§ `Section 27 of the Finance Act 1981 except subsection (9), shall cease to apply to an unemployed person after he or she has been in receipt of social security benefits related to unemployment for a continuous period of one year.'—[Mr. Rooker.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. RookerI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The thrust of the new clause is simple and requires a simple answer from the Government. We want the Government to say that they will cease taxing the long-term unemployed. It is bad enough for the quality of life that well over 1,250,000 people have been out of work for over a year, nearly 650,000 for two years and over 330,000 for three years, but for the Government to impose a tax on unemployment benefit for all unemployed people, including the long-term unemployed, is not on. This is an opportunity for the Government to rethink.
I accept that the numbers of long-term unemployed subject to tax are few compared with the 1.2 million people who have been out of work for over a year, but at least 25,000 unmarried couples living together as man and wife exist on supplementary benefit, because they are unemployed, and obtain only the single person's tax 1153 allowance. They live on £43.50 a week and will live on £45.55 a week from November until next April. They are building up a tax liability of almost £2 a week for every week that they are in that state. They will be required to meet that tax liability when and if one of each couple returns to work. That is unacceptable.
This year the Government will receive over £700 million in income tax from the unemployed through their unemployment and supplementary benefits. The cost of accepting new clause 6 must be small compared with that amount. Only the Government can estimate the cost of our proposal.
Every day, national and local newspapers throughout the land carry stories about the long-term unemployed who have to have sex operations because they are scared to have more children. We read reports of suicides and the non-accidental deaths of unemployed people. People are frightened to explain such tragedies. We can all see the effect of unemployment on the quality of life, and yet the House allows legislation imposing further financial penalties on fellow citizens.
The mass unemployment from which we are suffering should not be bandied about in statistical juggling by the House or by the Gallery which watches over our affairs. Unemployment is about a way of life. It is about learning where the power is and about understanding the unfairnessesin our system of economic management that bring about mass unemployment in the 1980s.
We cannot solve the problems in a new clause. We cannot solve the problems of the millions who are unemployed and paying or accumulating tax on their benefits. However, in a small way we are able to mitigate the effects of the Government's legislation on the small numbers of long-term unemployed who are, because of family circumstances, subject to penal taxation rates on their meagre benefits.
§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)I welcome the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who cogently explained the purposes of our amendment.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) reminded the House that 1.2 million people have been unemployed for more than a year, 650,000 for more than two years and 356,000 for more than three years. Those are dolorous and doleful figures. The position of the long-term unemployed in Cleveland is especially acute. According to the figures for June, the average unemployment rate there is 20.5 per cent.; male unemployment is 24.5 per cent. and female is 13.7 per cent. The overall figure is 55,038, of which 41,405 represents male unemployment and 13,633 female unemployment. Last year at this time when I made my maiden speech and reported the unemployment figures for the area, they were, not unnaturally, lower than that. Last year 52,531 were unemployed, and that figure has increased by about 3,000. The unemployment figures rise inexorably.
While I do not wish to draw the attention of the House unduly to the economic blizzard to which Ramsay MacDonald referred in 1931, the numbers of those unemployed both in Cleveland and Teesside continue to rise. Notwithstanding the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement and his fifth Mais 1154 lecture, unemployment is not coming to an end. That is why we have tabled this simple, modest measure on behalf of the long-term unemployed.
Section 27 of the Finance Act 1981 provided for the taxation of unemployment benefits. The new clause seeks to exempt the long-term unemployed. They are defined as being continuously out of work for more than one year.
I noted that the Chief Secretary, in one of his rather less interesting and less helpful speeches in the debate on the gap between the rich and the poor on Thursday 28 June, declined to give the Government's definition of full employment. However, in 1981 the Government had no compunction about defining what they meant by long-term unemployment. We have always found the Chief Secretary long on platitudes and loose on facts, but even the Government cannot ignore the economic and financial facts that stare them in the face.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the economy was "in good shape". That phrase will join the phrases, such as
the pound in your pocket will not be devaluedorthe inflation rate can be cut in half".The Prime Minister will live to regret them.While the long-term unemployed languish in a slough of despond of the Government's making, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may wish to take an early opportunity to explain to the House why interest rates are rising. Is it because the City of London prefers to be guided by the M3 definition of the money supply to his definition, which I describe as Little MO and which is based on currency; because of the continued slide in the value of the pound in relation to the dollar and its trade weighting against other currencies; or because he believes that the inflation rate targets for the Government are being undermined?
