HC Deb 04 June 1981 vol 5 cc1091-102
Mr. John Tilley (Lambeth, Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 29, line 42, at end insert— 'except regulations concerning fees for any application made to the Secretary of State under this Act, which shall be subject to approval by resolution of the House of Commons'. We want to make sure that two British Nationality Bills are not being put forward—one nationality law for the rich and one for the poor. We have argued whether the granting of nationality by the various means contained in the Bill is a right, a privilege or a gift. Whichever it is, we believe that no individual should be precluded from obtaining British citizenship by any form of grant merely because his income is insufficient to enable him to pay the fee the Government charge for the grant of citizenship.

That argument is particularly strong if it is believed, as the Opposition believe, that the grant of British citizenship, registration and naturalisation under the law is a right that people should be able to claim if they fulfil the qualifications. Even if, as Tory Members have suggested, it is a privilege granted by the State to those whom the State feels should be included among British citizens, we believe that it is not a privilege which only those already financially privileged can enjoy. It should be a privilege, if the State decides to grant that privilege to those who are qualified, that can be taken up by all sections of the community.

The current cost of obtaining citizenship by grant is £50 for registration. That is the automatic and quicker means of obtaining nationality through a direct entitlement under the Bill and under existing law. For naturalisation the fee is £150. Naturalisation is a longer process in which applications can be turned down if the qualifications of good character, language ability and residence are not fulfilled. Last year that figure was increased from £90.

We believe that if the Government want to increase the fees they should bring to the House any proposals for doing so and that the increases should be subject to approval by resolution of the House. We are concerned that the naturalisation fee of £150 will be unduly increased over the next few years, thereby creating undue hardship to the people involved. A large number of people who could have obtained the cheaper form of citizenship by the grant of registration for £50 will be switched by the Bill to obtaining citizenship by naturalisation. That will be the only means by which they can obtain citizenship and the cost is already three times as much as for registration.

The people affected are the foreign wives of British citizens who at present qualify for registration and therefore would have to pay only £50, and that proportion of the 500,000 citizens of independent Commonwealth countries living here who have not yet out British citizenship. At present many of them qualify for citizenship by registration—the £50 model. After the grace period tney will have to go through the naturalisation process. Most of those people are black and most are from the lower income levels.

Many of my constituents are Commonwealth citizens who have this entitlement, and I speak from experience when I say that many Commonwealth citizens have not taken up their right to registration because they find it difficult to pay the current cost of £50. If they have to pay £150, they will be even less likely when the Bill becomes law to take what we regard as their entitlement.

The grace period is five years after commencement, and we believe that commencement might be January 1983. That is a long time ahead and what is now a fee of £150, if the increases of the last few years are repeated, will be a great deal more. For those people the British Nationality Bill is precisely what it says—a bill for at least another £100 if they want to become citizens and another £200 if they want to acquire citizenship once the grace period has expired.

There is a strong probability that the current levels of £50 and £150 will be radically increased in the near future. I have ascertained by asking a parliamentary question that the cost of naturalisation is thought to be £204. Last year there was a substantial increase in cost. We know that the cost of the process is thought to be £204 per application, and we are somewhat surprised that no announcement of an increase was made on 1 April. There have been some reports that the nationality division of the Home Office has prepared proposals on the levels of fees and that Ministers decided that they had better keep quiet about them and not introduce or make them public before the Bill was safely brought to the House.

I regret that if it is true. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is true and whether the Government have decided to delay announcing increases in fees because they wanted to take the Bill through the two Houses, presumably because they realised that, whatever case there was against the £150 fee, it would be strengthened if they proposed to increase the fee to £250 or more. I hope that the Minister will tell us why there was no announcement of an increase in fees from 1 April and whether there will be an announcement in the near future.

From what the Minister said in Committee, we know that the Government are committed to trying to break even in terms of costs of acquiring nationality. We disagree with that fundamentally. Because nationality is a right or a privilege, whichever way one looks at it, we feel that it should be available to people, irrespective of their income. We regret that on such a fundamental constitutional issue as the right of British men and women to call themselves British the Government have brought to this subject their grocery shop mentality of trying to balance the books which they have brought to many areas of public life.

Therefore, we expect there to be an announcement of increases. We are trying to ensure that at least the House will be able to consider them in detail. We hope that we shall be able to express the outrage which will arise from many sections of the community so that we can force the Government not to put through the increases.

