§ .—(1) Where a patient is given treatment in accordance with section 41(2) or 42(3)(b)above a report on the treatment and the patient's condition shall be given by the responsible medical officer to the Secretary of State—
- (a)on the next occasion on which the responsible medical officer furnishes a report in respect of the patient under section 43(3) of the principal Act (renewal of authority for detention); and
- (b)at any other time if so required by the Secretary of State.
§ (2) In relation to a patient who is subject to a restriction order or restriction direction subsection (1) above shall have effect as if paragraph(a)required the report to be made—
- (a)in the case of treatment in the period of six months beginning with the date of the order of direction, at the end of that period;
- (b)in the case of treatment at any subsequent time, on the next occasion on which the responsible medical officer makes a report in respect of the patient under section 27(3) above.
§ (3) The Secretary of State may at any time give a notice to the responsible medical officer directing that, subject to section 45 below, a certificate given in respect of a patient under section 41(2) or 42(3)(b)above shall not apply to treatment given to him after a date specified in the notice and sections 41 and 42 above shall then apply to any such treatment as if that certificate had not been given.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
(a)to new clause 6, subsection (1), leave out paragraph(b)and insert—
'on the expiration of six months from the report furnished under Subsection (a) above and'.
No. 22, in clause 40, page 29, line 29 at end add
'and shall be valid for a limited period, which shall be specified in each case'.
No. 29, in clause 42, page 30, line 25, at end insert
'or since the date when a certificate was last issued under this section'.
Government amendments Nos. 41 and 60. I understand that there is a misprint in amendment(a)to new clause 6 and that the word "paragraph" should not be present.
§ Mr. Clarke
Once we reach this new clause we touch for the first time this evening on one of the most important parts of the Bill, part VI, which is, I believe, a welcome codification of the law on consent for treatment of detained patients. This has always been one of the most difficult areas for those interested in the subject. The question arises how far it is right to give treatment against their will to patients who are also detained against their will in mental hospitals.
In ordinary medical treatment, the patient is given treatment only when he consents to it. In the case of the mentally ill, there are occasions when patients are so ill that they lack proper insight into their own condition and possible remedies to it. For reasons connected with, and caused by, their own illness, they refuse to consent to treatment from which they would benefit. It is plainly wrong if medical and other professional staff have to stand by and watch a patient suffer when they know that the patient could be treated and discharged from hospital if treatment were given. There are some circumstances when it is right that those professional staff should go ahead and give treatment when this is essential in the patient's own interest without that patient's consent. It is equally important that there should be careful safeguards given to the patients, their relatives and those concerned with their well-being, to make sure that this is not abused.
The Standing Committee considered this part of the Bill with care. Before us now is a substantial redrafting of the Bill from the other place. It is a redrafting, I believe, that commands wide support now on both sides of the House. It sets out carefully that although certain basic treatments can be given to detained patients without their consent, there are other treatments that should be given only with 57 their consent or with an independent second opinion from a psychiatrist appointed by the Mental Health Act Commission. It was also agreed that some treatments are so serious that they should be given not only with the patient's consent, but with an independent second opinion.
New clause 6 contains the details of our proposals and, I believe, meets a commitment that I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) to provide for periodic reviews of treatment given without a patient's consent. Everybody agreed that there are cases where it is proper for such treatment to be given, as long as a second opinion has been obtained, but the Committee was anxious to ensure that when a second opinion had been given to enable a serious course of treatment to be undertaken without a patient's consent it should not be a timeless authorisation for the treatment to continue, but should be subject to periodic review.
The hon. Member for Stechford proposed in Committee a single review after six months. The new clause provides that when treatment is given under the authority of a second opinion the patient's responsible medical officer must send reports to the commission at the times when detention is renewed. As a result of the changes that the Bill makes to the periods for which detention can last before it is reviewed, that will mean after six months, after a further six months and then once a year. The responsible medical officer would also send reports at any other time when the commission required him to do so. The timing would be the same for restricted patients, though it is linked to a different statutory provision.
The commision will have the power to give notice to a patient's responsible medical officer that a certificate given by an independent psychiatrist should cease to apply. If the RMO wishes to continue the treatment he will have to obtain a fresh second opinion from an independent psychiatrist. The provision enables the commission to make sure that there is another look at the treatment plan if it wishes that to happen. It will be for the commission to decide the grounds on which it wishes to take action.
The new clause achieves the effect that I have described and gives the functions to the Secretary of State, but amendment No. 60 requires the Secretary of State to direct the MHAC to perform them on his behalf. Amendment No. 41 is a consequential drafting amendment.
