§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Terry DavisI was explaining that it is disturbing when a psychiatrist refuses to discuss a patient with an approved social worker who has been appointed by a local social services authority specifically to work at the hospital concerned. There have been such cases in the West Midlands. I consider that regulations are necessary. I appreciate that the Minister will say that we can rely on good practice and that good and responsible psychiatrists will consult. Unfortunately, I am not persuaded that all psychiatrists follow what is good practice. It is the Opposition's opinion that regulations are necessary to ensure that consultation takes place.
Amendment No. 96, which I tabled, has been supported by several of my hon. Friends. Its wording is identical to that of an amendment which was tabled in Committee on which there was a tied vote. It is an extremely important amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it. It relates to instances where a court makes an order for an offender to be remitted to hospital instead of prison. This is an issue that we discussed when considering new clause 3. The Minister has gone a long way towards meeting our suggestions about the procedure to be followed in finding a suitable hospital for someone to be admitted to from a court. There is, however, one gap. There should be consultations with the staff at the hospital. This is of great concern to the trade unions which represent hospital staff.
There is a feeling that there has been a tendency in the past for courts and psychiatrists to decide whether someone should be admitted to a particular hospital without any reference to the views of the other professions in the hospital. Often offenders are sent to a secure unit or a secure hospital. Security is not limited to locks and keys or bars and windows. It consists also of staffing arrangements in hospitals. It is necessary for there to be a higher ratio of staff to patients if the necessary security is to be achieved. There is a strong feeling among hospital staff that their views are not being taken into account in determining staffing arrangements. As I said in Committee, there was one notorious case which concerned the transfer of a man called John Ashingdane from a special hospital to an ordinary hospital. The transfer became a cause celebre because the staff at the ordinary hospital would not co-operate with the transfer. The reason behind their refusal lay, as they saw it, in an unwillingness to discuss with them the staffing arrangements that should apply. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, and I am not expressing an opinion. I am anxious to ensure that there is consultation with the nurses and staff at a hospital before someone is committed to it under a court order.
I do not believe that the consultation that I am urging will impose an unnecessary obligation on psychiatrists, or an obligation which will he resented by psychiatrists who believe in consulting the staff and in a team approach. 110 These are psychiatrists who believe that other members of the team should be consulted about the arrangements to apply in a hospital.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeIn Committee, the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), who moved the new clause, pressed the need for multidisciplinary cooperation and consultation in the treatment of patients in mental hospitals. I am glad to say that he made considerable progress in pushing that cause in Committee. He met no resistance front either side of the Committee. Everyone in the Committee agreed—and the opinion is shared by all those who are following the best modern practice in the c are of the mentally ill outside—that it is good practice for the professional team caring for a patient to work together in close consultation and co-operation.
The result was that, by the time the Bill emerged from Committee, the Government had already written in more provisions requiring multidisciplinary co-operation and consultation. The only difference that emerged between the Government and some members of the Committee, as the debate continued, was the extent to which good practice and multidisciplinary working could be written into the law to advantage. That remains the difference between us on some of the amendments that have been selected tonight, but it is the only difference. There is no denial that it is good to have the closest co-operation by all the professions involved in dealing with the patient in a mental hospital.
I said that we all agreed in principle. I can reinforce that by accepting some, but by no means all, of the further suggestions that have been made in the debate. Unfortunately, amendment No. 105 is one of those that I cannot recommend the House to accept. It deals not with multidisciplinary working on the part of the treatment team inside a hospital but with the situation that arises under section 26 of the principal Act when an application is being made for admission to a hospital for treatment. If passed, it would require the doctors making the two medical recommendations required to support an application for admission for treatment to consult those who would treat the patient, if he were admitted, about his treatment. I believe that practical problems would arise if we were to put the requirement for multidisciplinary consultation with the people likely to be involved in the treatment in hospital on the people considering supporting an application for admission for treatment.