Let us consider how far those increases will create hardship. Except in rare cases, people do not acquire citizenship more than once in their lifetime. It is not a continuing cost but a one-off cost. I take a family of four as an example. There may be many families of four—father, mother and two children over 18—who want to acquire citizenship by grant under the Act. It will cost them £600, even at the present fees. We know that those fees will increase. That is an enormous amount for almost any family to find in order to obtain either its right or privilege—it does not matter which—to become British citizens.

The cost will also be high for single people who are unemployed or on social security. I emphasise that the Department of Health and Social Security does not regard the acquisition of nationality as something for which exceptional needs payments can be made. For unemployed single people, low wage earners and those on social security, it will be difficult to find £150.

One of the most surprising things which emerged in Committee was that for the citizenship of the dependent territories in our remaining 17 colonies the cost of acquiring nationality by grant is at roughly the same level—expressed in terms of the local currency—as it is in this country. In every one of those territories the average income is lower than it is here. In some it is much lower—for example, in the poorer Caribbean islands which are still dependent territories, Hong Kong and, to a lesser extent, the Falklands and Gibraltar. Even so, in all those territories the average income is much lower than it is in the United Kingdom, yet the cost of acquiring citizenship is the same at the moment and should remain the same in the future, as far as the Government are concerned. That means that acquisition of citizenship of the dependent territories is already a dead letter in the Bill because few people will be able to afford to take up the rights which the Government purport to be giving to people in those territories.

4.45 pm

Our main concern is the effect of those fees on people in this country. I shall try to answer the obvious question which may come in a few moments from the Minister, which rightly came from Ministers in Committee: what do we think the level of fees should be? It is possible to start by saying that, as we believe it is a right, people should obtain their citizenship free of charge and that, therefore, there should be a nil cost. However, we do not push the argument that far simply because we believe that a fee of some sort serves to underline the seriousness of the act of acquiring citizenship. That precludes the possibility that some people might treat it trivially if they felt that they merely had to write in for it and would receive it automatically.

Secondly, there is a possibility of a comparison with overseas. One argument is that in the United States the fee is only $5 and in Canada it is only $25. In view of the way in which the pound is moving at the moment, I would not try to specify exactly how big a fistful of dollars £150 would be if translated into those currencies. America and Canada welcome new members and are proud of their role as a melting pot. The acquisition of nationality is important there. However, I shall not press that argument too strongly as we discovered in Committee that international comparisons with regard to nationality are often odious and that we must consider our own circumstances.

Another idea which was suggested was that the level of fees should be means-tested. An amendment to that effect was moved and discussed in Committee. We are sceptical about that on the principle that we do not like means testing. We want benefits to be universally available. The idea of the Home Office nationality division conducting a detailed means test of applicants may be attractive to connoisseurs of great bureaucratic snarl-ups, but we suspect that the cost saved would be more than lost by the extra staff needed by the ombudsman to cope with the complaints about the way in which those tests had been carried out.

We came to the conclusion which is contained in an amendment which has not been called, amendment No.46, which says that, given the two levels at present—that is £50 for registration, which is the cheaper way, and £1 50 for naturalisation, which is more expensive—we should peg the cost at the cheaper level and if it is to be increased it should be increased annually only at the same amount by which the retail price index had risen. In other words, the cost should rise only in parallel with the cost of living.

Therefore, the cost of registration should stay as it is now but the cost of naturalisation should come down so that there is one fee for obtaining citizenship by grant. After all, the Government said in the White Paper that they wanted to bring into conformity the two ways of obtaining citizenship by grant. We suggest that that falls in with that principle. We realise that they may also suggest that both should be £150 on the ground that that would also introduce conformity. However, given the choice we believe that at least in this case we should level down rather than level up.

We do not like index linking in general terms. but it is the only way in which Parliament today can determine the real cost of acquiring citizenship in the future. Of course, if the Government manage to achieve a minus rate of inflation, we shall be willing to reconsider the application of the amendment and perhaps we would not insist on them cutting. However, that is a hypothetical consideration.

We want British nationality to be open to all those who qualify for it. But we do not want it to be open like the Savoy is open to all, as the lawyers phrase goes open only at a price. As the price now stands—we suspect that the Government intend to raise it to balance the books—the majority of people who will qualify will be unable to afford it. Our fear is not that there will be one nationality law for the rich and another for the poor but that if the amendment is not carried there will be no nationality law in terms of acquisition of British citizenship for poor and middle income people both here and in the colonies.