Those are matters of particular interest to the long-term unemployed, who are looking to the new clause and the House for help.
In some ways, I sympathise with the Chancellor, because his Budget statement was considered benignly by the banks, which reduced their base rates by 0.5 per cent. the following morning. The Stock Exchange took off the following day. Hardly had the Finance Bill reached its Report stage on the Floor of the House than the banks reversed their position and added one full percentage point to their base rates. They have now added 2 per cent. and the Stock Exchange lost about 30 points today. The euphoria which greeted the Budget statement was short-lived and has worn off with the Chancellor's so-called friends in the City.
11.30 pm
However, the Chancellor cannot avoid the responsibility for interest rates going up. He has broad shoulders, as we know, and those broad shoulders must bear the responsibility for what has happened today. The Government of whom he is not only a member but a leading member have failed to get a grip on the miners' strike, which has spilled over into a dockers' strike. They have moved from a policy of an engineered exchange rate of $2.40 to the pound and of interest rates of 20 to 21 per cent. on company overdrafts to near-indifference to the exchange rate and a belief that there should be intervention only if the market is distorted. The failure of the Bank of England to intervene in the national interest to prevent a fall in the value of the pound means that the interest rates 1155 have been used to countervail an external factor—the United States budget deficit. Those matters are all of great concern to the long-term unemployed, because many of them are British home-owners who will have to pay more for their mortgages and purchases, and who will therefore suffer the consequences, as will the rest of us, of the increased inflation that is about to come. All this has happened so that Britain can contribute to the United States economy.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor made much of the proposition that it was a Budget to reduce inflation; but by pursuing policies of laisser-aller rather than laisser-faire, the Government will be adding to inflation. The long-term unemployed will take no satisfaction from learning that the Government intend to place a moratorium on capital spending by local authorities, and that because the money supply is running out of hand, there may well be a package of emergency public expenditure cuts to reduce the growth of monetary aggregates. All that weighs heavily upon the long-term unemployed, who look to the House for some succour.
The Government are hoping to get by not with good economic management but by sleight of hand. They are clearly relying on sleight of hand, by advancing the payment of VAT on imported goods to the ports and selling public assets, so that they can remain on target. The Bank of England Quarterly Review anticipated the pace of growth of broad money and declared that it was likely to be faster in the early part of the current target period than during the period as a whole. However, the increase in the growth of the money supply cannot be considered in isolation from the falling pound against the dollar and an economy that is being slowly debilitated—strangled to death by the Government's inability to promote good industrial relations.
It was not long ago that the Heads of State and of Government held an economic summit conference in London. They clearly recognised that high interest rates would damage the economies of both developed and developing countries. What does the Chancellor propose to do? He congratulates himself and the Government on the abolition of pay controls, price controls, dividend controls, foreign exchange controls, bank lending controls, hire purchase controls and industrial building controls. Of course, he does not congratulate himself on their corollary —industrial industrial unrest which has spread to the professions, notably the teachers, inflation reductions purchased at a cost of an extra 1 million unemployed, and the abolition of dividend controls which, along with measures that we shall be debating on Monday, requires that the City be regulated in accordance with the Gower report.
Our exchange controls see the pound at ․1.30 and falling and our hire purchase controls, combined with the Chancellor's other measures towards the poor, put goods way beyond the reach of ordinary folk. The abolition of industrial building controls leaves the construction industry much as it has been since the Conservatives took office—in a slough of despair and despond.
We have all this because the Chancellor chases the mirage of reduced taxation on personal incomes. We have all these sacrifices on the altar of greed, for personal aggrandisement, based on the old principle of "I'm all right Jack," with no regard for one's fellow citizens and 1156 without regard for anyone not caught in the Government's safety net. These matters are of great concern to the longterm unemployed. This important new clause would cost the Government little to accept.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThere is no better indicator of the Government's insensitivity to the long-term unemployed than the way in which they have treated that section of society over the taxation of benefits and their failure to appreciate their need for additional support. Under the community programme, people who would otherwise be fully engaged now find, because of the cuts that are being made, that they are offered only part-time employment.
