EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY

HC Deb 18 March 1982 vol 20 cc540-51

Mr. John

I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at end insert `and a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that an employee is or has been incapable of work for any period shall, unless the employer proves otherwise, satisfy the employer as to such incapacity'.

Although it is difficult to know which of the words of any Minister we should accept and which we should not, this amendment arises from certain encouraging noises made by the Minister of State in Committee or 10 December 1981. The Opposition had moved an amendment suggesting that the production of a medical certificate for a person unfit for work should be conclusive evidence of such unfitness. One might have supposed that that was not an unreasonable supposition.

That seemed to offend the casuistical turn of mind of the Secretary of State and he said that, although he could not accept that, a slightly lesser standard of proof might find favour in his eyes. The opportunity of doing that is provided by this amendment and we shall be interested to see which of the many excuses from his Department the Minister trots out to deny yet another modification.

Before doing that, the Minister owes it to the House to tell us the present position on self-certification. That is clearly implicit. In the first seven days a person will be able to certify himself as unfit for work. The Minister of State will agree that some time has elapsed since rumblings of discontent became evident to the House. However, I understand that there is still a great deal of unhappiness about the proposal and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the present position.

The amendment seeks to add the words and a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that an employee is or has been incapable of work for any period shall, unless the employer proves otherwise, satisfy the employer as to such incapacity. That reverses the onus and provides that, with a duly authorised medical certificate, a person should have the presumption exercised in his favour. It will be for the employer to prove that his employee was fit for work before sickness pay can be denied.

We were all anxious in Committee—I am sure the Minister shared that anxiety—to minimise the possibility of friction and to avoid possible areas of dispute with a reluctant or, frankly, obstructive employer who denies sick pay to an employee. We want to remove as many grounds for that as possible for reasons of equity—which I hope the Government still understand—and because of the possible effect on industrial relations of widespread and prolonged denial of sick pay for spurious reasons. The medical certificate should be accepted unless there is good reason to the contrary.

There should be a strong presumption in favour of a person who is incapable of work and who has a medical certificate to prove it. The presumption is rebuttable, but there needs to be good reason. If a general practitioner certifies that his patient is incapable of work, his clinical judgment should prevail against the employer who, even in the amended scheme, has some opportunity to be obstructive or awkward and denies his employee the simple justice for which the Bill provides of receiving sickness pay.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I support the amendment. On Second Reading, I suggested that there was a danger that the first part of the Bill could be seen as a 'flu spreaders' charter. Considerable pressure is applied to persuade people to go to work when they are not fit. There is a belief, almost ethnic, that it is a good thing to be at work. In reality it is often better for a person not to be at work. If one goes to work when ill, particularly with an illness such as 'flu, one is likely to spread that illness to other people. The long term effect is that more employees have to stay away from work.

In some instances, illnesses are passed on to customers in shops. One worrying aspect is the inconvenience caused to a small shopkeeper who employs only one or two people when one of his assistants telephones to say that he is unfit for work. It is likely that the employer will apply pressure and say "Of course you can get in." Once those attitudes develop, there is the danger that someone will be pressurised into turning up for work.

If it is possible for dispute to arise over whether the individual is sick, this gives the opportunity for the employer to press someone to turn up for work when he should not be there. This will not only put other employees at risk but if the individual works in a shop, particularly a food shop, the community at large will be put at risk. There should be a clear process by which the employee can satisfy the employer that he is unfit for work and entitled to draw benefit. The amendment suggests that a certificate from a doctor brought in by the individual will be accepted unless the employer can prove—the onus will be on the employer—that the individual is fit for work.

The Government have stated that they intend to introduce self-certification for illness. There are considerable attractions in self-certification provided that the Government issue clear rules ensuring that the employer accepts it. A situation must be avoided in which employers misguidedly bully individuals to turn up for work when they are clearly not fit for work and when their presence at work will not be in their own best interests or those of the community. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government intend to introduce simple, straightforward rules enabling the individual to qualify for benefit without getting into arguments with his employer about whether or not he is fit to turn up for work.

Mr. Rossi

I have been asked about self-certification. The Government intend to bring in self-certification from 14 June this year. That means that during the first seven days of absence from work through illness an employee will be able to sign his own certificate stating that he is away because he is indisposed. The form of the certificate is a matter to be agreed between the employer and the work force. We shall issue guidance and assist with specimen forms for those employers who require them.