I ask the House to support amendment No. 47 so that we shall have a chance to consider and debate any future attempts by the Government to force even higher what we regard as an already high cost of acquiring nationality under the Bill.

Mr. Edward Lyons (Bradford, West)

This matter was discussed fairly extensively in Committee, but certain matters are worth repeating. I have been told by East Europeans living in my constituency that the fee for naturalisation is too high and that it is an obstacle. That was said to me as recently as last Saturday night in a Latvian club in Bradford. It was also said to me in the Polish Ex-Combatants Club.

The Poles who served in the Polish army fought on the same side as Britain during the war. Their children have been born and brought up here. There is no question of them returning elsewhere. They have a major interest in the future of Britain, not only the Poles in Bradford but also Poles in other parts of the country. In a low wage area such as West Yorkshire, they find that a naturalisation fee of £150 is too high.

I have no doubt that some members of the Asian community are in a similar position. Accordingly, if we are to avoid inhibiting those whose allegiance is to Britain from applying for citizenship because of financial considerations, it is important that the Government ensure that the financial charge for doing so is not too great.

The Social Democratic Party has tabled an amendment which tries to peg the amount to £50 for the next three years. That is designed particularly to cope with the huge influx of applications that has resulted from the Bill's passage through the House, so that those who have been stampeded into applying earlier than otherwise, and whose financial situation may not be comfortable, should not suffer through having to pay a fee of £150 or more.

I ask the Government to think again. It is wrong that loyalty to this country should depend on an individual's financial circumstances. The poor man can feel as loyal, and sometimes more loyal, than the rich man. He should not be prevented by a fee from making his application for citizenship.

As I suspect that the fee will present a problem for East Europeans and others, it would be helpful if the Government thought about the matter again.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

I do not wish to refer to the amount of the fee, which is a matter not directly raised by the amendment. This is one of those regulations which it would be proper for the House to require should be subject to affirmative resolution.

I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will be able to produce a list of precedents as long as his arm for regulations under the negative procedure by which fees for various purposes are prescribed. However, I do not think there is any doubt about the importance of the quantum of this fee. Therefore, the matter ought not to be regulated by the lowest common denominator or whatever the precedents are.

The basic principle is that a fee is a charge upon the subject. It is true that he incurs it only if he undertakes certain processes which are open to him under the law. Nevertheless, it is a financial imposition upon the subject, and the basic principle is that such financial impositions should be made by the affirmative and specific will and decision of the House.

That proposition is of more force nowadays than it used to be as we live in an era in which the negative procedure is virtually nugatory. Of course, when it is a great matter the usual channels will no doubt arrange to lay on a debate on the subject, even if it is dealt with by negative resolution. But those who are particularly interested in this matter and feel strongly about it will have an additional hurdle to clear. They will have to persuade their reluctant colleagues—as well as overcoming the reluctance of Government business managers—that this is a matter of exceptional importance.

I do not think that that onus should be placed on those people. There are no great terrors in the affirmative procedure. It means an hour-and-a-half of Government time, generally at an untimely hour. If the Whips must keep a House for that purpose, that is commensurate with the significance of a fee being charged in the context in which it is being imposed here.

As a Northern Ireland Member, alas used to legislation by affirmation of Orders in Council, I can say that the affirmative procedure holds no terrors. The Home Secretary would be conforming with the general principle underlying these matters if he made a concession and agreed that the affirmative resolution should govern the fixing and alteration of the scale of fees. I hope that he will be generous enough to do that.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

I reject the special pleading implicit in the amendment. British citizenship is like a precious jewel beyond compare, and people who, under this law, will be entitled to apply for it are lucky to be in such a position. Therefore, it is impossible to set a sufficient price upon a privilege such as this, and it follows that any economic price that is set must dictate the actual fee charged. If people who are able to apply for British citizenship cannot make the financial sacrifice necessary to obtain naturalisation, they are not likely to be good citizens and we do not need them.

5 pm

Mr. Thomas Cox (Tooting)

The speech of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was typical of the comments that so annoy our people, irrespective of where they come from. The sooner the Government reject those sort of comments the sooner we shall achieve the kind of community relationships that the Home Secretary, to his credit, is always talking about.