Amendment(a)in the names of the hon. Members for Stechford and Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) would require reports every six months instead of once a year. I advise the House not to accept the amendment—for practical reasons and not because of any disagreement over principle. As I said, the origin of the new clause is that the Committee agreed that there should be a periodic review of treatments that are being continued only because of an independent second opinion.
We have to be practical and we must avoid deluging the commission with frequent paperwork. As the evening goes on, there will be repeated attempts by hon. Members to strengthen the protection for formal and informal patients, and most will involve fresh obligations being placed on the MHAC. Some will be conceded by the Government, as were some in Committee, but we have to avoid going so far that the effectiveness of the commission in pursuing its main objectives is weakened by overburdensome statutory requirements.
I suggest that the timing in the new clause makes good sense, because it links the review of treatment with the renewal of detention or, in the case of a restricted patient, 58 with the statutory report to the Home Office. That provides a logical and simple administrative basis for the reports. If the commission decides that it wants reports on longterm patients more often than once a year it is empowered to ask for them. It is at liberty to do what the Opposition wish to require it to do.
However, the commission might, for example, wish to use the power to ask for extra reports very selectively, which was a possibility considered by the hon. Member for Stechford in Committee. If the treatment in question were particularly controversial or if the independent psychiatrist thought that there were special factors that should be looked at again after a short time, the commission could ask for a more frequent review.
I hope that the House will accept the new clause as a useful addition and will agree that it is preferable to amendments Nos. 22 and 29 in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt). They deal with broadly the same points and offer another solution by putting set limits on the duration of certificates authorising treatment without consent. I believe that that is unnecessary and that it would be inflexible. Indeed, it has been overtaken by the proposals in the new clause. I say to the hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him what I have been saying, by implication, to the hon. Member for Stechford. There is nothing in the Bill to stop an independent psychiatrist putting a time limit on a certificate. If he thinks that it is an unusual or difficult decision he can specify whatever time limit he deems appropriate, but there is no need to require that in every case.
Similarly, in the case of a period review by the MHAC, the commission could, if it judged it right, call for more frequent reviews, but the statutory requirements proposed in the new clause should meet the fears expressed in Committee and make a useful addition to this important part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Terry Davis
In view of my comments in the previous debate, I am glad to be able to tell the Minister that he has honoured completely the undertaking that he gave in Committee. As was pointed out by Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a printing error on the Amendment Paper. The purpose of amendment(a)is not to leave out the whole of paragraph(b), but to add to it a requirement that a review should take place every six months, or more frequently if the commission wished.
We welcome the new clause. As I said, it meets an undertaking given in Committee in response to a debate in which I suggested a similar requirement. It was agreed on both sides of the Committee that when it had beer, agreed that treatment should be given it would be wrong for the permission to apply for ever and a day, without any review. When we noticed that loophole in the drafting we agreed unanimously that it should be blocked and that there should be provision for a periodic review of treatment or the plan of treatment.
I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify one or two points in his speech that I found a little confusing. He seemed to be taking about cases where treatment is given without consent, but the clause would also apply to cases where treatment is given with consent, but a second opinion is required. It would cover treatments given under clause 41 as well as those given under clause 42. It is important to make the point that it covers all treatment under clause 41, which must be given with consent and a 59 second opinion, and treatments under clause 42, which are given as the result of a second opinion, without the consent of the patient. All would have to be reviewed periodically. I am sure that that is the intention of the new clause; it was certainly the intention of the Committee.
I shall also be grateful if the Minister will examine the frequency with which the reviews will take place. I think that he said that the effect of the new clause would be to require a review after six months, after a further six months and then annually. My understanding of the new clause is that once the second opinion has been given it would run for six months, or it might be three months in the case of medicines where treatment has already been given for three months under what is called the "carte blanche" provision for psychiatrists to give treatment for three months without consent or second opinion.
In those—we hope—limited cases, there would be a review at the end of six months from the date of admission to the hospital—that is, three months after the second opinion has been given. However, that is a narrow point. My main concern is that, in the case of most patients, does it mean that there will be a review six months after the treatment has begun, or six months after admission, and thereafter at a 12-monthly interval? In other words, it is first six months and then 12 months, because that ties in with the renewal of detention. I think that I have understood the position correctly, but the Minister said something slightly different in his speech.
