charge? Of course it could not. It is perfectly right that such benefits should attract a tax charge just as it is right when applied to the employee himself.

Why, then, should the Treasury depart from the principle which it has followed in the other clauses in the chapter? Is it on any ground of fiscal equity? On the contrary, if the new clause is accepted and takes the place in the Bill of clause 69, we shall not create greater fiscal equity, but a new inequity between those who receive medical insurance premiums as a benefit in kind and those who receive transport vouchers or credit tokens and who will be taxed on them for the first time. Nor can it be pretended that any wider economic purpose is served be the new clause. Some breath taking suggestions have been made about the way in which he Bill will assist economic recovery. It has even been suggested that the provision to allow those made redundant to plough their money back into new enterprises will assist economic recovery. Not even a Conservative Treasury, however, has dared to suggest that providing exemption for payments into private medical insurance schemes will stimulate the economy and pave the way for wider economic recovery.

Why are we asked to approve this new clause, which runs counter to the general tenor of the Bill and to that of this chapter on benefits in kind? There is only one answer. Those who sat in the Committee will know that it is intended to give a stimulus to private medicine and to meet the dogmatic prejudice of Conservative Members that the private sector is more praiseworthy than the public sector even in health care. The Financial Secretary and other members of the Committee know what we think of that view because we debated it at length in Committee and it is not necessary to debate it again today. Our general view is that the private sector in health care is parasitical. It makes no contribution to the training of medical staff, although that is the most experienced, expensive and precious asset of our Health Service. Yet it depends on that staff for its very existence. It makes no attempt at genuine competition with the National Health Service. It clearly and deliberately confines its care to those types of surgery which are most easily carried out, with the least complication and the most profit. There is no attempt to replicate, for example, the geriatric, psychiatric or maternity care services although these constitute half of the demands on the National Health Service. In other words, it can make a profit because it leaves the loss-makers and the risk-takers for the public sector to carry.

We are all entitled to our prejudices. Labour Members have a prejudice in this matter. We believe that the right to health care should not be influenced by the depth of the pocket, and its provision should not be subject to considerations of profit or the rate of return on capital. Conservative Members have their prejudices, too, but we do not share them. It is a free country. Both sides are entitled to their prejudices. The time will come when we must submit our respective prejudices to the test of the electorate and we shall see which it prefers.

At issue today, however, is whether it is proper for us to warp the tax system to favour our social prejudices, for that is what the Financial Secretary is asking the House to do. The Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the Whip, will recall the interesting debate in Committee when a new clause was proposed by their hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), who I regret is not present today. He wished to extend the concession which the Government have made to those who obtain benefit in kind in medical insurance premiums paid by their company to individuals who pay their own medical insurance premiums. In rebutting that new clause in Committee, the Chief Secretary, speaking of "socially desirable goals", said: The extent to which such goals should be advanced by taxation concessions is highly debatable. There are few exceptions to the general principle that one does not do that … There is no doubt that as our goal is to limit the total tax burden, and as in present circumstances that is extremely difficult to achieve . . we make our task no easier by eroding the tax base."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 June 1981; c. 1017.1] In rebutting his hon. Friend's new clause with those words the Chief Secretary demolished the case for the new clause now before us. Had he accepted his hon. Friend's new clause he would have had to find the money to pay for that concession from elsewhere in the tax revenue. But if he was right to tell his hon. Friend that he could not accept a concession for individuals paying private medical insurance premiums, it must logically follow that it is wrong to make a parallel concession to the far greater number of people who obtain a benefit in kind by having their medical insurance premiums paid by the company for which they work. Plainly, it cannot be wrong for the Chief Secretary or the Financial Secretary to argue that socially desirable goals would not be served by accepting a concession in respect of individuals and right to ask the House to reverse the principle for employees for whom a corporate scheme is made.

In reality, we are faced with an expensive sop to the dogma of Conservative Members. We have been told by the Government that they cannot afford to uprate personal allowances to take pensioners out of income tax and that it is necessary to tax unemployment benefit because the Government need the money. It is intolerable for the House to be told by the same Government that they can find the money to let out of the tax net medical insurance premiums paid by a company on behalf of its employees, their wives and children and, indeed, any other members of their families. That is an intolerable contrast against which the Opposition will vote tonight.