It is essential to outline the problems that the present fees cause to many people. I have a large Asian community in my constituency. The Asians are decent, honest, hard-working people who, after living here, regard the achievement of British citizenship as their greatest aim. We are repeatedly told that these people must play an active role in the communities in which they live. The paramount achievement in their lives is becoming naturalised citizens of the country which is now their home. However, that presents real problems.

Many hon. Members will have families living in their constituencies consisting of four, five or six members. There will be a mother, a father and the rest of the family, and, because they have the right to seek British nationality, they will do so. The costs will involve several hundred pounds. The hon. Member for Orpington said that people could find that money if they regarded the priority of British nationality in such high esteem. It is their right, if they meet the qualifications after living in this country, to seek British nationality. However, the cost presents enormous problems to many families.

The Asian community is the one that I know best. In many different parts of the country the Asian community does essential work in our society. Many of the jobs involved are not well paid. We are considering the present cost of nationality registration at £150. We have no assurance that in a year or two that figure will not go up considerably. All Government documents such as passports, death certificates or registrations of births of children have increased in price. Will the Home Secretary or the Minister of State give us a firm assurance that there will not be an increase in the cost of nationality registration? If the cost continues to increase, as it has in recent years, that will present even more problems to communities who wish to achieve British nationality.

I ask the Home Secretary to look closely at this matter. It is no good telling these communities that they must be a part of the society in which they live and then place burdens on them when they seek to obtain British nationality which so many so much wish to do.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw)

I have taken part in many debates concerned with affirmative and negative resolutions dating back to 1962. I am no stranger to such debates. Equally, I am no stranger to debates where discussion tend to move into discussion of what the resolutions would be about—in this case the fees—and is not directed to the amendment which is concerned with the affirmative or the negative resolution. Those are the terms of the amendment and I shall address myself to that conclusively.

I appreciate that the Opposition wanted to discuss the other amendment concernig the level of the fees. I shall answer some of the points of the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) before turning to the substantive part of the amendment which is whether such increases or changes should be subject to the affirmative or negative resolution procedure.

It has been made clear by my hon. Friend in Committee that it is Government policy to recover as far as possible through fees the administrative costs of nationality applications. As the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central appreciates, we are a long way from achieving that objective. The current percentage of our costs recovered through fees is nearer 30 per cent. than 100 per cent. I am afraid that further increases in fees are inevitable in due course.

However, I cannot be blamed from two different positions at the same time—from one, yes, but not from both. I cannot be blamed for not having put up the lees or announced an increase in fees on the one hand and at the same time be blamed for not taking sufficient account of the problems that the size of fees creates for communities. It is because I appreciate the problems that I have not announced the increase in fees which, from the figures, make it inevitable that I shall have to announce. What I have done, and properly should do, is to look at all the costs that occur in the nationality division to consider where we can keep costs down. I try, to the best of my ability, to keep the costs and fees down. That is part of my job.

I was fascinated to hear that the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central contemplates, if ever he were in that position in a Government, going to the Treasury to tell it that fees should be reduced. I find it difficult to imagine that any Treasury would concede that proposition. However, I do not think that he will have the chance and I shall not have the opportunity of seeing what would happen. It would be difficult to contemplate.

There will have to be an increase in fees. I undertake to see what I can do to keep costs down. I cannot give an undertaking about when I shall announce such an increase, but I shall look most carefully at the proposals and at our costs because I realise the important point made by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox).

At the same time, I take the view that while one must seek to keep the costs down as much as possible, the question will arise of when it is reasonable to ask people to pay a considerably larger percentage of the costs than they do now for acquiring British citizenship.

In answer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I go somewhat further than usual with the usual precedents. I expect that he already appreciates that under the British Nationality Act 1948 the level of fees for applications are not subject to parliamentary procedure. In moving to the negative resolution we are advancing from what has been the practice with fees in the British Nationality Act 1948. I realise that the situation is different, but the advance is there and I am entitled to obtain the credit for that advance.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Thus we shall have an affirmative resolution in approximately 2013.

Mr. Whitelaw

If the right hon. Gentleman and I are here to see that we shall receive the credit for it. Even if we are here I do not think we should be able to recognise that it had happened.