A letter has come my way from the Bishop of Carlisle —a man whom Conservative Members would do well to heed, for he expresses an objective and independent view. He bears no political label. He presents effectively the case for what he believes to be a deprived group—people who, though out of work, are required to pay for the change that is taking place industrially. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) wish to intervene? If not, he should be quiet. Sedentary interventions from Conservative Members when we are debating issues of great sensitivity ill become them as their constituents' representatives in this House.
The Bishop of Carlisle believes that the unemployed should be more fairly treated. I will read his letter on the subject into the columns of the Official Report so that Conservative Members may refer to his words when their consciences prick them, although I doubt whether their consciences will bother them when they go into the Lobby to vote on this issue. He said that those representing the Church in Cumbria
are aware that poverty and unemployment have become concentrated in pockets of social deprivation. This is true in parts of West Cumbria, and has got appreciably worse in the last few years. Financial hardships affects not just individual families, but whole communities— 'sub-culture' of poverty and depression emerges, and poverty must not just be understood individually. When whole streets and estates are affected by high rates of unemployment and financial hardship, their families which are already in difficulties have their situation greatly worsened.He continued:you say that the Government's aim is to 'reduce unemployment'. It appears from recent statistics, as well as statements from senior Conservative politicians, that there will be no appreciable drop in unemployment for the next few years at least and possibly longer. We believe, with many others, that we are now in a period of transition to a new era of 'high technology' which will involve lower numbers of people being in full-time employment. More attention therefore has to be given to the redistribution of wealth in such an emerging society. We are particularly concerned that in this transition, the old unskilled manual working class are having to pay a very high price indeed. As a matter of both compassion and justice, we, together with many other church people and other bodies, would urge you to think again and bring about this small change. It would be one sign of your concern for all members of our society.Those are the words of the Bishop of Carlisle. He represents — [Interruption.] Conservative Members interject from a sedentary position to pour scorn on the compassionate voice of one of my fellow Cumbrians. What they are doing tonight will be noted in my county. We know that they have no understanding and are inconsiderable and insensitive to the problems of the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed.One quarter of my constituents who are out of work have been unemployed for more than 12 months. They demand that Parliament responds to their special 1157 problems. The new clause addresses itself to their problems. We would like to feel that one or two of the 318 Conservative Members might find enough compassion to join Opposition Members in voting for the clause, which will raise the incomes of some of the unemployed who are paying the price for the great changes that are taking place.
§ Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockport, South)When the Government came into office they outlined an economic policy which has had dire consequences for many throughout the country. Month after month we have had Ministers from the Department of Employment and the Treasury coming to the Dispatch Box and very much regretting the consequences of the policies that they have pursued. This evening the Minister of State, Treasury is provided with an opportunity to do something about the regret that he and his colleagues have expressed from the Dispatch Box on many occasions in past months. I hope that he will respond to the appeals that have been made in support of the new clause by accepting it and alleviating the suffering of the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed. Many alliance Members would like the Government to go further and introduce the long-term level of supplementary benefit for unemployed people. Unfortunately, the Government have rejected that proposal. New clause 6 is a more modest measure, and I hope that the Government will respond sympathetically.
As the Opposition have pointed out, the army of longterm unemployed represent a scar on the face of many regions, not least in the north-west, Scotland and Wales. A modest measure of this sort could alleviate some of the distress caused by the difficult circumstances those regions face. It is staggering that the unemployed are paying so much tax. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, the unemployed are paying a substantial amount. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the proposal and encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends to support him in the Division Lobby.
§ The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe)The debate has ranged wide of new clause 6. When the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was speaking, I wondered whether we had slipped into Third Reading. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman mixed today's notes with those he intends to use tommorow. I shall concentrate on new clause 6.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) made clear, the purpose of the new clause is to exempt from tax benefits paid to those of the unemployed who have been in receipt of benefit for a continuous period of one year. The benefit exempted would therefore be supplementary benefit, since entitlement to unemployment benefit by definition runs out after 12 months. The hon. Gentleman asked me to estimate the cost of the exemption. He knows that in Committee, when I could, I gave estimates of the cost of amendments and proposals. The cost of this new clause is hard to estimate, because statistics are not available on the movement of the longterm unemployed back into employment. The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is the crucial factor in making estimates. I am advised that the cost could be substantial.