6 pm

Sir William Clark

I trust that my right hon. Friend will resist the amendment. I am sure that many people cannot understand this antagonism towards private insurance. If, having paid his taxes, a taxpayer wants to put his money into BUPA, he is able to do so, and I would not object, just as I would not object if he wanted to put it into bingo. I cannot think why the Opposition are against private medicine schemes, because in my view they complement the National Health Service.

No doubt the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), with his usual perspicacity, saw the recent review which revealed that one in every 15 of the population is covered by private insurance. Therefore, we should put this matter to the electorate and see what the electorate thinks about the Labour Party's proposal to abolish private insurance. That research has proved that the waiting list for NHS operations has been reduced by about 100,000 because of the number of people now taking operations under private medicine.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central has got it all wrong. We are not talking about medical insurance in Britain or about treatment. We are talking about treatment abroad. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that treatment abroad is essental and that if an employee goes abroad, he should be able to obtain medical treatment. If there is a corporate medical policy for the employee, why should not his dependants enjoy that benefit as well? I hope that my right hon. Friend will have nothing to do with the amendment.

Do not let us get involved with the political argument about whether we should or should not have private medicine. This envy is quite ridiculous. There is an admirable case for the new claause as it stands to replace clause 69, and I urge my right hon. Friend to resist the amendment to the utmost.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

It is not necessary in any way to share the prejudices of the Labour segment of the Opposition against private health schemes in order to support the amendment, and neither I nor my Liberal colleagues support those prejudices. For all its defects, the private health sector adds a little to our total pool of health resources, and so long as the NHS, especially the rebuilding of our antiquated hospitals, is so crippled, any addition to the pool of health service available is to be welcomed.

Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly support the amendment because the new clause deals with the most explicit and blatant part of the Government's U-turn in what, two years ago, they said was their great campaign to eliminate perks. They have done nothing of the sort. The new clause blatantly provides a most extraordinary privileged perk to certain employees of companies that can afford this breach of tax equity.

The Government's campaign against perks is in ruins. The Inland Revenue recently published the scale of taxation of free petrol provided by employers, and a derisory scale it is. It is a most gentle tap on the knuckles, which will scarcely be perceived at all by those who enjoy the extraordinary perk and privilege of free petrol for their private motoring. I could give other examples.

However, this perk is to be explicitly included in the statute, and that is an offence against tax equity. It will add to the enormous damage that perks do to industrial relations and help to divide "them" from "us".

Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth)

Who are "them" and "us"?

Mr. Wainwright

The hon. Gentleman gives it away by asking that question.

Mr. Fell

l merely asked the question because the hon. Gentleman used that phrase. What does he mean by it?

Mr. Wainwright

No one representing an industrial constituency can be unaware of the unhappy position in which, egged on by this confrontational Government, British industry consists of "them" and "us". Every action of the Conservative Front Bench aggravates the confrontational atmosphere in British industry which most of us want to eliminate.

The Government's total failure to make any serious attack upon the evil of tax-free perks, and their provocative new clause, show how far down that vicious road they are prepared to go. For that reason, I and my hon. Friends—I understand my Social Democrat friends as well—will be voting for the Labour amendment.

Mr. Foulkes

The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) once more speaks on behalf of his absent Social Democrat friends, who on this occasion are undoubtedly in Warrington.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Mr. Wainwright

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) for referring to the absence of certain Members from the House. He must be aware of the three totally empty Labour Benches in front of him and the two empty Labour Benches behind me.

Mr. Foulkes

My hon. Friends will flood through the Lobby ere the hour is out. I do not think that we can say the same for the Social Democrats.

The hon. Gentleman talked about perks, and seemed to suggest that this was the only perk allowed for in the Bill.

If he recalls our Committee discussions on capital transfer tax, capital gains tax and all the concessions given to many of the rich, he will realise that this is one of many perks being given by the Government to the already well off.

I hesitate to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who talked about prejudices. That was a most inappropriate term. It might perhaps be better to say that Labour Members have informed opinions which they set against the prejudices of Conservative Members.

