§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)
I beg to move,That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges and Remission of Charges) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 307), dated 2 March 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 March, be annulled.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)
It will be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we take the other prayer:That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges and Remission of Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 359), dated 2 March 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11 March, be annulled.
§ Mrs. Dunwoody
I must frankly say that I am not too delighted to be moving a matter of some considerable importance in what will be a foreshortened debate. I warn the Minister that if it is his intention to come to the Dispatch Box and to give us his normal, rather smooth, but not tremendously straightforward, appreciation of the reasons that he is putting forward for increasing the charges, that will not be acceptable.
The regulations are clear demonstrations of the attitude of the present Secretary of State and the Minister for Health and of the desire of the Conservatives to destroy the fabric of the National Health Service in any way they can. The Secretary of State thinks that that is not a defensible point of view. Let me tell him that when we look at the picture of change over the last two years, we can see certain clear facts.
The Conservative Party does not have the guts to attack the National Health Service head on, so it ceases to provide the right conditions in which the majority of our population can receive good health care. When the Black report showed clearly that there were enormous discrepancies between one social class and another, the Government made it plain that one of the problems arose because the access to good dental care and to good care in the provision of glasses was also lacking.
Why are we praying against these two inadequate sets of regulations? We may be told that the changes in the amounts are small and that there are so many exemptions that they cannot affect many people. The Government are good at tinkering with exemptions to make it look as if there has been some basic alteration, when they are trying to put off the majority of people from seeking proper health care when it is most needed. We ought to be talking tonight not only about the minor changes but about the political implications.
Before the creation of proper ophthalmic services, it was quite common for working class families—and particularly working class mothers—to buy spectacles over the counter in a chain store. That is very easily forgotten, and I have the impression that the Government would rather like us to return to that sort of practice.
There is at present a concentrated attack on the provision of proper ophthalmic services. One can enter on optician's premises in the High Street and have one's eyes properly tested by a qualified optician, and it is not always certain that spectacles will be prescribed. The optician has the early warning system at his command, so that, where 252 there is eye disease, he not only refers the patient to a consultant but is able in many instances to give some indication of the sort of problem that a patient is likely to face.
That service would be materially changed if, by constantly moving away from that type of arrangement, and by changing the law, we encouraged large multinational companies to come into this country, making it easy for people to buy spectacles that are not specially prescribed for them.
The Minister may say that that is ridiculous and is something that I have thought up. But there is clear evidence that American multinationals, which are keen to expand their services in in-store department store units, are most anxious to do away with many of the restrictions on the way they operate. They would like to be able to advertise whenever and however they wish. They would like to have a very large throughput of people buying spectacles without any great difficulty in a department store.
Such practices would be entirely contrary to the sort of ophthalmic service that has been built up since the beginning of the National Health Service. The people who would be most damaged by that sort of change would be the ordinary families. People with a very high income never have difficulty in obtaining private health care. It is the people who are outside the exemption ranges but who are on a low income, who consequently cease to try to obtain for themselves proper spectacles or proper dental care.
It is plain that in social classes 4 and 5 the general level of dental care, even now, is not the same as it is among social classes 1 and 2. That has been made evident time and time again.
When the Government talk about a relationship of 75 to 25 between private health care and the National Health Service, they are really talking about lowering the standards. They are determined that the testing of eyes should go back to being a wholly commercial arrangement. They have not been prepared to increase the fee that is given to the opticians for carrying out proper eye tests. The sorts of changes the Government are suggesting will inevitably result in a reduction in use of the service.
The Government should be considering ways of making the average optician's practice very much more balanced in terms of the work that he does. At present, the NHS work is a very large part of the optician's work but represents a very small part of his income. An increase in charges will not encourage people to go to the optician with greater frequency. What is far more likely to happen is that in the future there will be a positive move—we see it already in many newspapers and in women's magazines—towards propaganda for reduced eye care under the National Health Service.
If we return to a situation in which one can go into a department store and buy over the counter by self-selection what is really a very large twin magnifier, we shall not be providing proper health care for our people. As usual under this Government, we shall simply be seeking to create a two-tier system in which those who have the money can obtain proper health care while those who have not are dissuaded in every possible way from seeking help at the moment when it is most desperately needed.
What goes for ophthalmology certainly also goes for dentistry. There is absolutely no indication that the Government are seeking to deal with the provision of 253 dentistry or to encourage dentists to undertake a greater proportion of National Health Service work. In some regions, such as my own in the North-West, there are considerable gaps in provision and many people have great difficulty when they wish to go to a National Health Service dentist. That will certainly not be changed by the price increases before the House tonight.