Mr. John

I should like to know from the Minister whether a specimen form now exists. Will he confirm that there is a specimen form in existence that consists of four pages of questions?

Mr. Rossi

No. A specimen form, to the best of my knowledge, is not yet in production. I am not aware that any document comprising four pages is envisaged. The hon. Gentleman may have the advantage of me. I am not aware of a specimen form of four pages. The reason may be that such a form does not exist and is not contemplated. I do not know.

When the seven days are up, doctors can be approached for a medical certificate in the ordinary way. These will be issued free by doctors under the National Health Service as hitherto.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) will not be surprised that I find myself unable to accept the amendment. It does not vary a great deal from the amendment that we considered in Committee. The arguments that I deployed against the amendment in Committee apply here. The amendment proposes that a certificate "shall … satisfy the employer". That is close to saying that it is conclusive proof. There is little difference between the two. If it "shall … satisfy the employer", it is presumably binding upon the employer. I am advised that is the effect of the wording.

7.30 pm

Mr. John

I am a little unhappy about some of the advice that the Minister received if that is the case. There is the caveat unless the employer proves otherwise.

The Minister and I know that there are circumstances in which the onus of proof is switched from the person seeking to prove the incapacity to the person who is trying to deny it. All the amendment does—clearly, unambiguously and in proper parliamentary form—is to switch that onus.

Mr. Rossi

The Government feel that the balance as between employer and employee is fairly maintained in the clause and that the amendment would put too much of a burden upon the employer. It would introduce a curious concept into law. We discussed this matter in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will recall the argument that an opinion by a professional man shall be proof unless other proof is available. Perhaps I should explain what is meant by medical evidence provided by a general practitioner. It is not a certificate. In that sense, the amendment is technically defective, but I shall not make a great issue of that. It is a doctor's statement giving his opinion as to his patient's incapacity for work—that and no more.

The doctor can give his opinion only on the basis of the medical condition of his patient. He may not know the kind of job that his patient does. He may be accepting—this is not uncommon—the patient's story if it is a case of back-ache, for which there are no observable symptoms. One cannot really rely on a document of this kind, let alone raise it to the dignity of imposing a burden of proof.

Mr. John

With respect, the Minister is saying that one cannot believe a doctor's note because the doctor may not have been able to discern any physical symptoms in the patient. At least the doctor has medical training. He would be better able to tell whether a person whom he observes only by the eye is capable or incapable of work than would some person whose only qualification is that he has a higher national certificate in management studies.

Mr. Rossi

The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous and is probably trying to lead me into making statements that I shall later regret. He knows as well as I do that if someone presents himself in a doctor's surgery and says "I have been in bed with a back-ache for five days and have not been able to go to work; will you give me a certificate?", he will get it. There is no way in which the doctor is able medically to test the correctness of the statement made to him by the patient in those circumstances. Therefore, it would be wrong to insist in statute that such a document imposes a particular burden of proof upon one party or the other. It is for that reason that I invite the House to resist the amendment.

The Bill leaves the matter fairly balanced between the two parties concerned. It enables the employer to challenge a statement by an employee that he has been away sick if the nature of the circumstances, the time of the absence and the general character of the person concerned are such as to put doubt into the mind of the employer as to the truth of the employee's statement. An employer who knows his employee will take such matters into account. If the matter is not settled satisfactorily between the two parties, it can be dealt with by an independent adjudicating officer in the ordinary way.

I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. John

The Minister's reply must have been an education to Conservative Back Benchers. I should imagine that, unless they rebel or threaten to rebel, most of them regard themselves as aspiring Ministers. It must have been evident to them that the Minister is a master of the "come hither" technique in Committee proceedings. In Committee he says "I am with you in principle and I understand your problem, but just soften the amendment a bit. The absolute nature of the conclusive proof is bugging me at the moment. I cannot accept the amendment but, if you soften it a bit, it will be all right on the night." As with most ministerial statements, the nearer one gets to the realisation of the promise, the further it retreats.

We are now told, first, that the amendment is exactly the same as was proposed in Committee, which it manifestly is not, and, secondly, that, if the amendment were adopted, it would be a terrible onus to put on the employer. [Interruption.] If the amendment were merely technically defective, the Minister of State's resources extend to being able to draft and move an amendment in proper form in the other place to put it in order. Any argument on those lines is based on completely spurious reasoning.