I shall not repeat the long debate in Committee on this subject, but it was alleged by Conservative Members that expenditure on the NHS was growing rapidly. We had a fairly tortuous debate about whether it was growing by 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. in real terms. Unfortunately, we were dragged into an argument on grounds set by the Government, and I regret that we fell into their trap in such a way.

These days, when we know of the need in the Health Service, it is ludicrous even to talk about a growth of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. as anything but miserly and totally inadequate. We only have to look at some of the reports. There was the Black report on inequalities in the Health Service and the Timbury report on the inadequacy of services for psycho-geriatrics and geriatrics in Scotland. Many of those reports have referred to the total inadequacy of current provision in the Health Service and have come to the conclusion that we need substantial increases in expenditure.

During our discussions in Committee, Conservative Members failed to recognise the massive public subsidy that is already given to the private sector. There is already far too large a private sector, particularly south of the border. A massive public subsidy is already given, without giving this additional tax benefit. For example, the doctors and nurses who work in private hospitals and tend private patients have been trained at public expense. Private hospitals and nursing homes get blood from the blood transfusion service at public expense, although I am not suggesting that that facility should be withdrawn. I am suggesting that in the long term we should not have a private sector, but if we have services such as the blood transfusion service provided for the private sector, that sector should be paying the full cost, which it is not doing in present. There is already a substantial subsidy to the private sector of medicine.

The point of the clause, as outlined by the Financial Secretary today, is amazing. He spoke about providing greater flexibility in the timing of hospital treatment in the interests of the employer. Basically, that is an elaborate way of saying that he wants some people to be able to jump the queue—people who, in medical terms, are not at the head of the queue and who, in the clinical judgment of the consultants and doctors, should not receive immediate treatment. The right hon. Gentleman says that they should receive it because they are able to pay or because their employers can pay for them.

Let us suppose that the glorious day that the Financial Secretary and the Government would like arrives, and that all employers take advantage of these schemes. Let us suppose that all employers of labour say "This is a great tax advantage and we shall contract all our employees into BUPA, PPP or whatever." Ultimately, we shall reach the stage at which all employees apart from people on social security and those who are unemployed, are in the same boat. That is not the flexibility about which we are talking or which the Financial Secretary would say was the important aspect of the clause.

That gives away what is behind the Government's argument. They do not want all employees to take advantage of such schemes. They want a privileged sector, a particular group of employees to be provided with these benefits.

If more resources are to be provided for the National Health Service—we are anxious that they should be provided—I would not want them to be provided from money raised by individuals or firms contributing to BUPA or PPP. The money can be raised more appropriately through national insurance contributions, through the amount that everyone pays towards the cost of the National Health Service. If everyone pays according to his ability to pay, through contributions to the National Health Service, and if as a result we build up the NHS into the excellent provision that it should be, providing a whole range of services for people in need, treatment will be provided according to need and according to the clinical judgment of doctors and consultants. There will be no waiting lists and queues that people are encouraged to jump.

Trade union leaders have to negotiate these privileges for their members because the Government have put them in that position. I do not accept that and I do not condone it, but I understand it, because it is the sort of philosophy that the Government are encouraging. People buy a privilege to try get to something better in the rat race that is encouraged by the Government.

We envisage a system in which additional resources are provided for the National Health Service not through private arrangements to provide privileged treatment for a few, but substantial resources provided through national insurance contributions to improve the NHS so that treatment is provided according to medical need, and not according to ability to pay.

6.15 pm
Mr. Lawson

Running through the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), as it did through his speeches in Committee upstairs, was the illusion that there was a fixed pool of resources for health care, and that any growth of the private sector must be at the expense of the National Health Service. That is not so. The Opposition do not believe it. They are always calling for extra resources to go into health care and medical treatment through the NHS.

Private health care through BUPA and other schemes is in addition to the other resources going into health care and medical treatment, not in replacement of them.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) suggested that what we proposed was out of line with the general treatment of benefits in kind. That is incorrect. The general treatment—there are one or two exceptions, for good reasons—is that for higher-paid employees such benefits are liable to tax, but for lower-paid employees they are not.