We should be asking the House to throw out both sets of regulations. Before the Minister intervenes, I should say that this is not because of some political hang-up about prescription charges. On a day on which he has had the effrontery to announce, almost as an aside, that in future prescription charges are to rise in line with inflation, he can hardly suggest that it is the Opposition who have a hang-up about prescription charges. We oppose the regulations because we believe that they demonstrate an attitude by the Conservatives that is inimical to good health care. The Government are not interested in providing a service free at the point of use when it is most needed.
§ Mr. John Major (Huntingdonshire)
Will the hon. Lady explain to the House how the Government can be damaging the National Health Service and at the same time providing more money for it in real terms?
§ Mrs. Dunwoody
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, when one considers the amount of money provided in the new allocations, despite the brave words of the Secretary of State today, because of the changes taking place in the population what is really occurring is a drop in the level of provision. If he has not noticed that, I can only say that he has not been looking at what is actually happening.
Both sets of regulations clearly demonstrate the attitude of the Conservatives. They think that if one has a privileged income and is capable of paying for good health care, one should enjoy a high standard of care. If, however, one is outside one or two very small means-tested groups, one should be dissuaded from going for proper care, either to the dentist or to those who would supply one with proper spectacles.
We shall be taking very positive action if we throw out these sets of regulations which lower the standards of care available to the majority of our people.
§ The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan)
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Lady, the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) has said. I do not think that she has distinguished herself this evening. I believe that she will come to regret her speech. Much of what she said was either irrelevant or misinformed.
Of course the Government are concerned to see higher standards—indeed, the highest standards—for dental and optical care in this country. I cannot believe that the dental profession or the optical profession, both of which have very high professional standards, will feel much flattered by what the hon. Lady has said. The Government wish to have a viable, flourishing National Health Service. We are very proud of the National Health Service. I shall explain to the hon. Lady how the Government have restored morale in the National Health Service, and how we have reversed the trend under the previous Government, when waiting lists went up every year. We have now reduced them by more than 111,000. I should also like to explain 254 how we have increased in real cash terms the amount being spent on the NHS, because the hon. Lady does not seem to be able to do her arithmetic. There has been a 46 per cent. increase since 1979.
§ Dr. Vaughan
I shall not give way. The hon. Lady did no credit to herself or the Opposition.
I never cease to be amazed at the hyprocrisy of the Labour Party's policy on health charges, prescription charges and dental charges. In Opposition, Labour Members regularly say that they will abolish charges, yet they know that it was they who introduced them, and subsequently reintroduced them. In 1974, the Labour Party manifesto stated clearly that they would abolish all charges. Not only did they continue them, but within a few years of coming into office the had increased dental charges three times.
I have with me a host of speeches made by previous Labour Ministers—I shall not weary the House by going through them—each of which says that the charges must be continued. They run right through from Kenneth Robinson and Richard Crossman to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who was then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. He made what he thought was a splendid speech on 3 February 1976 in which he said that there was no question of removing charges, and that they were necessary for the running of the Health Service.
On 21 July 1969, when charges were going up, Richard Crossman said:This is an increase in charge which is an adjustment of charge to cost".—[Official Report, 21 July 1969; Vol. 787, c. 1393.]That is what we are doing. We are increasing the charges to fit in with the increassed cost of the Service. As we announced in the public expenditure White Paper, if necessary these will now be increased annually as the costs vary within the Service.
§ Dr. Vaughan
No, because I do not have much time. Before we have any more speeches of the kind to which we have just listened, it may be helpful if I explain briefly the changes which the regulations are designed to make.
The changes in the Scottish regulations are identical to those for England and Wales. The main reason for these two sets of regulations is to provide for increases in charges for dental treatment and dentures, and for spectacle lenses, to take effect from 1 April. This is the first increase in charges for ophthalmic services introduced by this Government. One other change effective from 1 April is the modification of the age exemptions from dental and optical charges.
Opposition Members will remember that when we debated the Health Services Act last year, there was a good deal of discussion about this. The dental profession said that we should alter the ages to include people at school and full-time students under the age of 19. That we are doing. Because of that Act, these regulations are necessary to provide for two small consequential amendments.