The hon. Member for Preston, South anticipated one of my arguments. He realised that I would say that, when the admission of a patient to hospital was considered, it would be difficult to identify the medical practitioner who would be in charge of the.. patient if he were admitted. The hon. Gentleman said that individual skill may be one of the reasons for the application being made but that someone may not have an individual doctor in mind when considering applying for the admission for treatment of a patient. The doctors supporting the application identify symptoms of mental illness in an individual that satisfy the requirements under the Act. They realise that he needs care and treatment and apply for his admission to a hospital wherein there may be a number of people with the requisite skills and the right regime from which they believe that the patient may benefit. To try to identify the individual medical practitioner at that stage would be difficult.
It would be more difficult to speculate in every case about which other professional staff in the hospital might 111 be involved in the patient's care. The difficulties of making sure in a particular case that the doctors have complied with the requirements suggested in amendment No. 106 would lead to a risk of delay. There are a few section 26 applications in which two doctors are required to be of the opinion that they should support the application. Suffering would be caused to the patient if there were excessive impositions, causing delay in admission to the hospital.
The root of amendment No. 105 is a confusion between the right procedures before someone is admitted to hospital, on the one hand, and the way in which he should be treated once inside the hospital, on the other. Admission procedure must be on the application of the social worker or the nearest relative, with two medical recommendations to support the application. Once the application is accepted by the hospital managers, and the patient is admitted, he is the responsibility of the hospital management and it is for the team of professionals in the hospital to draw up a programme of care and treatment.
The responsible medical officer will have the care of his patient. If he follows good practice he will consult the other professionals, and they may come to the view either that the admission was a mistake or, now that they see the patient for a little longer, he should not be detained. If they come to that multi-disciplinary decision, there is nothing to stop them discharging the patient. The doctor and those with whom he works are not obliged to detain a patient if they decide there is no cause to do so—for instance, because he will not benefit from the treatment.
Amendment No. 105 is not acceptable. Section 26 admissions are not an area to which we can extend a statutory requirement for multi-disciplinary consultation.
I accept amendment No. 106, although there is a printing error: "(1A)" should be "(1)". I am grateful to the hon. Member for Preston, South for spotting in the Bill another occasion when a statutory report is called for and a statutory requirement for multi-disciplinary consultation is appropriate. The amendment affects clause 10 and deals with the occasions when a patient is being reclassified.
Government amendment No. 11 meets a commitment given in Committee to the hon. Member for Preston, South. It would require consultation about one of the most important procedures that affect a detained patient—when the point comes to seek authority to renew detention. It provides that the responsible medical officer must, before making a report that detention should be renewed,
consult one or more other persons who have been professionally concerned with the patient's medical treatment.Government amendment No. 27 also honours a commitment that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave during a long debate on consent to treatment on the last day in Committee. It puts into clause 41 the multidisciplinary aspect requiring an independent psychiatrist to consult a nurse or other health professional who has been caring for the patient. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) anticipated that we would be moving the amendment in an earlier debate. Having asked him to withdraw his amendment in Committee and having given an undertaking, the Government have tabled an amendment that is word for word the same, but it has been put in another place in the Bill.
§ Mr. Terry DavisI had noted that it was to be in a different place. Nevertheless, I am delighted.
§ Mr. ClarkeThe new clause and amendments deal with multi-disciplinary consultation when offender patients are being admitted to hospital. New clause 11 and amendment No. 96 bear on section 60 an 65 orders being made or considered by courts that have offenders before them. The matter was debated in Committee and exactly the same point was raised in both cases.
New clause 11 covers more ground than amendment No. 96. In part, one of the provisions of new clause 11 is unnecessary as it is already provided for by clause 18(5). That provides that the medical practitioner who will be in charge of the patient's treatment, or someone representing the hospital managers, should be one of the two medical witnesses giving evidence to a court when a hospital order is being considered. The evidence on which the court acts must come from someone who is prepared to say that he will be responsible for the patient, or from someone acting on behalf of the hospital managers. The Government cannot advise the House to accept either new clause 11 or amendment No. 96. Both require that consultation with other professionals in the hospital should be embarked upon as a statutory requirement before evidence is given by the medical witnesses and the court makes its decision.