The previous Government had a tremendous prejudice and animus against anything to do with private health care. They thought it monstrous if an employer had the temerity to give, as a benefit in kind, membership of BUPA or Private Patients Plan to his employees. Under that Government, almost uniquely, the lower-paid employees and not only the higher-paid were caught for tax on that benefit.

We are putting the benefit on all fours with the other perks, the benefits in kind, of which the motor car is the most important. For the higher-paid employee there will still be a tax liability, but for the lower-paid employee there will not. That is what the Opposition oppose.

Mr. Cook

If the right hon. Gentleman is founding his argument on the basis that he is merely bringing taxation of this benefit in kind in line with the taxation of other benefits in kind, why does this clause follow clause 67, dealing with transport vouchers, and clause 68, dealing with credit tokens, both of which are explicitly designed to catch those earning less than £8,500 a year as well as those earning more than that?

Mr. Lawson

Because, as has already been explained, the benefits covered by those clauses are not benefits in kind but are to all intents and purposes benefits in cash, masquerading as benefits in kind.

A further point about the health schemes is that in many companies membership of a group medical insurance scheme is compulsory; the employee effectively has no choice. He is told that part of the conditions of employment are that he should be a member.

I shall not waste the time of the House discussing the intervention of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), because when we had an important debate on the matter in Committee he did not even trouble to vote.

I ask the House to accept the new clause and reject the Opposition's amendment.

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

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 215.