The Government's general policy on Health Service charges has always been that in suitable cases, and where the user can afford it, he should bear a reasonable amount of the cost of the Service. Moreover, we take the view that charges should keep pace with the rising costs of providing 255 these services. That was spelt out in the recent White Paper on public expenditure. In deciding to increase charges in order to maintain and develop services I am sure that we have made the right choice.
The hon. Member for Crewe did not refer to any of the details. Of course, we recognise that there are groups of people who cannot afford to pay these charges. It is very much part of Conservative policy and philosophy that where people are unable to meet the charges there should be exemptions. I refer, for example, to the case of children—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I note that those cries came from this side of the House.
I turn to the subject of dental charges. These regulations increase the maximum cost of a routine course of treatment from £8 to £9. A full set of resin dentures will go up from £30 to £33 and a crown will go up from £18 to £20. By any standard, those increases are modest and reflect merely the rising cost of providing general dental services. The most important charge for the majority of patients who pay for their dental treatment is the maximum for an ordinary course of treatment. The new charge for this has deliberately been kept as low as possible.
As hon. Members may know, more than 60 per cent. of all courses of dental treatment are provided free of charge I should remind hon. Members that, for example, a check-up is free for everyone. In addition, the figure of £9 for routine treatment is not a basic but a maximum charge. Many patients pay less. In 1981–82 dental charges are expected to raise an additional £24 million over the revenue yield in 1980–81. The total revenue from dental charges will be about 25 per cent. of the gross costs of the general dental service. At present that is £464 million. Patients contribute £116 million.
I turn to the subject of optical charges. These increases represent the first changes since 1977. We have not increased the charge for the cheapest ordinary lens, which will remain at £2.90. There has been only a small increase in the other charge for single-vision lenses. The majority of National Health Service patients—over three-quarters of them—have single-vision lenses. Together with the most popular NHS frame, a complete pair of glasses with single-vision lenses will still cost the patient less than £10.
The charges for bifocal lenses have been increased by a slightly greater amount than those for the ordinary single-vision lenses, with the price of the most expensive lens increasing from £6.15 to £8.30. However, I remind the House that the majority of bifocal wearers—if they did not have bifocal lenses—would have to have two pairs of ordinary single-vision spectacles. As I said, there are arrangements for exemption from charges for children and for help with the charges for those on low incomes.
§ Dr. Vaughan
I shall not give way, as this is a short debate. The sight test is still free to patients, so nobody who thinks that he needs glasses should be deterred from consulting an optician on the ground of cost.
The increases in charges will yield about £4.5 million. The total revenue from charges should represent about 29 per cent. of the gross costs of the general ophthalmic services. At present, the gross cost is just over £128 million and the charges yield about £38 million.
I have referred to the changes in the age exemptions from both dental and optical charges. The main changes, which were contained in the Health Services Act 1980, 256 lower the upper age limit for free dental treatment from 21 to 18. They allow free dentures to all full-time students under the age of 19 and they extend free glasses, in the children's range, to all full-time students until they reach the age of 19. These changes were fully debated before the Act received Royal Assent in August 1980.
In conclusion, we believe that it is right to keep the charges in line with the cost of providing the services. I have no apology to make for the modest increases that we have been discussing.
§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)
I differ from the hon. Gentleman in all that he said. We do not have time to debate the whole of his case, but I am willing to discuss his facts at any time. For example, he said that the Labour Party first introduced the Health Service charges. They were first introduced by the late lain Macleod, in the Conservative Government of 1951, when the Labour Party voted against them solidly and the late Hilary Marquand made a pledge to abolish them at that time.
§ Mr. Pavitt
I wish to concentrate entirely upon the dental section of these disastrous regulations. The Minister did not say that the whole of the dental profession was opposed to the charges and the increases.
§ Mr. Pavitt
My hon. Friend is partly correct, but not wholly. He is correct in saying that three senior Ministers resigned over the empowering to charge carried out by Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, but we lost the Government before it became operative. The late Mr. Iain Macleod put the Act into operation. I do not want to go over the history.
The consequence of the regulations will be that the charges will mean the deferment of treatment, an increase in oral disease, much more treatment and far less prevention. The taxpayer is already paying £300 million for his dental services. As a result of the increases 18 months ago already there are whole areas of the country where NHS dental treatment is not available. There are items in respect of which the dentist will not give treatment under the NHS but will charge for it. The dentist has the option either to give NHS treatment or to charge for each of his patients.
