§ 'The Secretary of State may by order withdraw modify or supplement the Provisions exempting personal data from the nondisclosure provisions for the purpose of providing additional safeguards for the data-subject in relation to personal data consisting of information as to:
- (a) Spiritual counselling or to assistance given or to be given to him
- (b) Social work or similar activities involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him or
- (c) To other activities relating to his personal welfare and involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him—
- (i) By a voluntary organisation; or
- (ii) By an individual who by reason of his office or occupation has responsibilities for his personal welfare.'—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to give the Secretary of State power by order to supplement the provisions of the Bill to give protection to information that has been given either as a result of spiritual counselling or social work, or of similar activities.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), in his first intervention in this debate, injected a note of contentious and adversarial politics. He drew attention to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend may roar like a lion, but I have never yet heard him bleat like a lamb. In any event, many of the points that we raised both on Second Reading and in Committee have resulted in changes to the Bill, conceded by the Government in response to the arguments advanced by the official Opposition and not those advanced by the Social Democratic party representative. He was more remarkable for his absence than his presence during our debates.
I say that because it applies particularly to the subject that we are debating. I looked quickly through the debate in Committee that we had on social work and the protection that we are seeking for those records. The hon. Gentleman was conspicuous, not by his absence, but for the lack of any contribution to that debate, the one preceding it, or the one following it.
§ Mr. MaclennanThe hon. Gentleman must know that there was only one occasion when I was not present during the debates in Committee. I was present throughout the debates, which is more than can be said about him. He was absent from the debates on many occasions and left it to his long-winded and somewhat tedious colleagues to delay proceedings into the middle of the night.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkI shall not enter into this slanging match, but I have obviously touched upon a nerve in the hon. Gentleman. The fact remains, as anyone can see from the records, that on many of the major issues the hon. Gentleman did not make any contribution to the debate and when he did contribute, such contributions were not significant or important.
The Government have already conceded by a later amendment that there are certain types of information about individuals that are peculiarly delicate, sensitive or confidential, and to which therefore some protection should be accorded. We understand that, after consultations with the BMA and health authorities, the Government have conceded that there shall be protection for personal information about a person's physical or mental health. We also understand that the Health Services Act will be amended to ensure that information in the Health Service shall not be disclosed to the police, tax or Customs and Excise authorities, and the Government are now extending that protection to all health information, wherever it is held.
The Government have conceded the principle that certain types of information are confidential, delicate and sensitive. We are saying that the same protection should now also be afforded to social work information. Clearly, the Government recognise the sensitivity of information contained on social work files or given as a result of spiritual counselling. This is shown by the protection afforded to this information in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Paragraphs(a), (b) and (c) of new clause 4 are lifted precisely from the part of that Bill which provide that where such information is contained, the police will not have the legal ability to make a search of premises to obtain that information.
If the Government in their wisdom are saying that such information, given voluntarily by the individual in such situations, is so sensitive, important and potentially embarrassing or controversial that the police shall not be able to search for it, it would seem to us to be important that in this Bill we also say that such information may not be disclosed to the police, the Inland Revenue or the Customs and Excise for the purposes set out in clause 28.
We say this because confidentiality between social workers and their clients, or between a vicar or a priest and members of his congregation, depends on the belief that that confidentiality will be respected. It depends upon their belief that they have the confidence and trust of the social worker, vicar or priest, and that the information that they give to those individuals will not be passed on to any third party. Individuals who give this kind of information under stress, usually in an emotional situation, certainly when they are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and seeking help, advice and assistance, would not look for that advice, help or assistance, and would not volunteer that information, if they were aware of the danger that it could be passed on subsequently without their knowledge, still less their consent, to a third party, which might be the police, national security authorities or anyone else.
183 For those reasons, we believe that the same kind of protection should be afforded to this information that the Government give to information in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, and, indeed, in this Bill to health information within and outside the National Health Service.
Leaving those arguments to one side—they were fully deployed in Committee, and the Minister is well aware of them—I wish to put certain questions to him. The Bill will give protection to health information held on an individual within and outside the National Health Service, but how will one separate health information from other information contained on social work files? The Minister will be aware that many social work files contain information about the physical and often the mental health of the individual on whom the information is held. How will one separate the health information and the social work information contained on the files in well women's clinics, which are supposed to consider all aspects of women's problems, medical and social, and whose files contain medical and social work information? How is one to separate the health information and social work information contained on the files compiled by community nurses and others? One could continue to cite examples in which there is no clear distinction on a file about an individual between information relating to his or her physical or mental health and information that relates to a social work function. It is therefore important for the professionals to have some indication from the Minister of how the problem will be dealt with when the Bill is implemented.