Division No. 267] [6.18 pm
Adley, Robert Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)
Aitken, Jonathan Browne, John (Winchester)
Alexander, Richard Bruce-Gardyne, John
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Bryan, Sir Paul
Ancram, Michael Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Arnold, Tom Buck, Antony
Aspinwall, Jack Bulmer, Esmond
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) Burden, Sir Frederick
Atkins, Robert(Preston N) Butcher, John
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) Butler, Hon Adam
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone) Cadbury, Jocelyn
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Banks, Robert Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Bendall, Vivian Chapman, Sydney
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Berry, Hon Anthony Clegg, Sir Walter
Best, Keith Cockeram, Eric
Bevan, David Gilroy Colvin, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John Cope, John
Biggs-Davison, John Cormack, Patrick
Blackburn, John Corrie, John
Blaker, Peter Cranborne, Viscount
Body, Richard Critchley, Julian
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Crouch, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Dickens, Geoffrey
Bowden, Andrew Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Braine, Sir Bernard Dunlop, John
Bright, Graham Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Brinton, Tim Durant, Tony
Brittan, Leon Dykes, Hugh
Brooke, Hon Peter Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Brotherton, Michael Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Eggar, Tim MacGregor, John
Emery, Peter MacKay, John (Argyll)
Eyre, Reginald Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Fairgrieve, Russell McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Faith, Mrs Sheila McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Fell, Anthony McQuarrie, Albert
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Madel, David
Finsberg, Geoffrey Major, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel Marland, Paul
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) Marlow, Tony
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Fookes, Miss Janet Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Forman, Nigel Mates, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Fox, Marcus Mawby, Ray
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mayhew, Patrick
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Mellor, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Glyn, Dr Alan Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Goodhart, Philip Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Goodlad, Alastair Miscampbell, Norman
Gorst, John Moate, Roger
Gow, Ian Monro, Hector
Gower, Sir Raymond Montgomery, Fergus
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Moore, John
Gray, Hamish Morgan, Geraint
Greenway, Harry Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Grieve, Percy Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Grist, Ian Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Grylls, Michael Mudd, David
Gummer, John Selwyn Murphy, Christopher
Hamilton, Hon A. Myles, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Neale, Gerrard
Hampson, Dr Keith Needham, Richard
Hannam,John Neubert, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan Newton, Tony
Hastings, Stephen Normanton, Tom
Hayhoe, Barney Nott, Rt Hon John
Heddle, John Onslow, Cranley
Henderson, Barry Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Hicks, Robert Page, John (Harrow, West)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Hooson, Tom Parkinson, Cecil
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) Parris, Matthew
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Patten, John (Oxford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Pattie, Geoffrey
Hurd, Hon Douglas Pawsey, James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Peyton, Rt Hon John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Pink, R. Bonner
Jessel, Toby Pollock, Alexander
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Kaberry, Sir Donald Prior, Rt Hon James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Proctor, K. Harvey
Kimball, Marcus Raison, Timothy
King, Rt Hon Tom Rathbone, Tim
Kitson, Sir Timothy Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Knight, Mrs Jill Renton, Tim
Knox, David Rhodes James, Robert
Lamont, Norman Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Lang, Ian Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Langford-Holt, Sir John Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Latham, Michael Rifkind, Malcolm
Lawrence, Ivan Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Lee, John Rossi, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Rost, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) Scott, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Loveridge, John Shelton, William (Streatham)
Luce, Richard Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lyell, Nicholas Shepherd, Richard
Macfarlane, Neil Silvester, Fred
Skeet, T. H. H. Trotter, Neville
Speed, Keith van Straubenzee, W. R.
Speller, Tony Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Spence, John Viggers, Peter
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) Waddington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Wakeham,John
Sproat, Iain Waldegrave, Hon William
Squire, Robin Walker, B. (Perth)
Stainton, Keith Wall, Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor Walters, Dennis
Stanley, John Ward, John
Steen, Anthony Warren, Kenneth
Stevens, Martin Watson, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) Wells, Bowen
Stokes, John Wheeler, John
Stradling Thomas, J. Whitney, Raymond
Tapsell, Peter Wickenden, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Tebbit, Norman Winterton, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter Wolfson, Mark
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thompson, Donald Younger, Rt Hon George
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Thornton, Malcolm Tellers for the Ayes:
Townend, John (Bridlington) Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) Mr. Carol Mather.
Trippier, David
Adams, Allen Eadie, Alex
Allaun, Frank Eastham, Ken
Anderson, Donald Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Ashton, Joe English, Michael
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) Ennals, Rt Hon David
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) Evans, John (Newton)
Bidwell, Sydney Ewing, Harry
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Field, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Fitch, Alan
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Ford, Ben
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Forrester, John
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Foster, Derek
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Foulkes, George
Campbell-Savours, Dale Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Canavan, Dennis Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Cant, R. B. Freud, Clement
Carter-Jones, Lewis Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) George, Bruce
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Conlan, Bernard Ginsburg, David
Cook, Robin F. Golding, John
Cowans, Harry Graham, Ted
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) Grant, George (Morpeth)
Craigen, J. M. Grant, John (Islington C)
Crowther, J. S. Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Cryer, Bob Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Hardy, Peter
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Dalyell, Tam Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Davidson, Arthur Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Haynes, Frank
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Heffer, Eric S.
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Deakins, Eric Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Home Robertson, John
Dempsey, James Homewood, William
Dewar, Donald Hooley, Frank
Dixon, Donald Howell, Rt Hon D.
Dobson, Frank Howells, Geraint
Dormand, Jack Huckfield, Les
Dubs, Alfred Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Duffy, A. E. P. Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Dunn, James A. Janner, Hon Greville
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
John, Brynmor Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Johnson, James (Hull West) Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Robertson, George
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Rooker, J. W.
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roper, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Kerr, Russell Rowlands, Ted
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Ryman, John
Lambie, David Sandelson, Neville
Leadbitter, Ted Sever, John
Leighton, Ronald Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Short, Mrs Renée
Litherland, Robert Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W) Silverman, Julius
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Skinner, Dennis
McCartney, Hugh Snape, Peter
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Soley, Clive
McElhone, Frank Spearing, Nigel
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Spriggs, Leslie
McKelvey, William Stainton, Keith
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Stallard, A. W.
McMahon, Andrew Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
McNally, Thomas Stoddart, David
McNamara, Kevin Stott, Roger
McTaggart, Robert Strang, Gavin
Magee, Bryan Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy Tilley, John
Maxton, John Tinn, James
Maynard, Miss Joan Torney, Tom
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Morton, George Watkins, David
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland Welsh, Michael
Newens, Stanley White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Whitehead, Phillip
Ogden, Eric Whitlock, William
O'Halloran, Michael Wigley, Dafydd
O'Neill, Martin Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Palmer, Arthur Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Parker, John Winnick, David
Pavitt, Laurie Woodall, Alec
Pendry, Tom Woolmer, Kenneth
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) Young, David (Bolton E)
Prescott, John
Price, C. (Lewisham W) Tellers for the Noes:
Radice, Giles Mr. Frank R. White and
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) Mr. Donald Colman
Richardson, Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

6.30 pm

Amendment (a) proposed to the proposed clause, in subsection (2) at end insert: 'except so far as it applies to members of the family or the household of the person employed.'.—[Mr. Cook.]