§ Mr. RookerIs the Minister telling the House and the country that the Government have no information about those who obtain jobs and have just experienced a period of unemployment?
§ Mr. HayhoeI am saying that there are no reliable statistics on which one can base an estimate of the proposal's cost. We cannot accept the proposal. because it would certainly create anomalies. More importantly, the whole debate—when it has been precise and relevant to the new clause—has been based with one exception, on a total fallacy. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that we must cease taxing the long-term unemployed. That point was taken up by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who said that the effect of the new clause would be to raise the income of the long-term unemployed. In fact, the new clause would not increase disposable income for the unemployed. It would postpone the start of tax payments after a return to employment, so the benefits would flow not to people who were employed but to those who were unemployed. The benefits are going wholly to people who have been unemployed for a long time and have returned to work. The new clause would mean that the tax they paid in their new employment would be lower than if the new clause were not implemented.
There is an exceptional circumstance, which the hon. Member for Perry Barr, as ever, accurately commented upon, of a group of unmarried couples affected by the interrelationship of the ways in which the Inland Revenue deals with married and unmarried couples, which is different from the way in which the Department of Health and Social Security deals with them. The hon. Gentleman knows the problems, as I do, not just in this but in a wider context. I assure him that with regard to the specific problem to which he referred, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is well aware of the position. I am advised that the actual amount is not nearly £2 a week, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but, as a result of the change in the tax thresholds, is now down to £1.50 a week. At present, there is little evidence of actual hardship being caused by what, I accept, is the theoretical position. If there is evidence of hardship being caused to unmarried couples who suffer long-term unemployment, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will look at the matter again.
As most of the debate has been based on the fallacy that the new clause would help the long-term unemployed, and for other reasons that I have given, I recommend the House to reject it if it is pressed to a Division.
§ Mr. RookerI do not accept the Minister's answer. I ask my hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 312.
1161| Division No. 402] | [11.52 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Benn, Tony |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Blair, Anthony |
| Ashton, Joe | Boothroyd, Miss Betty |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Boyes, Roland |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Bray, Dr Jeremy |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) |
| Barnett, Guy | Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) |
| Barron, Kevin | Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) |
| Bell, Stuart | Bruce, Malcolm |
| Buchan, Norman | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Caborn, Richard | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | Loyden, Edward |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McCartney, Hugh |
| Canavan, Dennis | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | McKelvey, William |
| Cartwright, John | McNamara, Kevin |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | McTaggart, Robert |
| Clarke, Thomas | McWilliam, John |
| Clay, Robert | Madden, Max |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Marek, Dr John |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Cohen, Harry | Martin, Michael |
| Coleman, Donald | Maxton, John |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton North) | Meacher, Michael |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Corbett, Robin | Michie, William |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Mikardo, Ian |
| Cowans, Harry | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) |
| Craigen, J. M. | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Crowther, Stan | Nellist, David |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Cunningham, Dr John | O'Brien, William |
| Dalyell, Tam | Park, George |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) | Patchett, Terry |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Penhaligon, David |
| Deakins, Eric | Pike, Peter |
| Dewar, Donald | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Dixon, Donald | Prescott, John |
| Dobson, Frank | Radice, Giles |
| Dormand, Jack | Randall, Stuart |
| Dubs, Alfred | Redmond, M. |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Rees, Rt Hon M.(Leeds S) |
| Eastham, Ken | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Robertson, George |
| Ewing, Harry | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Fatchett, Derek | Rogers, Allan |
| Faulds, Andrew | Rooker, J. W. |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Fisher, Mark | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Flannery, Martin | Sheerman, Barry |
| Foster, Derek | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Foulkes, George | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Freud, Clement | Skinner, Dennis |
| George, Bruce | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Snape, Peter |
| Golding, John | Soley, Clive |
| Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Hancock, Mr. Michael | Stott, Roger |
| Hardy, Peter | Strang, Gavin |
| Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Tinn, James |
| Home Robertson, John | Torney, Tom |
| Hoyle, Douglas | Wainwright, R. |
| Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham) | Wallace, James |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Wareing, Robert |
| John, Brynmor | Welsh, Michael |
| Johnston, Russell | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Wilson, Gordon |
| Kennedy, Charles | Winnick, David |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Woodall, Alec |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Lambie, David | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Leighton, Ronald | |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Lewis, Terence (Worsley) | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Litherland, Robert | Mr. Frank Haynes. |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Fox, Marcus |