I am glad that the doctor giving the second opinion can put a time limit on the permission for treatment to be given against the refusal of consent. That is important. It is also important to emphasise that the Minister said that the Mental Health Act Commission could interfere and require a review more frequently than six or 12 months. That, too, is a useful protection for patients where the treatment may be controversial or where there is a question concerning either the nature of the treatment or its appropriate use for a particular patient.
We are discussing an important protection. It is a matter of judgment. I accept that when we raised the matter in Committee the Minister, with his usual precision, gave an undertaking to examine it. He told the Committee that he did not wish to mislead me into believing that he accepted a six-month period as appropriate for review. That, I think, was a trailer to the new clause which is before us today. providing for a less frequent review. However, it is a matter of opinion and judgment as to whether treatment should be reviewed after six months, and after every six months, or after 12 months.
The idea of a review was the result of the informal discussion, or seminar, which took place on the day of President Reagan's visit to Westminster, when some hon. Members from both sides of the Committee met many people representing interest groups and professions. It is important to put on record that the suggestion for a periodic review came from the psychiatrists at that meeting. They recognised that it would be wrong to give psychiatrists a permission which, in effect, would run for ever, and that there should be some cheek on the appropriateness of a treatment for a particular patient. I emphasise, as I did in Committee, that the psychiatrists who took part in that discussion suggested that the review 60 should be on a 12-monthly basis, whenever the authority for detention is renewed. However, it is my view and that of my hon. Friends that it should be more frequent. We believe that six months is a more appropriate period. It is a matter of judgment. That is the view that I and many of my hon. Friends take, but we shall of course listen to the debate on the matter.
§ Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)
I do not wish to delay the House long on new clause 6, but I want to congratulate the Government on tabling it, following the undertakings given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health at c. 804 in the Special Standing Committee. As he said, part VI is one of the most important parts of the Bill, in that it protects the rights of mentally ill patients. However, it is also right to point out that it is on top of the existing ordinary safeguards that apply to any patient and does not override those rights. For example, there is no reason why, in the first three months or at any other time, the patient should not be entitled to make a complaint either inside the hospital, or to his Member of Parliament, or to the Mental Health Act Commission when it is established. He could use the general procedure for clinical complaints. However it is essential that the Bill should address itself specifically to the extra rights that we believe the mentally ill should have.
May I also say how very much clearer is the present drafting of the clauses, compared with the drafting that came from another place. The Government are to be congratulated on the clarity of the clauses in part VI, in particular.
However, I want to ask three questions about the new clause which I, as a layman, read in a slightly different way from my hon. and learned Friend, particularly when it comes to the words "on the next occasion". To me, that seems to mean that there would be only one "next occasion", not a succession of "next occasions". I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to put my mind at rest. Perhaps the draftsmen have spotted something which I, as a layman, have not seen.
Am I right in thinking that subsection (1) of the new clause provides fora report on the treatment and the patient's conditionto be given by two responsible medical officers to the Secretary of State on the next occasion when the authority to detain the patient is renewed after the treatment givenin acordance with section 41(2) or 42(3)(b)but not thereafter on a regular basis at each subsequent renewal of authority, and only when the Secretary of State requests it?
My second question is: Am I right in thinking that subsection (2) means that patients subject to section 65 and section 74 restriction orders will be subject to the kind of report referred to in my earlier question at the end of their first six months' detention if they receive the relevant treatment in that period, orin the case of treatment at any subsequent time, on the next occasion on which … a reportis made to the Home Secretary under section 27(3), but on no subsequent occasions?
Finally, I am not sure whether the new clause gives full effect to the Minister's intention, as expressed in the Special Standing Committee on 29 June 1982, when he said:the MHAC should be informed about the status of the patient—withholding consent for drug treatment— 61at steady intervals".—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 29 June 1982; c. 804.]If such a report is filed and the patient still objects, does the Secretary of State envisage that the commission, as a matter of course, would seek a new second opinion, or does it have discretion?
So, while I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend and the Under-Secretary of State on the new clause and amendments, for which we are all grateful, I shall be very happy to hear his answers to my questions.
§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
I am grateful for the manner in which the new clause and amendments have been received and I shall do my best to answer the matters that have been raised.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) for saying that this part of the Bill, as rewritten in Committee, is much clearer, thus enabling Parliament to be certain about what the Bill intends. I am sure that it will be much clearer also to those outside who are bound by the law in considering how to deal with these difficult cases.
The much improved drafting in response to the debates and suggestions in Committee make it easier for me to answer more exactly the first query of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis). His understanding of the position was correct. New clause 6 applies to section 41(2), dealing with the most serious treatments requiring the patient's consent and a second opinion. It also applies to section 42(3)(b), which covers slightly less serious treatments, where the patient does not consent but where treatment can be given with a second opinion if a medical practitioner certifies that the patient is incapable of understanding the nature, purpose and likely effects of the treatment. Thus it applies to both those cases.