Question put, That the amendment be made to the proposed clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 290.

Division No. 268] [6.30 pm
Adams, Allen Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Allaun, Frank Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Anderson, Donald Ashton, Joe
Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Heffer, Eric S.
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Bidwell, Sydney Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Home Robertson, John
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Homewood, William
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro) Hooley, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Howell, Rt Hon D.
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Howells, Geraint
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Huckfield, Les
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Canavan, Dennis Janner, Hon Greville
Cant, R. B. Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Carter-Jones, Lewis John, Brynmor
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Johnson, James (Hull West)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Cohen, Stanley Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Coleman, Donald Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Conlan, Bernard Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Cook, Robin F. Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cowans, Harry Kerr, Russell
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Craigen, J. M. Lambie, David
Crowther, J. S. Leadbitter, Ted
Cryer, Bob Leighton, Ronald
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Dalyell, Tam Litherland, Robert
Davidson, Arthur Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) McCartney, Hugh
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Deakins, Eric McElhone, Frank
Dempsey, James McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Dewar, Donald McKelvey, William
Dixon, Donald MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Dobson, Frank McMahon, Andrew
Dormand, Jack McNally, Thomas
Dubs, Alfred McNamara, Kevin
Duffy, A. E. P. McTaggart, Robert
Dunn, James A. Magee, Bryan
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Eadie, Alex Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Eastham, Ken Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E) Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Maxton, John
English, Michael Maynard, Miss Joan
Ennals, Rt Hon David Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Evans, John (Newton) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Ewing, Harry Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Field, Frank Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Fitch, Alan Morton, George
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Newens, Stanley
Ford, Ben Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Forrester, John Ogden, Eric
Foster, Derek O'Halloran, Michael
Foulkes, George O'Neill, Martin
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Freud, Clement Palmer, Arthur
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Parker, John
George, Bruce Pavitt, Laurie
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Pendry, Tom
Ginsburg, David Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Golding, John Prescott, John
Graham, Ted Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Radice, Giles
Grant, John (Islington C) Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Richardson, Jo
Hardy, Peter Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Robertson, George
Haynes, Frank Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Rooker, J. W. Tilley, John
Roper, John Tinn, James
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) Torney, Tom
Rowlands, Ted Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Ryman, John Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Sandelson, Neville Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Sever, John Wainwright, H.(Colne V)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R. Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Watkins, David
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) Welsh, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) White, Frank R.
Silverman, Julius White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Skinner, Dennis Whitehead, Phillip
Snape, Peter Whitlock, William
Soley, Clive Wigley, Dafydd
Spearing, Nigel Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Spriggs, Leslie Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)
Stallard, A. W. Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Stoddart, David Winnick, David
Stott, Roger Woodall, Alec
Strang, Gavin Woolmer, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley Young, David (Bolton E)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Tellers for the Ayes:
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen) Mr. Joseph Dean and
Thorne, Stan (Preston South) Mr. James Hamilton.
Adley, Robert Chapman, Sydney
Aitken, Jonathan Churchill, W. S.
Alexander, Richard Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ancram, Michael Clegg, Sir Walter
Arnold, Tom Cockeram, Eric
Aspinwall, Jack Colvin, Michael
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne) Cope, John
Atkins, Robert(Presfon N) Cormack, Patrick
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) Corrie, John
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone) Cranborne, Viscount
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Critchley, Julian
Banks, Robert Crouch, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Bendall, Vivian Dickens, Geoffrey
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay) Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Benyon, Thomas (A'don) du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Dunlop, John