10.15 pm
The hon. Member for Stechford said that that requirement supported his previous remarks about new clause 3. I believe that it goes in the opposite direction. When we debated new clause 3, the House agreed that it was desirable that when someone who appeared before a court needed treatment rather than punishment, help should be given to the court to ensure that there was the minimum difficulty in placing him in the right hospital. If a statutory requirement for multidisciplinary consultation is brought into such cases before the medical evidence is given and the court reaches its decision, it will raise a further statutory hurdle in the way of placing offender patients in hospitals. It might even prevent a patient from being accepted. In most cases, the doctors who give written evidence to the courts, or who attend the courts to support a section 65 order, will have consulted other professionals in the hospital. I am prepared to concede that in most cases that would be good practice. Nevertheless, a statutory provision such as that provided in the amendments would so load matters that it is possible that, even if the hospital managers wished on the advice of the consultant to admit a patient from the court, other groups of staff might be encouraged to object, even if only in a minority of cases, which would be outside the best interests of the patient, and would conflict with medical evidence.
We should not lay a statutory provision upon doctors that might encourage people to deter them from accepting offenders into hospitals when they think that they might benefit from the treatment. It might also be an attempt to influence the powers of the court in an undesirable manner. If, on medical evidence, a court decides that an order should be made, the House should not write in statutory provisions that might be a deterrent.
I turn to Government amendment No. 110, which sits alongside amendment No. 48 tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt). I assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no collusion between myself and the hon. Member for Stechford in our response to his 113 contribution. The hon. Member for Stechford has studied the Bill and, I am glad to say, has reached the conclusion that amendment No. 110 amounts to the same thing as amendment No. 48. I assure the hon. Member for Croyden, North-West that that was the intention. I am disposed to accept the principle of amendment No. 48, and am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling it.
I and those who drafted the amendments believe that amendment No. 110 is a better and simpler way of achieving the same object.
Amendment No. 110 seeks to delete all the words on page 35, line 9, from the word "as" to the end of line 11. The subsection would then read:
Before preparing the code or making any alteration in it the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies as appear to him to be concerned.The practical difference is that it would no longer be confined to the medical profession and members of other professions. The Secretary of State would then be able to consult voluntary bodies and other groups, many of which have valid interests and a contribution to make but are not professionally qualified. That was the only purpose of amendment No. 110, and it would achieve the same effect as amendment No. 48.I accept that this still leaves the Secretary of State some discretion. He must decide that such organisations
appear to him to be concerned".However, those words would still survive even if amendment No. 48 were accepted. It would still leave the Secretary of State some discretion. Having read what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West proposed, the Government decided that it would be neater to widen the scope of the clause. I believe that we have achieved that object in amendment No. 110.Amendment No. 69 creates controversy, because the Government are proposing to remove clause 60 from the Bill. As the hon. Member for Stechford said, we are not undertaking a complete volte-face compared with our position in Committee. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West did not serve on the Committee, but those who did will recall that a procedural error led to clause 60 being added. No Conservative Member voted for it, although, to be fair, no one voted against it.
That procedural error now enables us to debate the merits of clause 60. The issue between us, as the hon. Member for Stechford said, is not whether there should be multi-disciplinary consultation, which has been written into the Bill in several more places, but whether it would be helpful to make regulations on multi-disciplinary consultation, particularly along the tight lines prescribed by clause 60. The regulations proposed in that clause prescribe procedures for the conduct of consultations and require written records of consultations to be kept in a particular form.
