§ 'At the same time as the Secretary of State makes any statement under the provisions of Clause 1, subsection (1) he shall cause to be published a report on the number of children for whom no child benefits are paid because they are in the care of a local authority; and any proposals he has for altering this situation.'—[Mr. Rooker.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.9.30 pm
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in clause 1, page 3, line 24, at end insert—'(6) The Secretary of State shall request the Social Security Advisory Committee to investigate and report on the adequacy of the current level of child support provided through the child benefit, supplementary benefit and social security schemes and this report shall be laid before Parliament.'.No. 10, in clause 1, page 3, line 24, at end insert—'(6) the Child Benefit Act 1975 shall be amended as follows:(a) at the end of section 17(1) there shall be inserted the words "provided that no regulation to take effect on annual uprating shall have the effect of increasing the total child support by less than the figure for inflation adopted by the 846 Secretary of State for the purposes of section 125 of the Social Security Act 1975.(b) in section 17 there shall be added a new subsection—(1A) in subsection (1) above the words 'total child support' shall mean the combined total of child benefit and any increase of benefit payable under section 41 and Schedule 4 Part IV to the Social Security Act 1975".'.
§ Mr. Rooker
My remarks will relate to amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) will discuss new clause 5.
I make no apology for making almost the same speech as that which I made in Committee. The amendments are exactly the same as amendments Nos 35 and 36 which I tabled in Committee. I can reproduce them word for word because the votes on those amendments were tied, thanks to the Minister being away on a foreign junket on behalf of the Government.
The problem is simple. The amendments deal with suppot for the children of parents who are sick, unemployed, disabled or widowed. It is not easy to explain what the Government have done, because they have juggled the books in relation to how such children are maintained under the social security system.
Before November 1980 such children received £5.70 a week. That was made up of £1.70 for the person who was sick or unemployed and £4 for the mother in child benefit. When the uprating of 16½ per cent. was made last November the £5.70 should have been increased by about 95p. That would have taken the weekly payment from £5.70 to £6.65. That would have been made up of £4.75 in child benefit and £1.90 for the parent. However, that did not happen. The child benefit went to £4.75 but the dependency addition was reduced to £1.25, making a total for each child of £6. That was an increase of 30p a week for each child.
Let us take the £6 as the starting point because since then there has been another uprating. For the majority of people the social security benefits will increase by 9 per cent. in November this year. For the parents of about 500,000 children the child benefit will increase by 50p. However, national insurance payments for the sick, unemployed and industrially injured will be reduced from £1.25 to 80p a week.
The total child support remaining after last November's increase at £6 is going up this November to £6.05. In two increases, between November 1979 and November 1981, the total increase for a child of someone who is sick and unemployed will have risen from £5.70 per week to £6.05—an increase of 35p over two years—which is well below the rate of all other social security benefits. The increase this year amounts to 0.8 per cent., less than 1 per cent. on the increase of benefits for children of those in the positions I have mentioned.
The cost of keeping a child has risen by more, I suspect, than 35p per week over two years. The Government have actually cut £45 million to £50 million which rightfully belongs under the law to those families. The Government have not had to change the law to do this statistical juggling. That shows that there is a gap in the law, which was not put right by the last Labour Government or the Labour Back Benchers at the time.
The system which operated last November and will operate this November has largely brought about the travesty that I have described. The year 1977 was the first year in which the first child in a family received the family allowance. The increases involved were substantially less 847 than they are today. I tabled these amendments so that the Opposition and, one hopes, the odd Tory Member, might ask the Government why, over this period, the families of sick and unemployed lost £1.15 to £1.20 per week for their children.
That does not square with the Prime Minister's oft-repeated statement that the Government have maintained child benefit. It is not fair for the Government to say that all assessments took place from November 1979. The country will judge the Government from the day they took office. The Government owe the House and the hall million children and their families an explanation of why they have cheated in this way.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
I shall remind the House of some of the events that took place when we had a Labour Government. There was considerable disappointment at the level at which child benefit was introduced. One of the arguments used against us by the press was that the Government were giving a lot of help to children via the subsidy on school meals. We were continually told that that was one of the ways of providing support for the family. I did not believe that that was a valid argument then, but if it was part of the argument about the original fixing of the level of child benefit it ought to be taken into account now that the Government have reduced the amount of subsidy on school meals. If it is claimed that child benefit has kept pace with inflation—which it has not—it ought also to be shown to have kept pace with the reduction in the subsidy on school meals. That is an important point.