The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central said that unless his amendment was accepted there would 13e no opportunity to debate the level of fees. I do not think that he can have meant to put it quite in that way, because that is incorrect. Under the negative resolution procedure there would, of course, be an opportunity for the usual debate.

As the right hon. Member for Down, South will appreciate, I have had some part in arranging the business of the House, from an Opposition and from a Government point of view, during my career. Where prayers have been wanted by the official Opposition or by a body of hon. Members on some important matter, the opportunity has in most cases been granted and the debate has taken place. I suggest, therefore, that in moving from nothing to the negative resolution procedure we have made a significant advance.

I do not believe that the House should always move to an affirmative resolution procedure, which would add very considerably—if the procedure is used on every occasion—to the amount of business in the House. I believe that we have made the right judgment and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Tilley

The Home Secretary has not allayed any of the fears that I mentioned. Indeed, he has confirmed some of the suspicions that the fees will be increased substantially fairly soon. That in itself will lead many people to want to make their applications quickly, before the fees are increased. If he cannot promise not to increase the fees, perhaps he will promise to make an effort to ensure that sufficient application forms are available. There is already a terrific rush for application forms as a result of the Bill, as could have been foreseen. It would be unfortunate if, because forms were not available, people had to apply many months from now, when the fees had increased.

I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment and to register our desire that the affirmative resolution procedure should operate in the future, and our concern about the level of fees, which, as the Home Secretary has admitted, will be raised very soon.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 264.