With regard to the point that the employer would have to accept a medical certificate unless he could prove that his employee was incapable of work, there has been no mention of the converse of that. Suppose that the employer decides, against the evidence of a medical certificate, that a man is fit to work. The man then has placed on him the onus, the problem and the difficulty of going to appeal, and the further trouble of having to wait for his money until the appeal is resolved in his favour. That aspect is brushed aside. According to the Minister, the only onus that is important is the onus upon the poor employer—that frustrated brain surgeon who can see a much deeper reason for the employee's not being at work than the poor, simple doctor, who merely thinks that the man is unfit, can see. The Minister's argument is a total nonsense, even by his standards.

The Minister dealt with the question of absolute proof and being very nearly tied to the clause about which he was so unhappy in Committee. In Committee, it was said that the production of such a note would be conclusive proof. There is an absolute duty involved and there is no way in which an employer can resile from that position. He has to accept it because the note says that the man is incapable of working. In 99 cases out of 100, that must be so. It is common sense.

The Minister of State says—and we accept—that there is always the one case in 100 in which the employer knows best. The doctor, because of his heavy patient load and because of many other burdens, may not have been able to give the man a proper examination and may, in short, have been taken in by him. I think that that is what the Minister of State was saying. The employer may have information that satisfies him that the position is other than that presented to the doctor by the employee.

Under the amendment, there is no binding commitment. If the employer is satisfied that he can prove that his employee is capable of work, he has a way out under the amendment. It must be common sense, surely, that a medical certificate, a medical note or a statement from the doctor will usually be the only evidence upon which the employer can operate. He will act upon it, knowing that the man who has provided the note is a qualified registered medical practitioner. If he does not, the onus should transfer to him.

I am disappointed with the Minister of State's reply. This is a small point, but it is a likely injustice. I put it to the Minister of State and ask him to respond. It means that the awkward employer can force the employee into all the paraphernalia of delay and appeal because of his awkwardness. If I am forced to choose between putting an onus upon an employer—whose only pain is that he has to pay until his part in the case is vindicated by an appeal tribunal—and a sick person who is kept without sick pay until the appeal is heard, I err on the side of the sick person whose only source of income that is. I believe that the Minister of State would be well advised, even now, to reconsider that point.

Mr. Rossi

I do not wish to detain the House on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman is clearly extremely troubled by it. He has expressed great sympathy for the employee, but I should like him to bear in mind that we are trying to maintain a fair balance between two parties—the employer and the employee.

The amendment would effectively stop a genuine employer saying "I doubt your incapacity. If you wish to challenge my decision, you had better refer the matter to the statutory authorities." We may be dealing with a small employer who does not have his own facilities for obtaining a second medical explanation. If he is being played up by somebody who has a fairly poor record, in fairness, he must resolve the matter one way or another.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Rossi

He will refer the matter to the statutory authorities. They will weigh up all the available evidence, including any doctor's statement that there might be, and ask for further evidence, such as a medical examination by the Department's own doctor.

I assure hon. Members that most employers will accept doctors' statements in virtually every case, unless they have good reason for doubting incapacity. In those circumstances, if an employer refuses payment, the question will have to be determined by the insurance officer. If there is no evidence other than the doctor's statement, no doubt the insurance officer will invariably accept incapacity. The onus, therefore, is already on the employer to provide evidence to substantiate the doubt that has been created in his mind, and the insurance officer will consider it. It is essential to avoid a situation in which an employer is compelled to pay sick pay when he has doubts about an employee's incapacity. The balance of proof should lie equally on both parties. The amendment pushes the onus too far towards the employer. The upshot would be increased costs and administration, which would fall mainly on small employers. I believe that the clause, as it stands, is fair to both parties.

Mr. Skinner

In the 1960s I represented many miners and, indeed, other workers on local and medical appeal tribunals.

I can see a fair old muddle coming about as a result of the proposal. At present the employee gets a medical certificate from the doctor. If he wishes, the doctor can refer the man to the regional medical officer. He puts on the certificate "Sent to RMO". Not many people who get the certificate know what "RMO" means, but that is what the doctor does. On the one hand, he gives the man his certificate, but, on the other, he says, "I have some doubt about this fellow". The insurance officer sees the remark, and if the man has not already gone back to work, sends him to the RMO. The result is that the insurance officer intervenes and the regional medical officer has the man examined. They can determine whether he is fit to work. That is the present system.