Berry, Hon Anthony Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Best, Keith Durant, Tony
Bevan, David Gilroy Dykes, Hugh
Biffen, Rt Hon John Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Biggs-Davison, John Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Blackburn, John Eggar, Tim
Blaker, Peter Emery, Peter
Body, Richard Eyre, Reginald
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Fairgrieve, Russell
Boscawen, Hon Robert Faith, Mrs Sheila
Bottomley, Peier (W'wich W) Farr, John
Bowden, Andrew Fell, Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Braine, Sir Bernard Finsberg, Geoffrey
Bright, Graham Fisher, Sir Nigel
Brinton, Tim Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Brittan, Leon Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Brooke, Hon Peter Fookes, Miss Janet
Brotherton, Michael Forman, Nigel
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Browne, John (Winchester) Fox, Marcus
Bruce-Gardyne, John Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Bryan, Sir Paul Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Buck, Antony Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Bulmer, Esmond Garel-Jones, Tristan
Burden, Sir Frederick Glyn, Dr Alan
Butcher, John Goodhart, Philip
Butler, Hon Adam Goodlad, Alastair
Cadbury, Jocelyn Gorst, John
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Gow, Ian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Gower, Sir Raymond
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Gray, Hamish Moore, John
Greenway, Harry Morgan, Geraint
Grieve, Percy Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Grist, Ian Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Grylls, Michael Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Gummer, John Selwyn Mudd, David
Hamilton, Hon A. Murphy, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Myles, David
Hampson, Dr Keith Neale, Gerrard
Hannam,John Needham, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan Neubert, Michael
Hastings, Stephen Newton, Tony
Hayhoe, Barney Normanton, Tom
Heddle, John Nott, Rt Hon John
Henderson, Barry Onslow, Cranley
Hicks, Robert Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Page, John (Harrow, West)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Hooson, Tom Parkinson, Cecil
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd) Parris, Matthew
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral) Patten, John (Oxford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Pattie, Geoffrey
Hurd, Hon Douglas Pawsey, James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Peyton, Rt Hon John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Pink, R. Bonner
Jessel, Toby Pollock, Alexander
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Kaberry, Sir Donald Prior, Rt Hon James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Proctor, K. Harvey
Kershaw, Anthony Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Kimball, Marcus Raison, Timothy
King, Rt Hon Tom Rathbone, Tim
Kitson, Sir Timothy Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Knight, Mrs Jill Renton, Tim
Knox, David Rhodes James, Robert
Lamont, Norman Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Lang, Ian Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Langford-Holt, Sir John Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Latham, Michael Rifkind, Malcolm
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Lee, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Rossi, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Beeston) Rost, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Scott, Nicholas
Loveridge, John Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Luce, Richard Shelton, William (Streatham)
Lyell, Nicholas Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Macfarlane, Neil Shepherd, Richard
MacGregor, John Shersby, Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll) Silvester, Fred
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. Skeet, T. H. H.
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) Speed, Keith
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) Speller, Tony
McQuarrie, Albert Spence, John
Madel, David Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Major, John Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marland, Paul Sproat, Iain
Marlow, Tony Squire, Robin
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stainton, Keith
Marten, Neil (Banbury) Stanbrook, Ivor
Mates, Michael Stanley, John
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus Steen, Anthony
Mawby, Ray Stevens, Martin
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Mayhew, Patrick Stokes, John
Mellor, David Stradling Thomas, J.
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Tapsell, Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mills, Peter (West Devon) Tebbit, Norman
Miscampbell, Norman Temple-Morris, Peter
Moate, Roger Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Monro, Hector Thompson, Donald
Montgomery, Fergus Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Thornton, Malcolm Wells, John (Maidstone)
Townend, John (Bridlington) Wells, Bowen
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) Wheeler, John
Trippier, David Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Trotter, Neville Whitney, Raymond
van Straubenzee, W. R. Wickenden, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerard Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Viggers, Peter Winterton, Nicholas
Waddington, David Wolfson, Mark
Wakeham, John Young, Sir George (Acton)
Waldegrave, Hon William Younger, Rt Hon George
Walker, B. (Perth)
Wall, Patrick Tellers for the Noes:
Walters, Dennis Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Warren, Kenneth Mr. Carol Mather.
Watson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

Forward to