§ Mr. EnnalsAs inadvertently—we believe successfully—this clause was written into the Bill, has the Minister received any representations from professional bodies to the effect that it is an inappropriate clause? Is he now responding to those representations, or is he merely correcting a slight procedural error?
§ Mr. ClarkeI cannot think of any representations from outside bodies. I am merely setting out the argument which I believe should have prevailed in Committee but which did not because of an error. I hope that it will now commend itself to the House as a whole.
114 I shall not emphasise how much we have already written multi-disciplinary consultation into the 13ill. We are also establishing the Mental Health Act Commission as a multi-disciplinary body. I remind the House that we are proposing a code of practice to be drawn up by the commission for the guidance of medical practitioners and members of other professions about medical treatment and admission procedures. The code will give guidance on consultation and teamwork. A code is flexible and can be altered in the light of experience. A code can allow for discretion in special local circumstances. If, as we all expect, the Mental Health Act Commission agrees with hon. Members that multi-disciplinary working is a good thing, that can b reflected in the code, which can be modified and adjusted to meet changing circumstances in practice in the way that I have described
I suggest that the code of practice is a much better way forward than clause 60 because it will be about relationships and attitudes which are essential for good multi-disciplinary working. Although as a lawyer I believe that the law can do many things, I do not believe that legislating for good relationships and the right attitudes necessarily achieves what one wants. The law cannot make professionals listen to each other and co-operate
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will address us on the subject of Wexham Park hospital. The complete breakdown of relationships between medical and nursing teams there underlines the point that legislation cannot create good practice. If professionals will not listen to each other and work together, no amount of lawmaking or statutory requirements will make them do so successfully. Clause 60 will be even less likely to be successful than other attempts that have been made in the past.
Under the clause the Secretary of State will be required to make regulations even if, upon consultation, professional bodies said that they would prefer not to have them. It does not give the multi-disciplinary team any discretion to decide their own form of consultation and joint decision-making. While the regulations remain in each hospital they will have to do as the Secretary of Stale says. They would even have to write out their opinions in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State. Such a legislative straitjacket will not create the right relation ships between professionals in the team to produce the multi-disciplinary working that we all want. I am confirmed in that view having been reminded, following the intervention of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), that the Royal College of Psychiatrists protested about clause 60.
I have covered each of the individual amendments with some care. I remind the House that the Government are accepting some and moving others which honour undertakings given in Committee. That shows the Government's commitment to the good practice of multidisciplinary working in appropriate cases. I hope that the House will accept the practical. limitations upon that so far as this statute is concerned.
§ Mr. DavisWe should not allow one of the Minister's statements to pass unchallenged. I do not accept that there is any inconsistency between amendment No. 96 and new, clause 3.
New clause 3, which I welcome, provides that if a court is considering an order to send someone from the court to a hospital, the court can ask the regional health authority 115 to furnish the court with the information that it needs about which hospital or hospitals could be appropriate. The regional health authority must comply with that request. That is a great step forward which we should welcome this afternoon.
However, it will still be necessary under the Bill and the Mental Health Act 1959 for either the responsible medical officer at the hospital or a representative of the managers of the hospital to come to the court in order to satisfy it that proper arrangements have been made at the hospital for a patient's admission. That will still apply. Amendment No. 96 seeks to ensure that, before either the responsible medical officer or a representative of the hospital managers goes to the court in order to satisfy it about those arrangements, there shall be consultations with the other staff at the hospital. That is not interfering with the court's power to make an order; it is simply ensuring that there is consultation between the psychiatrist or the hospital managers with the staff. The amendment specifies hospital managers. However, these matters are involved and everybody would be concerned—the psychiatrist, perhaps the administrator and the representatives of the nursing profession in particular. That is very important.
In Committee I described at length the proceedings in a court case involving a young woman named Julie. I read extracts from a transcript of the court hearings to the Committee. The transcript had been sent to me by the solicitors representing Julie at the express request of the judge, who was exasperated by the behaviour of a series of psychiatrists who had explained why Julie could not be admitted to their hospitals. At least one of the psychiatrists said that he would not want to admit her to his hospital because he was not responsible and because it involved the hospital staff, who he thought would object.