I come to new clause 5. I am a foster parent. Therefore, I am one of those who might be affected by the new clause. Also, because I am a foster parent, I am frequently contacted by other foster parents who feel that it is unfair that for the child they are looking after they do not receive child benefit.
The way in which this matter is supposed to work is as follows. Children who are in care do not attract child benefit because the local authority receives money from the Government via the provisions to support the rates. What is supposed to happen is that in the Government's allocation to local authorities there is a sum to compensate for the fact that child benefit is not paid, and then the local authority takes account of that when it works out the boarding out allowances which are to be paid.
That is the theory. In practice it does not work like that. We know that when the Government were considering the level of the rate support grant and the new arrangements last autumn they did not know what level of child benefit they would be introducing in November—or, if they did know, they did not even tell some of their Ministers at the time what level had been chosen. They had not made up their mind about the level. They made a notional calculation of what child benefit would be. Having done that, they made their grant to the local authorities.
When the local authorities receive that money, they do not necessarily pass it on to the boarding out allowances, anyway. It can get lost in all the other areas of local authority expenditure or even within the budget for the personal social services. When it comes to November, when child benefit rises for other children, most boarding 848 out allowances of most local authorities do not rise to take that into account. It can be argued "The local authority anticipated that and paid out the extra in April" when the authority did not do that.
This is an anomaly. It would seem to be much fairer and much more practical to most foster parents if the child benefit were paid for children who were in care in just the same way as it is for other children. I think that most foster parents do their best to ensure that the foster child feels in exactly the same position as other children do. I argue strongly that paying out child benefit for a foster child would be one of the ways in which we can reduce the differences that such children feel exist in the system.
I finish with the plea that we ought to be giving much more support for the family, and particularly child support. There are very strong arguments for the Government increasing the level of child benefit all round.
§ Mrs. Chalker
I thought that this debate would be a little longer and a little more substantial. However, I shall do my best to answer the questions put by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in their usual way. They are not unexpected questions.
Perhaps I could explain my rather strange absence from the end of the Committee stage, which has caused these three issues to come before us again tonight. It was that I had understood that there would not be a tying of votes, for whatever good reason. Had I been in any doubt about the matter, I would have gone about my other business several hours later and remained in the Committee. I can only apologise to the House for detaining it on these three issues. These matters sometimes catch us all short.
To return to the issue in hand, let me deal first with new clause 5. The hon. Member for Stockport, North said that he was a foster parent of long standing. I think it right to say, not just to him but to all those who take over this onerous task, that no one underestimates the enormous value that fostering has for children. I can only hope that more people will follow the hon. Gentleman's excellent example—although he must find it more difficult than most fathers, in his position. It is something that gives stability to the lives of children who may, for whatever reason, not have been able to find such stability in their own families.
It is with some regret, therefore, that I say that I cannot accept the new clause. First, the new clause would oblige the Secretary of State, concurrent with the announcement of benefit upratings, to report the number of children for whom no child benefit is paid because they are in local authority care, and, further, to say whether the Secretary of State has any proposals for altering the child benefit provisions relating to such children. I am sure that his intention is as he hinted—to stimulate the change in the provisions.
Let us examine that for a moment. First, the regulations under the Child Benefit Act 1975 provide that child benefit is not paid for children who have been in local authority care for more than eight weeks unless they return home each week for at least one complete day from midnight to midnight, which ends up being more than what the hon. Gentleman or I might consider to be one day. It is really a day and a half or two days. It is also payable for any child when the child returns home for a complete week from local authority care.
849 As the hon. Member knows, and certainly other hon. Members will know, one of the most complicated questions about the payment of benefits relates to those moving in and out of temporary care. Therefore, if there were the continuing payment of child benefit, it might make it administratively more convenient. We do not do things in this House necessarily for convenience, but, as the hon. Member for Stockport, North said, whereas child benefit is seen as a contribution towards the cost of a child's maintenance, once the child leaves home and goes into care the onus for maintenance lies with the local authority. It in turn receives Government funds for the purpose through the rate support system.