I can foresee a certain situation arising within the National Coal Board, although it could apply to other employers. Indeed, the situation in the private sector will be even more chaotic. However, I shall speak for my industry. Some people who work for the NCB do not do everything that the manager tells them to do. Indeed, if they did everything that they were told, no coal would come out of the pits. Much of the coal that is mined is the result of miners turning a blind eye to some of the provisions. If they did not do so, no coal would be mined.

7.45 pm

After a series of altercations with the NCB, via the manager, under-manager or one of the deputies, a man can find himself on the black list. If it is suggested that an employee is going to the doctor and—to put it crudely—swinging the lead, the doctor, insurance officer, regional medical officer, possibly the doctor again and, finally, the local appeal tribunal have to decide the issue. However, the employer can now decide that he will put the boot in. With 4 million people out of work and 300 to 400 people in each community clamouring for jobs, the employer, who will have the whip hand, may decide to stop the man's sick pay.

As the Minister has said, the person concerned will have the opportunity to go to the local appeal tribunal, which will be similar to those set up now. I have reason to believe that the Minister is thinking of dismantling many tribunals, because they will not be used as much. I have been led to believe that many civil servants will get the sack and will also be clamouring for jobs. If the employer decides to use the whip hand against someone who is genuinely sick or injured, more and more local appeal tribunals will have to be used. People will imagine that it is "even Stevens" when the man or woman who is sick or injured goes to the doctor and subsequently to the local appeals tribunal. That is not so.

The Minister probably knows that the number of sickness benefit claimants who succeed at local appeal tribunals is lower than the number of those who succeed in appeals over industrial injury benefit. Overall, less than 30 per cent. of claimants succeed in sickness benefit cases. It is true that as a result of our experience, and because we collated all the commission's decisions, we managed to achieve a higher percentage for miners. However, the overall figure is less than 30 per cent.

Nevertheless people will have to go to the local appeal tribunal. To some extent, the miners have been loth to make representations to the local appeal tribunal about sickness benefit, but that state of affairs will change. That is why the amendment is important. The onus is thrown on to the medical authorities. It has always been regarded that the medical certificate carries the most weight. That does not mean that it always carries weight. However, in 95 per cent. of cases that certificate means that the applicant will receive his sick pay or industrial injury benefit. That is the important point.

The Government, who who talk about freedom, are swinging the pendulum away from that so-called independent system, which comprises the doctor, the insurance officer, and the regional health officer, and towards the Government's friends, the bosses. With unemployment raging as it is, I can imagine that an employer will have a strong card to play against anyone prepared to fight for the right wages and conditions at the place of work who happens to be sick or injured.

I come from an industry in which the sickness and injury rate is high compared with many others. In recent years, absenteeism has been reduced. I understand that it is at its lowest level since the Second World War. Nevertheless, absence from work is still extremely common as fingers and legs are often chopped off and slipped discs are commonplace. Those and many others are common injuries in the mining industry, so a large number of people working for the National Coal Board will be subjected to the harsh treatment that the Government propose.

The Minister should think again about shifting responsibility for deciding whether a man or woman is sick or injured to the employer. Employers do not have the necessary apparatus, expertise or skill to exercise that responsibility. Responsibility should be returned to the independent sector—the doctor, the insurance officer and the regional medical officer. That would give men and women two chances to appear before a medical authority. They will have the chance to go to their own GP and then to the regional medical officer if there is a challenge by the insurance officer. They will have two chances to appear before the medical people who, by and large, should decide such cases.

As the Minister knows, in many instances the insurance officer knows that, based on the commissioners' decisions, people's benefit may be stopped immediately. I certainly know of such cases because people come to my surgery or contact me during parliamentary business and I make representations on their behalf.

The Government are now shifting the onus from the medical profession and handing it over to the employers. I am not prepared to see that happen. That is what the legislation proposes and that is why we shall divide the House on this amendment.

Mr. Rossi

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has spoken with great feeling. That is understandable and one respects his feelings on this matter, but I think that he has got it slightly wrong. [Interruption.] Perhaps he will bear with me. I listened to him carefully. Perhaps he will do the same for me.

Under the present system, the national insurance scheme does not automatically accept a doctor's statement.

Mr. Skinner

I said that.

Mr. Rossi

A doctor's statement can be challenged. The Government are not proposing any change. It is the amendment that proposes change. The amendment, which I invite the House to reject, suggests that medical or doctors' statements cannot be challenged.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

It does not say that at all.