10.30 pm
The psychiatrist had not—if I understand the transcript correctly—taken the trouble to consult the staff but had stated in court that he was not the boss of the hospital any longer and that it depended on the staff. He used the staff as an excuse for not admitting her. There is a danger that psychiatrists will take shelter behind such excuses. I emphasise that, despite new clause 3, it will still be necessary for the court to be satisfied about the arrangements at hospitals. There will be a desire to interview someone in court or to have written evidence from someone at the hospital to say that proper arrangements can be made for the patient at the hospital. We ask that not only should the responsible medical officer be consulted by the hospital managers and, no doubt, by the regional health authority, but that the other professional staff at the hospital should be consulted before a court order is made.
There is no conflict between amendment No. 96 and new clause 3. It will still be necessary—even if we do not pass amendment No. 96—for the courts to receive evidence from psychiatrists or hospital managers. We want to ensure that other professions are also involved. In the debate on new clause 3 I think that it was the Minister for Health who said that members of professions could not be compelled to treat a patient against their will—that is that they could not be compelled against their will to treat a patient.
116 It is important to consult the members of those other professions about the arrangements that are to made for patients who are often difficult. Frequently those difficulties will be magnified in the minds of the staff unless they are properly consulted beforehand. It is essential to ensure that everyone is consulted and involved before a decision is taken about a patient being admitted to a hospital. That is all we ask. We are not trying to interfere with the court's power, but it is important that the court should have evidence not only from the psychiatrist and from hospital managers but on behalf of the other staff in the hospital. For that reason, we shall press amendment No. 96 to a Division unless I have succeeded in persuading the Minister.
§ Mr. PittBy leave of the House, I intend to prove that occasionally hon. Members are swayed by debate rather than by preconceived ideas. I am persuaded by the Minister's eloquence in relation to amendment No. 110 and therefore, I give notice that I shall beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Mr. Stan ThorneThe Minister's reply was somewhat like the curate's egg. The acceptance of amendment No. 106 is welcome, but I have not been so fortunate in relation to amendment No. 105. I was concerned by the Minister's reference to amendment No. 69 which, he says, arises from a procedural error in Committee. That implies that the Chairman of the Committee was in some way at fault, since he controls the procedure of the Committee. However, it would be more honest of the Minister to say that he and his colleagues were asleep when the Chairman put the provision to the Committee for its agreement.
I must mention the Minister's reference to law-making in response to my arguments for professional consultation. He suggests—I am almost quoting his words—that lawmaking will not improve consultations between those involved in the hospitals in the circumstances that I have described. Will the Minister convey that theory to the Secretary of State for Employment, because if he is arguing that law-making will not enable people to consult at work and protect, in this case the interests of patients, how does he expect law-making by the Secretary of State for Employment to improve our industrial relations? Perhaps the Minister will have a word with the right hon. Gentleman, if he is not cycling somewhere at the time, to make that point.
I feel that it is necessary to force new clause 11 to a Division, and I hope that hon. Members of all the opposition parties will find themselves able to support it.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 138.