It is perfectly true that a local authority can require a parent to make a contribution towards a child in care, but once that parent ceases to receive child benefit any contribution can be expected to be reduced accordingly. There are, therefore, no real grounds for continuing to pay the benefit for the children in care, particularly where there is the provision to pay when the child comes home either each week for at least one day or for whole weeks at a time.
We pay the child benefit to the parent for the first eight weeks that a child is in care because, fortunately, some children are in the care of a local authority in a home, or with foster parents, for only a very short while. If we did not continue to pay it for the first eight weeks, there would be a considerable problem about terminating or adjusting benefit for short periods of care.
Information is not at present collected about the number of children in care for whom benefit is not currently in payment. It would be expensive to set up a procedure for obtaining it under current circumstances. That does not mean that it is not possible to do it. At present, I do not believe that the expense would be justified.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Can the Government work out the grant they give to the local authorities to make up for the benefit they do not pay out?
§ Mrs. Chalker
As far as I am aware, it is done on the basis of the returns made by the local authorities of the children in care whose parents obviously would otherwise be entitled to child benefit if they were not so in care or if they were in care only for up to eight weeks. If I am in error on that point, I shall send the hon. Member a short letter about it.
I understand the role that foster parents play. I appreciate, as the hon. Gentleman said in Committee on Tuesday 24 March, as reported in columns 239 and 240 of Hansard, that foster parents should have extra help when other parents receive increased child benefit but that local authorities had not had the additional funds from Government to provide it. I gather that, in the estimate of the support given through the block grant system to local government, the figures for the number of children in care over the previous period are taken into consideration. It is important to allow local authorities to take into account expected expenditure on a range of items, which would include allowances for foster parents.
Wide changes are taking place in many local authority areas. Many authorities feel that it is better to allow children to be with foster parents than have them in community homes. Because there is such a wide variation in practice it would be wrong for the Government to say just how local authorities should allocate the money they 850 devote to this purpose. Local authorities that already have discretion in the use of their resources can make decisions on the basis of the needs of the children within their area. I sincerely believe that that is the sensible way for them to allocate resources between their competing priorities.
I realise that this does not give the hon. Gentleman what he would like. He wants more money going through the child benefit route to children who are in care with foster parents, but I think this is a better way to decide the resources to be devoted to children in care of the local authorities.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
It seems to be anomalous for two sets of foster parents, possibly living fairly close together but having children from different local authorities, to receive different boarding-out allowances for children of identical ages.
§ Mrs. Chalker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the question of boarding-out allowances is being discussed in my Department by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for health and personal social services. I shall draw to his attention the hon. Gentleman's comments. I remember raising the issue when I sat on the Opposition Benches. Yes, I understand that there can be some difficulties, and there are always anomalies. If we believe in decentralised local government we shall always have anomalies between one authority and another.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr said, amendments Nos. 9 and 10 deal with a complicated issue. The hon. Gentleman took us carefully through the figures. I commend to hon. Members a written answer which appears in the Official Report, on 6 April 1981, in c. 209 in reply to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald). We ran into difficulty in Committee because we had no blackboard, so we decided that a question and answer in the Official Report was probably the best way to deal with a complicated matter.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr is right. We discussed this issue at length in Committee, because, as we seek to improve child benefit, the support going to children in all families, regardless of whether the parent is unemployed, sick or in work, so the child dependency additions have been squeezed down in the way described by the hon. Gentleman.
Paul Lewis of the National Council for One-Parent Families put the case very fairly in a letter to me in March, to which I have replied in detail. What we are doing is perfectly legal. Many hon. Members object to it because they say that we are not helping those who are hardest hit. The people on supplementary benefit, as hon. Members on both sides of the House would readily agree, are likely to be hardest hit. For families dependent on supplementary benefit we have sought to increase the age-related additions for children a beat deal more than the child dependency additions because taking the two years together, we felt that they were the people who were most in need of help.
The rate for a child under 5 went up from £5.20 to £7.30, and from next November we propose to increase it to £7.90. Therefore, over the two years, that is an increase of £2.70. On that basis, the increases over the two years, for families dependent on supplementary benefit, for children between 5 and 10, 11 and 12, 13 and 35 and 16 and 17 are 21 per cent., 35 per cent., 21 per cent. and 32 851 per cent. respectively. In part, that has been the result of the decision last November to reduce the number of age bands from five to three.