Mr. Rossi

The amendment puts an unacceptable burden of proof on the employer.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

It does not.

Mr. Rossi

The hon. Member for Bolsover is deeply concerned that there are a large number of villainous employers who will take advantage.

Mr. Skinner

Of course there are.

Mr. Rossi

There are both villainous and good employers, and there are good and not-so-good employees. They are all human beings with human frailties. One must try to maintain a fair balance between the interests.

I do not think that one can contemplate a situation of the type which the hon. Member from Bolsover seems to contemplate. I remind him that the employer will be entitled to deduct from his payments to the Inland Revenue on a 100 per cent. basis whatever amount he pays out each week in sick pay to his employees. There would therefore be little cause for an employer to behave as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because he will get back from the State all the money that he pays to his employee in sick pay.

Mr. Skinner

That is precisely the point that I wish to put to the Minister, based on my experience with the National Coal Board in representing men's claims for industrial injury benefit. The Minister suggests that the employer has nothing to lose as he recoups the money that he pays in sick pay. That is already true of industrial injury benefit. It does not cost the National Coal Board or any other employer anything if a man or woman is injured at his or her place of work. Yet I can cite hundreds of cases, based on years of experience representing miners, in which the National Coal Board refused to accept that a person had been injured. As a result, people lost industrial injury benefit and could claim only sickness benefit. It had no financial significance to the NCB or any other employer, but the employer challenged the case because it had the opportunity to put the boot in. There are people like that.

I do not suggest that that is the case throughout the NCB, but there are people who must make those decisions. They must decide whether to pay out money and whether to fill in the correct forms to enable the people concerned to receive benefit. Even though employers do what is necessary for their employees to receive industrial injury benefit now, there is no reason to suppose that they will not in future put the boot in with regard to decisions on sickness benefit, even though they can recoup the money.

Mr. Rossi

The hon. Member for Bolsover also said a few moments ago, unless I misheard him, that the system works fairly in 95 per cent. of cases.

Mr. Skinner

In respect of the insurance officer it does.

Mr. Rossi

The hon. Member for Bolsover said that if there was a challenge the employee then went to the insurance officer and the insurance doctor. That is exactly what is proposed. If the employer does not accept the doctor's statement that the employee shows him, the employee will be entitled to go immediately to the insurance officer and say "I have a perfectly good medical statement here, and my employer refuses to accept it and give me sick pay". Unless the employer can then show good cause, the insurance officer will tell the employee that he is entitled to receive sick pay. If there is doubt, and the employer shows good cause because of a history of what may or may not amount to what the hon. Member for Bolsover called "swinging the lead", the insurance officer will refer the matter to the departmental doctor.

That is very much the way in which the system now works. The Government intend no change in that. The Government's argument, in resisting the amendment, is that the employer cannot be denied the right to challenge a piece of paper signed by a doctor in circumstances where the employer feels that there is a history that entitles him to do so.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Rossi

I shall give way in a moment.

According to the advice that I have received, the amendment would impose an unfair burden on the employer and he would not be able to challenge the matter in the circumstances that I have described. The Government want to ensure that there is a perfect balance between the two parties concerned. I shall finish there. I have said all that I wish to say on the matter.

Mr. John

I am amazed that the Minister has said all that he has to say. Perhaps he said all that he had to say some time ago but had just not stopped speaking.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

The Minister was not prepared to give way. I am tempted to force a vote and take up 15 minutes to show him that it pays to give way. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) impress upon the Minister that the best thing for him to do is to meet our point in the House of Lords? We require the Bill to be drafted so that the person who produces a medical certificate is entitled to receive the benefit of that medical certificate rather than have an employer say "I am not taking any notice of it. I know best."

8 pm

Mr. John

It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has got through to the Minister where I have failed. I thought that what he said was the burden of my two speeches so far. Obviously the Minister has heard what my hon. Friend has said. I do not wish to press the matter to a Division, but the Minister should consider his position before the Bill reaches another place so that we may have some definition.

The Minister says that the position is not really being changed because the medical certificate remains the same. The system is being radically changed, however, because at present the paying authority is the insurance system and national insurance officers whereas in future the employer will be the paying authority and the person who can take the view that the person is not incapable of work.