| Alexander, Richard | Franks, Cecil |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Freeman, Roger |
| Ancram, Michael | Fry, Peter |
| Arnold, Tom | Gale, Roger |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Galley, Roy |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Baldry, Anthony | Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Batiste, Spencer | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Bellingham, Henry | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Bendall, Vivian | Gorst, John |
| Benyon, William | Gow, Ian |
| Best, Keith | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Grant, Sir Anthony |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Greenway, Harry |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Gregory, Conal |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Grist, Ian |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Ground, Patrick |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Hannam,John |
| Bright, Graham | Hargreaves, Kenneth |
| Brinton, Tim | Harris, David |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Harvey, Robert |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Browne, John | Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) |
| Budgen, Nick | Hawksley, Warren |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Hayes, J. |
| Burt, Alistair | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Butcher, John | Hayward, Robert |
| Butterfill, John | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Heddle, John |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Henderson, Barry |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hickmet, Richard |
| Cash, William | Hicks, Robert |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Chope, Christopher | Hind, Kenneth |
| Churchill, W. S. | Hirst, Michael |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Holt, Richard |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Hooson, Tom |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hordern, Peter |
| Conway, Derek | Howard, Michael |
| Cope, John | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Corrie, John | Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Couchman, James | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Dicks, Terry | Hunter, Andrew |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Jackson, Robert |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Jessel, Toby |
| Dover, Den | Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
| Dunn, Robert | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Durant, Tony | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
| Dykes, Hugh | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Kershaw, Sir Anthony |
| Evennett, David | Key, Robert |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Fallon, Michael | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Farr, Sir John | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Favell, Anthony | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Knowles, Michael |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Knox, David |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Lamont, Norman |
| Forman, Nigel | Lang, Ian |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Latham, Michael |
| Forth, Eric | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Robinson, Mark (N'port W) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Lester, Jim | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) | Rost, Peter |
| Lightbown, David | Rowe, Andrew |
| Lilley, Peter | Ryder, Richard |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant) | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Lord, Michael | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| MacGregor, John | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Silvester, Fred |
| Maclean, David John | Sims, Roger |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Madel, David | Speller, Tony |
| Major, John | Spencer, Derek |
| Malins, Humfrey | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Malone, Gerald | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Maples, John | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Marland, Paul | Stanley, John |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Steen, Anthony |
| Mates, Michael | Stern, Michael |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Merchant, Piers | Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Stokes, John |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Sumberg, David |
| Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) | Tapsell, Peter |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Mitchell, David (NW Hants) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Moate, Roger | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Moore, John | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | Thurnham, Peter |
| Mudd, David | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Murphy, Christopher | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Neale, Gerrard | Tracey, Richard |
| Needham, Richard | Trippier, David |
| Nelson, Anthony | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Newton, Tony | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Viggers, Peter |
| Norris, Steven | Waddington, David |
| Onslow, Cranley | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Oppenheim, Philip | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Ottaway, Richard | Walden, George |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Wall, Sir Patrick |
| Parris, Matthew | Waller, Gary |
| Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Ward, John |
| Patten, John (Oxford) | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Pawsey, James | Watson, John |
| Pollock, Alexander | Watts, John |
| Porter, Barry | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Whitfield, John |
| Powley, John | Whitney, Raymond |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Price, Sir David | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Wolfson, Mark |
| Raffan, Keith | Wood, Timothy |
| Rathbone, Tim | Woodcock, Michael |
| Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) | Yeo, Tim |
| Renton, Tim | |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
§ Question accordingly negatived.