For the reasons that I have given, we have tied the dates of the periodic reviews exactly to the periods after which the authority for detention will be reviewed and a case can be referred to the Mental Health Act Commission. Another reform that we have introduced in the Bill is to shorten the periods of review so that they will be exactly the same as those in clause 12. The orders will be made after the first six months from the date of admission and thereafter every 12 months, as the hon. Member for Stechford understood.
The sequence of orders thereafter brings me to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon. I am advised that where the drafting in new clause 6(1)(a)and (2)(b)reads "on the next occasion", those words apply to each subsequent occasion whenever authority for detention is renewed for each separate category of patient.
I am sorry that I used loose wording in column 804 when I said that the Mental Health Act Commission should be informed about the status of the patient at steady intervals. The intervals that we chose, which match those periods, are the intervals at which the right to continue to detain the patient should be reviewed.
Just as the Opposition suffered from a typing error in their amendment, we have suffered from a typing error in our amendment. "Section 41(2)" should read "section 41(3)". That error will not alter the substance of the debate.
§ Mr. William Pitt (Croydon, North-West)
It gives me pleasure to start my contribution on a note of accord. The reason why I and those who have supported me put down amendments Nos. 22 and 29 was that we were anxious that a certificate should have a limited life. Otherwise, a 62 certificate may be held to be effective in perpetuity, which would not be good practice. Section 42 states specifically that the certificate for medicine should last for three months.
However, I welcome new clause 6, which covers all the caveats that I would have put originally. Thus, I shall delay proceedings no further. I shall not press amendments Nos. 22 and 29.
§ Mr. Kenneth Clarke
May I make a further intervention, Mr. Speaker? The hon. Member for Stechford and I were misleading each other. I first said that the authority for detention and the periodic reviews of treatment should be six months after the admission of the patient, followed by a further six months and intervals of 12 months thereafter. The hon. Gentleman disagreed with that and, on advice, I said that the hon. Gentleman was right. However, on further advice, I am told that the periods are six months, a further six months and further 12 months. That is the effect of clause 12 together with section 43 of the main Act.
That is my recollection of the debates in Committee, but no doubt if we have art opportunity to debate clause 12 the matter can be put beyond doubt.
§ Mr. Terry Davis
I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation of his earlier remarks. We have now established that this treatment will be reviewed at the end of the first six months, at the end of the second six months and thereafter at the end of each 12-month period. It is still our judgment that the review should be every six months. Therefore, we shall press our amendment to the vote. However, we accept that it is a matter of judgment. I understand the Minister's feelings and he will understand why we have not changed our views since the Committee stage.
§ Mr. Mike Thomas
I hesitate to delay the House, but the official Opposition spokesman should be aware that the SDP cannot support him in this matter. We shall be here all night if the hog. Gentleman persists in pursuing such narrow matters. The SDP supported him on his previous amendment, but I urge him not to press this amendment to a Division.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time.
Amendment (a) proposed to the proposed clause, leave out '(b)' and insert —
(b)on the expiration of six months from the report furnished under Subsection (a) above and'.—[Mr. Terry Davis.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided:Ayes 105, Noes 173.64
|Division No. 301]||[6.15 pm|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Dalyell, Tam|
|Ashton, Joe||Davidson, Arthur|
|Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)||Davis, Terry(B'ham, Stechf'd)|
|Bagier, Gordon A.T.||Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)|
|Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)||Dixon, Donald|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albel||Dobson, Frank|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Dormand, Jack|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Douglas, Dick|
|Canavan, Dennis||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M.(B'stol S)||Dunnett, Jack|
|Cowans, Harry||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Craigen, J. M.(G'gow, M'hill)||Eadie, Alex|
|Crowther, Stan||Eastham, Ken|
|Cryer, Bob||Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)|
|Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)||English, Michael|
|Ennals, Rt Hon David||Hardy, Peter|
|Evans, loan(Aberdare)||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Evans, John(Newton)||Homewood, William|
|Flannery, Martin||Hooley, Frank|
|Ford, Ben||Hoyle, Douglas|
|Forrester, John||Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Hughes, Roy(Newport)|
|Hamilton, James(Bothwell)||Jones, Barry(East Flint)|
|Hamilton, W. W.(C'tral Fife)||Kerr, Russell|
|Lamond, James||Short, Mrs Renée|