Mr. Skinner

The key to the matter is this. The insurance officer, although he is not a medical man, is privy to all the commission's decisions over the years. In a sickness benefit case, he is likely to have a list covering three or four years showing the number of absences and so on. He can translate and interpret the facts of the person's case history in reaching his decision, so there is some background. The opposite will be true of the new scheme. The onus will be transferred from the insurance officer—although not from the doctor, who remains part of the system—to a person at the place of work who is not privy to the whole bundle of commission decisions and test cases. Moreover, on many occasions the employer's decision will be based simply on the wish to put the boot in. That is the difference.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

Order. This is Report stage. We are not in Committee, so hon. Members should make only one speech each.

Mr. Skinner

Yes, Mr. Weatherill. That is why I made an intervention.

Mr. John

My hon. Friend's comments are correct. Unfortunately—I say this with great regret—the large body of precedent that has grown up within the national insurance system is totally unavailable to the majority of claimants, which is why a great deal of dissatisfaction occurs. If the Minister will intervene to say that he will keep an open mind and reconsider the position, we need not press the matter.

Mr. Rossi

I shall not make another speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you have said that I must not. I merely intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John).

Of course I shall take note of all that has been said. I do not believe that the amendment is right in the form in which it is framed. It shifts the burden too stongly in one direction. I am trying to ensure that a fair balance is maintained between the parties. Nevertheless, misgivings have been expressed. I will study the record very carefully and see whether it is possible to accommodate those views in any way. I make clear that I say that without any commitment whatever, but I will see whether it is possible to meet the reservations that have been expressed.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has said that he does not wish to press the amendment to a Division. I do not seek to take advantage of that by sitting tight and saying nothing further. I am trying to be as forthcoming as I possibly can.

Mr. John

The Minister's remarks will obviously be read by those who will be debating these matters in another place, where fortunately, there are members who have the relevant experience relating to industrial accidents and illness that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsolver (Mr. Skinner) has brought to our debate.

On the basis of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Skinner

We should vote on it. It should not be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In that case, I must put the Question.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 131.

Division No. 97]	[8.5 pm
AYES
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)	Newens, Stanley
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)	Parry, Robert
Dixon, Donald	Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Field, Frank	Welsh, Michael
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Hooley, Frank	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lamond, James	Mr. Bob Cryer and
Mikardo, Ian	Mr. Dennis Skinner.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Aspinwall, Jack	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)	Knight, Mrs Jill
Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)	Knox, David
Bendall, Vivian	Lawrence, Ivan
Benyon, Thomas(A'don)	Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Berry, Hon Anthony	LeMarchant, Spencer
Bevan, David Gilroy	Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)
Blaker, Peter	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Loveridge, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Lyell, Nicholas
Bright, Graham	Macfarlane, Neil
Brinton, Tim	MacGregor, John
Brooke, Hon Peter	Major, John
Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)	Marlow, Antony
Browne, John(Winchester)	Mather, Carol
Buck, Antony	Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Budgen, Nick	Mawby, Ray
Butcher, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Mellor, David
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)	Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Clegg, Sir Walter	Moate, Roger
Cope, John	Montgomery, Fergus
Cranborne, Viscount	Moore, John
Dover, Denshore	Morgan, Geraint
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)	Murphy, Christopher
Dykes, Hugh	Myles, David
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Needham, Richard
Eggar, Tim	Nelson, Anthony
Elliott, Sir William	Neubert, Michael
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Newton, Tony
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles	Normanton, Tom
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Onslow, Cranley
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Goodlad, Alastair	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Gow, Ian	Patten, Christopher(Bath)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Percival, Sir Ian
Gray, Hamish	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Greenway, Harry	Proctor, K. Harvey
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)	Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Hampson, Dr Keith	Rhodes James, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan	Rossi, Hugh
Hawksley, Warren	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Heddle, John	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)	Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Hordern, Peter	Shelton, William(Streatham)

Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)	Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Sims, Roger	Trippier, David
Speller, Tony	Viggers, Peter
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Waddington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Squire, Robin	Waller, Gary
Stainton, Keith	Watson, John
Stanbrook, Ivor	Wells, Bowen
Stanley, John	Wheeler, John
Stevens, Martin	Wickenden, Keith
Stradling Thomas, J.	Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Wolfson, Mark
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter	Tellers for the Noes:
Thompson, Donald	Mr. John Selwyn Gummer and
Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)	Mr. Ian Lang.
Townend, John(Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.