We have sought to concentrate the limited resources at our disposal on those families dependent on supplementary benefit. We have made no secret of the fact that by not raising the child dependency additions of national insurance benefits we are working towards an objective which I believe both sides of the House have acknowledged to be the right thing to do, namely, that same amount goes towards the cost of children, whether people are in or out of work. The costs of a child do not change simply because someone is out of work for whatever reason. We appreciate that there must be extra help for those who are hardest hit, and that is why the resources, where available, have been concentrated on those on supplementry benefit.
I could say a lot more on this issue, but that would not change the situation that we face. It was a situation faced by the Labour Governnent in 1977 when they made a similar decision to uprate child benefit but decided not to uprate the child the dependency addition for national insurance beneficiaries by the same amount.
While I understand the Opposition's case, I cannot give the hon. Member for Perry Barr the assurance for which he has asked. As I said to the deputy director of the National Council for One-Parent Families, we have ensured that the available resources are concentrated on families on supplementary benefit who are in real need.
While I understand the problem that has been raised, I hope that the Opposition will realise that there is sense in the move that is taking place. I am sure they agree that we should protect those who are most in need—those on supplementary benefit. We are seeking to ensure that the support for children is the same for people in and out of work by taking gradual steps along that path.
§ Mr. Rooker
We agree 100 per cent. with the Minister's final remark. Support for children should be the same whether the head of the household is in or out of work. There are two ways of going about it. The Government have chosen to reduce child support for those out of work instead of increasing child benefit for those in work. We agree that the figures should be level. It is iniquitous that there is a gap. However, it would not be the intention of the Opposition—I suspect that the Government have done so by mistake—to reduce the benefit to those for whom it brings greatest gain.
This has been a somewhat briefer debate than we envisaged. We shall divide the House on new clause 5, but we do so only for the convenience of the House and our own arrangements, because our discussions on the Bill overlap today and tomorrow. Basically, we wish to divide on amendments Nos. 9 and 10, but it would be wholly impractical to leave those Divisions until tomorrow because of the time constraint under which we shall operate. The record will show that we are dividing on new clause 5, but we do so to show that we are in favour of amendment Nos. 9 and 10.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 266.855
|Division No. 185]||[10 pm|
|Abse, Leo||Allaun, Frank|
|Adams, Allen||Alton, David|
|Anderson, Donald||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Graham, Ted|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Grant, John (Islington C)|
|Ashton, Joe||Grimond, Rt Hon J.|
|Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Bagier, Gordon A.T.||Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Beith, A. J.||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood||Haynes, Frank|
|Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon k.(M'b'ro)||Homewood, William|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Hooley, Frank|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Howell, Rt Hon D.|
|Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)||Howells, Geraint|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.|
|Buchan, Norman||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Campbell, Ian||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||John, Brynmor|
|Canavan, Dennis||Johnson, James (Hull West)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Jones, Barry (East Flint)|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Kerr, Russell|
|Conlan, Bernard||Kilfedder, James A.|
|Cook, Robin F.||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Cowans, Harry||Lambie, David|
|Craigen, J. M.||Lamborn, Harry|
|Crowther, J. S.||Lamond, James|
|Cryer, Bob||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Leighton, Ronald|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)||Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Litherland, Robert|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)||McElhone, Frank|
|Deakins, Eric||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||McKelvey, William|
|Dempsey, James||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Dewar, Donald||McNally, Thomas|
|Dobson, Frank||McNamara, Kevin|
|Dormand, Jack||McTaggart, Robert|
|Douglas, Dick||McWilliam, John|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Magee, Bryan|
|Dubs, Alfred||Marks, Kenneth|
|Dunn, James A.||Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Eadie, Alex||Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)|
|Eastham, Ken||Maxton, John|
|Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Meacher, Michael|
|English, Michael||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert|
|Ennals, Rt Hon David||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Evans, loan (Aberdare)||Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)|
|Ewing, Harry||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Faulds, Andrew||Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)|
|Field, Frank||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Fitch, Alan||Moyle, Rt Hon Roland|
|Flannery, Martin||Newens, Stanley|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Ogden, Eric|
|Ford, Ben||O'Neill, Martin|
|Forrester, John||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Foster, Derek||Palmer, Arthur|
|Foulkes, George||Parry, Robert|
|Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)||Penhaligon, David|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Prescott, John|
|Freud, Clement||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Race, Reg|
|George, Bruce||Radice, Giles|
|Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Richardson, Jo||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Robertson, George||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)||Tilley, John|
|Rooker, J. W.||Tinn, James|
|Roper, John||Torney, Tom|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Ryman, John||Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)|
|Sandelson, Neville||Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)|