|Leighton, Ronald||Silverman, Julius|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lewis, Ron(Carlisle)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Litherland, Robert||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Stoddart, David|
|McCartney, Hugh||Stott, Roger|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)|
|McKay, Allen(Penistone)||Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)|
|McKelvey, William||Thorne, Stan(Preston South)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Tinn, James|
|McWilliam, John||Torney, Tom|
|Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)||Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Watkins, David|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Weetch, Ken|
|Meacher, Michael||Welsh, Michael|
|Mikardo, Ian||White, Frank R.|
|Milian, Rt Hon Bruce||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)||Whitlock, William|
|Morris, Rt Hon C.(O'shaw)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Morton, George||Wilson, William(C'try SE)|
|Palmer, Arthur||Winnick, David|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)||Wright, Sheila|
|Price, C.(Lewisham W)||Young, David(Bolton E)|
|Robertson, George||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Rooker, J. W.||Mr. Frank Haynes and|
|Ross, Ernest(Dundee West)||Dr. Edmund Marshall.|
|Alexander, Richard||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)||Dover, Denshore|
|Atkinson, David(B'm'th,E)||Dunn, Robert(Dartford)|
|Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Beith, A. J.||Edwards, Rt Hon N.(P'broke)|
|Benda, Vivian||Fairgrieve, Sir Russell|
|Benyon, Thomas(A'don)||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Fell, Sir Anthony|
|Best, Keith||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Forman, Nigel|
|Blackburn, John||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fry, Peter|
|Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)||Gardiner, George(Reigate)|
|Bradley, Tom||Goodhart, Sir Philip|
|Bright, Graham||Goodhew, Sir Victor|
|Brinton, Tim||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Brotherton, Michael||Gow, Ian|
|Brown, Michael(Brigg &; Sc'n)||Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)|
|Browne, John(Winchester)||Greenway, Harry|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Grieve, Percy|
|Buck, Antony||Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)|
|Budgen, Nick||Grimond, Rt Hon J.|
|Burden, Sir Frederick||Grist, Ian|
|Carlisle, John(Luton West)||Grylls, Michael|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Hamilton, Hon A.|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)|
|Clark, Hon A.(Plym'th, S'n)||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)||Hannam, John|
|Cockeram, Eric||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Colvin, Michael||Heddle, John|
|Cope, John||Henderson, Barry|
|Cormack, Patrick||Hill, James|
|Costain, Sir Albert||Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Holland, Philip(Carlton)|
|Crouch, David||Hooson, Tom|
|Cunningham, G.(Islington S)||Howell, Ralph(N Norfolk)|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Howells, Geraint|
|Hunt, David(Wirral)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Irvine, Bryant||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Godman Jessel, Toby||Renton, Tim|
|Johnston, Russell(Inverness)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Kershaw, Sir Anthony||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Roberts, M.(Cardiff NW)|
|Lang, Ian||Rossi, Hugh|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Lester, Jim(Beeston)||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)||Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)|
|Loveridge, John||Shaw, Sir Michael(Scarb')|
|Luce, Richard||Shepherd, Colin(Hereford)|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Sims, Roger|
|McCrindle, Robert||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)|
|MacKay, John(Argyll)||Speed, Keith|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Speller, Tony|
|McNair-Wilson, M.(N'bury)||Spicer, Jim(West Dorset)|
|McNair-Wilson, P.(New F'st)||Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)|
|McNally, Thomas||Squire, Robin|
|Madel, David||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Major, John||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Marlow, Antony||Steen, Anthony|
|Mather, Carol||Stevens, Martin|
|Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Mawby, Ray||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E)|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mayhew, Patrick||Thompson, Donald|
|Mellor, David||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Townend, John(Bridlington)|
|Mills, lain(Meriden)||Trippier, David|
|Moate, Roger van||Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Morrison, Hon C.(Devizes)||Viggers, Peter|
|Murphy, Christopher||Waddington, David|
|Neale, Gerrard||Wainwright, R.(Colne V)|
|Needham, Richard||Waller, Gary|
|Neubert, Michael||Ward, John|
|Newton, Tony||Watson, John|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Wellbeloved, James|
|Page, John(Harrow, West)||Wells, Bowen|
|Page, Richard(SW Herts)||Wells, John(Maidstone)|
|Parris, Matthew||Wheeler, John|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Wickenden, Keith|
|Percival, Sir Ian||Wolfson, Mark|
|Pitt, William Henry|
|Pollock, Alexander||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)||Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Mr. Peter Brooke.|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Clause added to the Bill.