Division No. 200] [5.12 pm
Abse, Leo Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Adams, Allen Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Allaun, Frank Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Anderson, Donald Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Deakins, Eric
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Dempsey, James
Ashton, Joe Dewar, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A.T. Dixon, Donald
Barnett, Guy(Greenwich) Dobson, Frank
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) Dormand, Jack
Beith, A. J. Douglas, Dick
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N) Dubs, Alfred
Bidwell, Sydney Duffy, A. E. P.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Dunn, James A.
Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro) Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Bray, Dr Jeremy Eadie, Alex
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) English, Michael
Buchan, Norman Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Evans, John (Newton)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) Ewing, Harry
Campbell, Ian Faulds, Andrew
Campbell-Savours, Dale Field, Frank
Canavan, Dennis Flannery, Martin
Cant, R. B. Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Carmichael, Neil Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Carter-Jones, Lewis Ford, Ben
Cartwright, John Forrester, John
Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S) Foster, Derek
Coleman, Donald Foulkes, George
Conlan, Bernard Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Cook, Robin F. Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Cowans, Harry Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Craigen, J. M. George, Bruce
Crawshaw, Richard Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Crowther, J. S. Ginsburg, David
Cryer, Bob Golding, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence Graham, Ted
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Grant, George (Morpeth)
Dalyell, Tam Grant, John (Islington C)
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Pavitt, Laurie
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Penhaligon, David
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Prescott, John
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Race, Reg
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) Radice, Giles
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll) Richardson, Jo
Home Robertson, John Roberts, Albert(Normanton)
Homewood, William Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Hooley, Frank Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Horam, John Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Howell, Rt Hon D. Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Howells, Geraint Rooker, J. W.
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Roper, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Janner, Hon Greville Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Johnson, James (Hull West) Sandelson, Neville
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Sever, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sheerman, Barry
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Lambie, David Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Leadbitter, Ted Skinner, Dennis
Leighton, Ronald Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Soley, Clive
Litherland, Robert Spearing, Nigel
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Spriggs, Leslie
Lyon, Alexander (York) Stallard, A. W.
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W) Steel, Rt Hon David
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
McCartney, Hugh Stoddart, David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Stott, Roger
McElhone, Frank Straw, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
McKelvey, William Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Maclennan, Robert Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
McNally, Thomas Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
McNamara, Kevin Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
McTaggart, Robert Tilley, John
Marks, Kenneth Tinn, James
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton) Torney, Tom
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn) Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Maxton, John Watkins, David
Maynard, Miss Joan Weetch, Ken
Meacher, Michael Wellbeloved, James
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Welsh, Michael
Mikardo, Ian White, Frank R.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Whitehead, Phillip
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) Whitlock, William
Molyneaux, James Wigley, Dafydd
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon) Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Morton, George Wilson, William (C'try SE)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland Winnick, David
Newens, Stanley Woodall, Alec
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Woolmer, Kenneth
O'Halloran, Michael Wright, Sheila
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Young, David (Bolton E)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Palmer, Arthur Tellers for the Ayes:
Parker, John Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. Frank Haynes
Parry, Robert
Adley, Robert Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Alexander, Richard Banks, Robert
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Bendall, Vivian
Ancram, Michael Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Arnold, Tom Best, Keith
Atkins, Robert (Preston N) Bevan, David Gilroy
Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone) Biffen, Rt Hon John
Biggs-Davison, John Hamilton, Hon A.
Blackburn, John Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)
Blaker, Peter Hampson, Dr Keith
Body, Richard Hannam, John
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hawkins, Paul
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Hawksley, Warren
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Hayhoe, Barney
Braine, Sir Bernard Henderson, Barry
Bright, Graham Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Brittan, Leon Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Brooke, Hon Peter Hill, James
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Browne, John (Winchester) Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Bruce-Gardyne, John Hooson, Tom
Bryan, Sir Paul Hordern, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Buck, Antony Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Budgen, Nick Hunt, David(Wirral)
Bulmer, Esmond Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Burden, Sir Frederick Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Butcher, John Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Cadbury, Jocelyn Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) Kaberry, Sir Donald
Chapman, Sydney Kershaw, Anthony
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Kimball, Marcus
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) King, Rt Hon Tom
Clegg, Sir Walter Knox, David
Colvin, Michael Lamont, Norman
Cope, John Lang, Ian
Corrie, John Langford-Holt, Sir John
Costain, Sir Albert Latham, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount Lawrence, Ivan
Critchley, Julian Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Crouch, David Lee, John
Dean, Paul (North Somerset) Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Dickens, Geoffrey Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Dorrell, Stephen Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Dover, Denshore Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Loveridge, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Luce, Richard
Durant, Tony Lyell, Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh McCrindle, Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John MacGregor, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) MacKay, John (Argyll)
Eggar, Tim McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Elliott, Sir William McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Emery, Peter McQuarrie, Albert
Eyre, Reginald Madel, David
Fairbairn, Nicholas Major, John
Fairgrieve, Russell Marland, Paul
Faith, Mrs Sheila Marlow, Tony
Farr, John Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Fell, Anthony Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Mates, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey Mather, Carol
Fisher, Sir Nigel Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) Mawby, Ray
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Forman, Nigel Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Mayhew, Patrick
Fox, Marcus Mellor, David
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) Meyer, Sir Anthony
Fry, Peter Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian Moate, Roger
Glyn, Dr Alan Montgomery, Fergus
Goodhew, Victor Moore, John
Goodlad, Alastair Morgan, Geraint
Gorst, John Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Gower, Sir Raymond Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Gray, Hamish Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds) Mudd, David
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) Murphy, Christopher
Grist, Ian Myles, David
Grylls, Michael Neale, Gerrard
Gummer, John Selwyn Needham, Richard
Neubert, Michael Speller, Tony
Newton, Tony Spence, John
Nott, Rt Hon John Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Onslow, Cranley Sproat, Iain
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. Squire, Robin
Page, John (Harrow, West) Stainton, Keith
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) Stanbrook, Ivor
Page, Richard (SW Herts) Stanley, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath) Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Patten, John (Oxford) Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)
Pattie, Geoffrey Stokes, John
Pawsey, James Stradling Thomas, J.
Percival, Sir Ian Tapsell, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Pollock, Alexander Temple-Morris, Peter
Porter, Barry Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Thompson, Donald
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Prior, Rt Hon James Thornton, Malcolm
Proctor, K. Harvey Townend, John (Bridlington)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Raison, Timothy Trotter, Neville
Rathbone, Tim van Straubenzee, W. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Rees-Davies, W. R. Viggers, Peter
Renton, Tim Waddington, David
Rhodes James, Robert Wakeham, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Waldegrave, Hon William
Ridley, Hon Nicholas Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Wall, Patrick
Rifkind, Malcolm Waller, Gary
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Ward, John
Rossi, Hugh Warren, Kenneth
Rost, Peter Wells, John (Maidstone)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy Wells, Bowen
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. Wheeler, John
Scott, Nicholas Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Whitney, Raymond
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Wickenden, Keith
Shelton, William (Streatham) Williams, D. (Montgomery)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Winterton, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard Wolfson, Mark
Shersby, Michael Young, Sir George (Acton)
Silvester, Fred
Sims, Roger Tellers for the Noes:
Skeet, T. H. H. Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.
Speed, Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to