118| Divison No. 305] | [10.40 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ashton, Joe | Davis, Terry(B'ham, Stechf'd) |
| Atkinson, N.(H'gey,) | Dean, Joseph(Leeds West) |
| Beith, A. J. | Dixon, Donald |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Dormand, Jack |
| Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N) | Douglas, Dick |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Duffy, A. E. P. |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Dunnett, Jack |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S) | Eastham, Ken |
| Cowans, Harry | Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're) |
| Craigen, J. M.(G'gow, M'hill) | Ennals, Rt Hon David |
| Cryer, Bob | Evans, loan(Aberdare) |
| Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n) | Evans, John(Newton) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Forrester, John |
| Davidson, Arthur | Foster, Derek |
| Davis, Clinton(Hackney C) | Foulkes, George |
| Foster, Derek | Penhaligon, David |
| Foulkes, George | Pitt, William Henry |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Powell, Raymond(Ogmore) |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Price, C.(Lewisham W) |
| Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife) | Ross, Ernest(Dundee West) |
| Hardy, Peter | Sever, John |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Skinner, Dennis |
| Homewood, William | Spearing, Nigel |
| Hooley, Frank | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Howells, Geraint | Stoddart, David |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Stott, Roger |
| Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N) | Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth) |
| Johnston, Russell(Inverness) | Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen) |
| Jones, Barry(East Flint) | Thorne, Stan(Preston South) |
| Leighton, Ronald | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
| Litherland, Robert | Watkins, David |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Weetch, Ken |
| McCartney, Hugh | Welsh, Michael |
| McKay, Allen(Penistone) | White, Frank R. |
| McWilliam, John | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole) | Winnick, David |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Milian, Rt Hon Bruce | Wright, Sheila |
| Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe) | Young, David(Bolton E) |
| Morris, Rt Hon C.(O'shaw) | |
| Morton, George | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Palmer, Arthur | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Pavitt, Laurie | Mr. Frank Haynes. |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Chalker, Mrs. Lynda |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Chapman, Sdney |
| Ancram, Michael | Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe) |
| Atkinson, David(B'm'th,E) | Cockeram, Eric |
| Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset) | Cope, John |
| Bendall, Vivian | Cormack, Patrick |
| Benyon, Thomas(A'don) | Costain, Sir Albert |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Best, Keith | Crouch, David |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Blackburn, John | Dover, Denshore |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dunn, Robert(Dartford) |
| Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W) | Fairgrieve, Sir Russell |
| Bright, Graham | Faith, Mrs Sheila |
| Brinton, Tim | Finsberg, Geoffrey |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Gardiner, George(Reigate) |
| Budgen, Nick | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Gppdhew, Sir Victor |
| Carlisle, John(Luton West) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Gow, Ian | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Greenway, Harry | Percival, Sir Ian |
| Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Price, Sir David(Eastleigh) |
| Grist, Ian | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Grylls, Michael | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Hamilton, Hon A. | Renton, Tim |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Heddle, John | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Henderson, Barry | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey |
| Hill, James | Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW) |
| Hooson, Tom | Rossi, Hugh |
| Hunt, David(Wirral) | Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R. |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Petrick | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Jessel, Toby | St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Shaw, Giles(Pudsey) |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb') |
| Knight, Mrs Jill | Shepherd, Colin(Hereford) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Sims, Roger |
| Lester, Jim(Beeston) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Lloyd, Peter(Fareham) | Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield) |
| Loveridge, John | Speed, Keith |
| Luce, Richard | Speller, Tony |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Spicer, Jim(West Dorset) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Spicer, Michael(S Worcs) |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| MacKay, John(Argyll) | Stevens, Martin |
| Macmillan, Rt Hon M. | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury) | Taylor, Teddy(S'end E) |
| Madel, David | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Major, John | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Marlow, Antony | Thompson, Donald |
| Mather, Carol | Thorne, Neil(IIford South) |
| Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Townend, John(Bridlington) |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Trippier, David |
| Mellor, David | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Viggers, Peter |
| Mills, lain(Meriden) | Waddington, David |
| Moate, Roger | Waller, Gary |
| Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes) | Watson, John |
| Murphy, Christopher | Wells, Bowen |
| Neale, Gerrard | Wells, John(Maidstone) |
| Needham, Richard | Wheeler, John |
| Neubert, Michael | Wickenden, Keith |
| Newton, Tony | Wolfson, Mark |
| Osborn, John | |
| Page, John(Harrow, West) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Page, Richard(SW Herts) | Mr. Ian Lang and |
| Parris, Matthew | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones. |
§ Question accordingly negatived