|Sever, John||Watkins, David|
|Sheerman, Barry||Weetch, Ken|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon R.||Wellbeloved, James|
|Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Welsh, Michael|
|Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)||White, Frank R.|
|Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||White, J. (G'gow Pollok)|
|Silverman, Julius||Whitlock, William|
|Skinner, Dennis||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)||Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)|
|Soley, Clive||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Spearing, Nigel||Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Winnick, David|
|Stallard, A. W.||Woodall, Alec|
|Steel, Rt Hon David||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Stott, Roger||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Strang, Gavin||Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. George Morton.|
|Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Adley, Robert||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Alexander, Richard||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Alison, Michael||Clegg, Sir Walter|
|Arnold, Tom||Cockeram, Eric|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Colvin, Michael|
|Atkins, Robert(Preston N)||Cope, John|
|Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)||Cormack, Patrick|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Corrie, John|
|Banks, Robert||Crouch, David|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Bell, Sir Ronald||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Bendall, Vivian||Dover, Denshore|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Dunn, Robert (Dartford)|
|Best, Keith||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Eggar, Tim|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Elliott, Sir William|
|Blackburn, John||Emery, Peter|
|Blaker, Peter||Eyre, Reginald|
|Body, Richard||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Farr, John|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Bright, Graham||Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)|
|Brinton, Tim||Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles|
|Brittan, Leon||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Forman, Nigel|
|Brotherton, Michael||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)||Fox, Marcus|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Fry, Peter|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Buck, Antony||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Budgen, Nick||Goodhew, Victor|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Burden, Sir Frederick||Gow, Ian|
|Butcher, John||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Cadbury, Jocelyn||Gray, Hamish|
|Carlisle, John (Luton West)||Greenway, Harry|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Griffiths, B.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)|
|Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul||Grist, Ian|
|Chapman, Sydney||Grylls, Michael|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hamilton, Hon A.|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)|
|Hannam, John||Page, Richard (SW Herts)|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Hastings, Stephen||Parris, Matthew|
|Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael||Patten, Christopher (Bath)|
|Hawksley, Warren||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Heddle, John||Pawsey, James|
|Henderson, Barry||Percival, Sir Ian|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Hicks, Robert||Porter, Barry|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L||Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)|
|Holland, Philip (Carlton)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Hooson, Tom||Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)|
|Hordern, Peter||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Raison, Timothy|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)|
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Renton, Tim|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Kimball, Marcus||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Knox, David||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Lang, Ian||Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Latham, Michael||Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Rossi, Hugh|
|Lee, John||Rost, Peter|
|Le Merchant, Spencer||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||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||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Luce, Richard||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|McCrindle, Robert||Shepherd, Richard|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Shersby, Michael|
|MacGregor, John||Silvester, Fred|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Sims, Roger|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Speller, Tony|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Spence, John|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Madel, David||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Major, John||Sproat, Iain|
|Marland, Paul||Squire, Robin|
|Marlow, Tony||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Stanley, John|
|Mather, Carol||Steen, Anthony|
|Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus||Stevens, Martin|
|Mawby, Ray||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Stokes, John|
|Mayhew, Patrick||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Mills, Peter (West Devon)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Thompson, Donald|
|Moate, Roger||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Molyneaux, James||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Monro, Hector||Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Trippier, David|
|Morgan, Geraint||Trotter, Neville|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton S)||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)||Viggers, Peter|
|Mudd, David||Waddington, David|
|Murphy, Christopher||Wakeham, John|
|Myles, David||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Neale, Gerrard||Walker, B. (Perth)|
|Needham, Richard||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.|
|Nelson, Anthony||Wall, Patrick|
|Neubert, Michael||Waller, Gary|
|Newton, Tony||Walters, Dennis|
|Ward, John||Williams, D.(Montgomery)|
|Warren, Kenneth||Wolfson, Mark|
|Watson, John||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Wells, Bowen||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Wheeler, John||Mr. Selwyn Gummer and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.|
|Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.