One of the consequences has been the report that the hon. Gentleman received from the citizens advice bureaux, giving facts and figures. What reply has he sent? What reply has he sent to a similar report that he has received from the National Association of Community Health Councils, showing the falling availability of NHS treatment?
The Minister explained that regulations mean a reduction from the present situation of free treatment up to 21 years. I congratulate the British Dental Association on the negotiations that it had with the hon. Gentleman. The original proposal was to reduce the age to 16. At least it has now been raised to 18 years. Nevertheless, that still means that many people from the age of 19 onwards who should receive treatment will not get it.
257 My main concern is about the raising of the charge from £54 to £60. I sometimes wonder whether the Government have any regard for the elderly. The hon. Gentleman knows that the total number of treatments has increased each year, but if he makes an analysis of where they have increased and where they have decreased he will find that the charges have affected the elderly more than any other section of the community. Current teaching of dental students demands that as the mouth shrinks after the age of 60 fresh dentures should be fitted, but because dentists are refusing to treat under the NHS and are charging privately it means that a series of treatments and particularly a change for dentures for the elderly are not being taken up. The shame of a person whose dentures do not fit means loneliness for the elderly. He does not go out, because he is frightened that his teeth may fall out at the Derby and Joan club and he is frightened of the shame that he will feel because of that. He is aware of speech impediment caused by ill-fitting false teeth.
The order is a disaster for dental treatment for the elderly. The Government's policy of returning to the market place and the power of the purse affects dental care more than the other section of the National Health Service with which they have been dealing. The basic concept of the NHS that all treatment should be given on clinical need and not on the power of the purse has been eroded. That has been eroded in the hospital service, but not so much in the general dental service. Despite the increase to 1,200 beds in the private sector in London, compared with the impact on the dental services, it is not on the same proportion.
Practically every member of the community at some time or other calls on the dental services. But there is now the possibility of there being no NHS dental practice available in a few years, because it has been declining at a fantastic rate in the past two or three years. All general dental practitioner services will be for payment by the patient. The tragedy is that in 20 years we could eradicate diseases that affect the mouth. Yet, in order to save £24 million today, we shall give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a much larger burden in 10 years.
The Government have a deplorable record. They say that they are thinking of an improved and enhanced NHS, but while we differentiate between first-class citizens who pay for and receive treatment and second-class citizens to whom treatment is denied because they cannot afford it, the Government cannot claim to have any understanding or compassion, or to know what the National Health Service is about.
§ 11.6 pm
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
In debates such as this, one knows, almost as soon as he gets to his feet, whether the Minister has a good or a bad case for the regulations. When the Minister abuses the Opposition and claims as the excuse for increasing charges that the Labour Government introduced the enabling legislation, one has the feeling that he is somewhat shamefaced about the charges that he is proposing. The Minister claimed that the increased charges, in gross terms, were modest.
I suggest that the Minister might almost have an arguable case if these were the only charges being increased by the Government, but since they came to office they have increased prescription charges, and in 258 every aspect of social policy they have increased charges across the board. One might imagine that the Government felt that earnings were increasing at such a fantastic rate that people could afford to meet the increased charges because the general costs that they had to meet were taken care of.
The Minister cannot take these regulations in isolation from what is happening generally. He cannot brush aside as not worth mentioning the fact that rents, rates, bus fares, gas prices, and so on, are being forced up. All these factors affect pensioners.
§ Mr. Hughes
National insurance contributions are going up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) reminds me. All these factors add up to a considerable sacrifice being made by ordinary people. The Minister knows that. Remissions of charges do not excuse these increases.
There are 2½ million people out of work. Those people depend on social security or unemployment benefit. Many may not be receiving benefit at all because of the regulations.
The Government are mean and petty. They claim to have paid pensioners 1 per cent. too much last year, and they will not give them the proper increase this year. The Government are saying "We gave a single pensioner 25p a week too much and we gave married pensioners 40p a week too much." It is sheer hypocrisy to say that they are compassionate because they are exempting certain people from these increases. I cannot understand how the Minister can claim that there is an air of hypocrisy on the part of the Opposition in seeking to reject these increases. The fact that charges were increased by Hugh Gaitskell and Dick Crossman does not make these increases right. If the Minister had a sound argument he would defend these increases on their merits, and not make remarks about what happened in the past.
The Minister said that these charges would go up annually, as costs rose, but he has not told us this evening how much they will go up, and I suspect that next year he will bring forward regulations providing for much bigger increases than this, because the Government are in total disarray in terms of their social and economic policy.
I shall certainly vote against the regulations. I have no hesitation in saying that the increased charges that they provide for will be a burden on poor people in our society. Many people feel that they cannot afford proper optical treatment or dental treatment. It may be that to the right hon. Gentleman, as a Minister, £8, £9, £20, and so on, are minimal sums, to be considered as trifles. he has no idea how ordinary people are living and struggling to survive in the kind of climate and disorder that he and his Government are creating.
I shall certainly oppose them with all the energy at my command.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)
I believe that I am right in saying that I am one of the two hon. Members present—my right hon. Friend Leader of the Opposition is the other—who were here when the Bill was first introduced and I believe that we are the only two now who voted against the charges. I well recollect—and I agree that it is regrettable that it was the Labour Party that did it—that then the Treasury, always the adviser of all 259 Governments and wanting to get its hands on this money, said that it was temporary. It is nothing to smile about, because we are taxing the sick; they are being taxed by well-heeled people sitting in this place—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself."] I am speaking for myself and speaking for all of us, and the poor, the sick and the infirm. Believe me, there is no man or woman in Britain that I know of who goes to the dentist to have all his teeth pulled out because he likes to do so. In fact, I do not know of anybody who gets spectacles because he likes doing it. They go because they are medically advised to do it and they have to do it.
If a man drops down dead we do not ask for the medical fees to be paid or where the money is to come from. If a person is sick outside in the street, do we ask him to pay for medical attention?
I heard the Minister say that of of course the Government are in favour of the Health Service. What a load of tripe. They voted against both the Second and Third Reading and the introduction of the Bill. Hon. Members know what that means. They are against the principle of the Bill. They were against the Second Reading and the Third Reading and they have never been in favour of a free Health Service.
In The International Year of Disabled People the Government are shedding crocodile tears. Let us see to it that when a person is sick or disabled we give him the best treatment we can and do not worry about the cost. There are plenty of other ways of finding the money.
The right hon. Member may smile, but I say that if he is a Christian gentleman, if he really believes that we should help the sick and the disabled, we should not charge for treatment of this sort. I do not know of any man or woman who would have his or her teeth all drawn out or who would have spectacles because it was cheap.
This is the wickedest thing that any Government have done. I say it in 1981 as I said it in 1951. It was wrong of Mr. Gaitskell, ably supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins. He was well up in front, that man who says he is in favour of an incomes policy—an incomes policy for others but not for himself. If the Government want some money, they should tax these people. A quarter of a million pounds—there is a nice little bit that would help; let the Government stop some of that.
It is a shocking business and I think all those on the Government Front Bench ought to be ashamed of themselves.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)
I did not intend to make a speech. I hoped that the Minister would allow me to make a brief intervention to press him on the question of exemptions. His whole case rested on the argument that people in need were entitled to exemptions. I suggest to him that that does not happen.
A substantial number of people are put off from applying to use the services because they believe that it will cost them money, even though they are entitled to exemptions. What is the Minister doing to make sure that those people particularly those who have recently come on to benefit because they are unemployed, disabled or sick, are aware of the exemptions to which they are entitled?
Is the Minister certain that all who are entitled to exemptions are benefiting from them at the point when they apply for the service? Is he certain that the people who operate the service are aware of the entitlement to 260 exemption? The impression I have been given from several constituents is that when they have been to the dentist or optician they have not been given accurate information by the dentist or optician, or by the receptionist, as to their entitlement, or they have been told to ask somewhere else. Some people do not pursue that and so they do not get the exemption to which they are entitled.
Is the Minister satisfied that everyone who should be getting an exemption is getting one? Has the number of people classified as exempt changed over the past 12 months in view of the changing economic circumstances? Will the Minster assure the House that his Department will run a campaign to ensure that all who are entitled gel an exemption?
How much does it cost to administer the exemption arrangements? The last time I talked to the people in Stockport about it they said that it was very costly to check whether people were entitled to exemption. How far is that process necessary? Would a lot of money be saved by going to the "free" principle, rather than having a system in which some people are entitled to benefit and some are not?
§ Dr. Vaughan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. He has raised a very important point to which we have given a good deal of attention. A revised version of last year's award-winning leaflet on dental treatment is available through the post offices. There is a long list of other organisations and offices through which it is available. I will look into the way in which information is provided to people.
As to any possible deterrent effect, the number of dental treatments has gone up steadily, from 20 million in 1970 to 30 million in the last year. There has been no sign of any falling off in the amount of dental care.
§ Mr. Bennett
I am glad that the leaflet won an award, but I wonder how far it achieves the desired results, Some of my constituents find it extremely difficult to read anything, let alone a leaflet. Very often they are the people who most need the benefit.
It is important that it should be understood in popular folklore what people are entitled to. Many of my constituents believe the popular folklore that it is expensive to go to the optician or the dentist. That is what the Minister must get over if he is to be sure that all the people in need get the service that they should have.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided, Ayes 77, Noes 136.261
|Division No. 131]||[11.18 pm|
|Alton, David||Dormand, Jack|
|Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)||Douglas, Dick|
|Beith, A. J.||Dubs, Alfred|
|Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Callaghan, Jim(Midd't'n & P)||Eastham, Ken|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)||English, Michael|
|Cowans, Harry||Flannery, Martin|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Foster, Derek|
|Cryer, Bob||George, Bruce|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Golding, John|
|Davis, T.(B'ham, Stechf'd)||Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)|
|Deakins, Eric||Hardy, Peter|
|Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Dempsey, James||Hogg, N.(E Dunb't'nshire)|
|Dixon, Donald||Home Robertson, John|
|Homewood, William||Prescott, John|
|Hooley, Frank||Price, C.(Lewisham W)|
|Howells, Geraint||Richardson, Jo|
|Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)||Roberts, Albert(Normanton)|
|Lamond, James||Robinson, G.(Coventry NW)|
|Leighton, Ronald||Ross, Stephen(Isle of Wight)|
|Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)||Sever, John|
|Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Litherland, Robert||Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Snape, Peter|
|McElhone, Frank||Soley, Clive|
|McKay, Allen(Penistone)||Stoddart, David|
|McKelvey, William||Tinn, James|
|McNamara, Kevin||Welsh, Michael|
|Maxton, John||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Mikardo, Ian||Whitlock, William|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Wilson, Gordon(Dundee E)|
|Mitchell, R. C.(Soton Itchen)|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Penhaligon, David||Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. George Morton|
|Alexander, Richard||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Arnold, Tom||Crouch, David|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Atkins, Robert(Preston N)||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Dover, Denshore|
|Benyon, Thomas(A'don)||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Best, Keith||Dunn, Robert(Dartford)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Dykes, Hugh|
|Blackburn, John||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Brinton, Tim||Farr, John|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Brotherton, Michael||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Buck, Antony||Fraser, Peter(South Angus)|
|Budgen, Nick||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Gorst, John|
|Carlisle, John(Luton West)||Gow, Ian|
|Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)||Grieve, Percy|
|Chapman, Sydney||Griffiths, Peter(Portsm'th N)|
|Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)||Hawkins, Paul|
|Clegg, SirWalter||Hawksley, Warren|
|Cope, John||Heddle, John|
|Costain, Sir Albert||Henderson, Barry|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Holland, Philip(Carlton)||Renton, Tim|
|Hooson, Tom||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Hurd, Hon Douglas||Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Roberts, Wyn(Conway)|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)|
|Knight, Mrs Jill||Shelton, William(Streatham)|
|Lang, Ian||Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Sims, Roger|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Lester, Jim(Beeston)||Speed, Keith|
|Lloyd, Ian(Havant & W'loo)||Speller, Tony|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Sproat, Iain|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|MacGregor, John||Stevens, Martin|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)|
|Madel, David||Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)|
|Major, John||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Marlow, Tony||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mates, Michael||Thompson, Donald|
|Mather, Carol||Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Trippier, David|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Trotter, Neville|
|Mellor, David||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Miller, Hal(B'grove)||Viggers, Peter|
|Mills, Iain(Meriden)||Waddington, David|
|Moate, Roger||Wakeham, John|
|Morgan, Geraint||Waller, Gary|
|Murphy, Christopher||Ward, John|
|Neale, Gerrard||Warren, Kenneth|
|Needham, Richard||Watson, John|
|Nelson, Anthony||Wells, Bowen|
|Newton, Tony||Wheeler, John|
|Normanton, Tom||Wickenden, Keith|
|Onslow, Cranley||Wilkinson, John|
|Osborn, John||Wolfson, Mark|
|Page, Rt Hon Sir G.(Crosby)||Young, Sir George(Acton)|
|Page, Richard(SW Herts)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Pawsey, James||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Pollock, Alexander||Mr. Selwyn Gummer and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.|
|Proctor, K. Harvey|
§ Question accordingly negatived.