We believe that information on individuals should be disclosed only to the police, if it is to be disclosed at all, in well-defined clearly stated circumstances, and only then as a consequence of a serious offence. Whether we maintain that this information should not be disclosed, or accept, perhaps reluctantly, that there may be circumstances in which it can be disclosed, there ought to he safeguards such as we seek in new clause 4.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)We support the clause for many of the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), and particularly because, although there may be objections of a technical nature to the drafting, which I understand, and which relate to the way in which one defines the kind of relationships and confidentiality that exist in the sphere of social work, it is clear that the professional people involved are concerned about the information that they receive about the most personal details of people's lives. As a result of this provision, which I accept would enable only specifics to be divulged, it is feared that the information might not be protected in the same way that information referred to in other parts of the Bill is protected.
The three categories set out are often interrelated. Not only do they govern the medical records that are of a wider definition in the medical context, whether psychiatric, psychological or social—in the same sense that people seek advice on matrimonial or family problems—but they relate particularly to those pieces of information that arise in what is traditionally the most protected context of all, that is, that between an individual and his or her spiritual adviser. One of the traditional understandings about privacy is that information passed on to the priest or 184 vicar will be treated as sacred and respected, like information passed to a doctor. Those two professions in this country have been assumed traditionally to be those able to listen, in the same way that the Samaritans organisation advertises that it listens, with the person involved knowing that the information will not be passed on.
It is important to have people in society whose function is not necessarily to produce and immediate remedy, but to listen and respond, knowing that that process is inviolate from any efforts of the law or people who, if the Bill goes through unamended, might trespass upon information given for the benefit of, with the connivance and help of other people.
I anticipate one problem that I do not think need prevent acceptance of the new clause. It concerns the wording of the new clause:
personal data consisting of information as to:(c) other activities relating to his personal welfare and involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him—There are, of course, innumerable people who could claim that they have that sort of professional relationship. I can understand that the Minister might say, "We don't want to allow everyone to lay claim to that relationship." That would be a valid reluctance. Voluntary organisations that are recognised as acceptable in their sphere of counselling—the one that I have cited, the Samaritans, is one of the best known voluntary organisations, and there are many others of a more local and parochial nature—and individuals who in all kinds of walks of life are given a specific responsibility, accepted by the community as necessary to cope with the problems of individuals, should be covered by the proposed new clause, or similar words that are acceptable to the Government. I hope that the Minister, even if he thinks that there may be a better form of words, will at least say that the principle is accepted. If not, one of the traditional places where liberty, secrecy and privacy have ben safeguarded will be eroded, and a protection that has existed hitherto will no longer be available to people.
- (i) By a voluntary organisation; or
- (ii) By an individual who by reason of his office or occupation has responsibilities."
I know that the argument is always available to Government that there is no current legislation protecting data, which, of course, we accept. This is the first assemblage of control of data. But there is always the danger that, once an edifice is set up, it is more difficult to change it. Once categories are defined, some people are included within their jurisdiction, and some fall outside them. It would be better to accept an enabling new clause that does not dictate how this will be done, but gives the Secretary of State power to act, after consultation, in the best interests of the citizens of Britain. If the objective is to protect, by legislation rather than by tradition, private information about the most private and emotional parts of people's lives as well as their physical and spiritual health, this should be done in such a way that they are reassured after the process of the Bill, and not further concerned as a result of reluctance by the Government.
§ Dr. Roger Thomas (Carmarthen)I agree with what has been said in favour of new clause 4. I agree that it is difficult to distinguish between medical and social information relating to a particular patient or problem. These days much information is gathered and fed into a 185 system based upon the case conference. That is not a gathering of medical people alone, but of people who are interested in a problem and in discussing it. These days that involves a wide range of people dealing with family problems, housing, education and the physical and mental well-being of individuals.
The system that has been used in relation to psychiatric cases for many years is now used by other medical interests. The Government have demonstrated a certain amount of co-operation in relation to the confidentiality of medical information. To provide safeguards only for medical information is too narrow and could affect essential improvements in the case conference system. The advantages of the system would be decimated by too narrow an approach, and if medical information were regarded as confidential and social and other important allied information were excluded.
We appreciate the moves in relation to medical information, but sensitive and personal information of other kinds should be included. I believe that the provision should be expanded. That would satisfy voluntary and other organisations involved in individual problems. It would be a pity if we confined protection for the individual to medical information.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI was surprised at the remarks by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He said that the traditional understanding is that information passed on to a priest, for example, should be treated as sacred. That is right. That is the traditional understanding. Nothing whatsoever in the Bill makes such information less sacred, impinges on the traditional understanding to which he referred, or makes it any more likely that such information will be passed on by a priest, a Samaritan or a social worker.
We must remember what we are talking about. The Bill does not force people to disclose information. The Bill extends the present protection given to individuals by placing restrictions on the disclosure of information. From the words of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey one might have thought that the Bill had precisely the opposite intention. Let us be clear. The Bill certainly does not have any effect on the traditional understanding that information passed on in confidence should be kept confidential.
As I expected, the Opposition's arguments rest largely on the parallel between data held by those who provide counselling services and medical data. The argument is that if the Government accept that special provision for medical data is desirable, the same criterion should apply to data communicated for counselling purposes. I would not for one moment seek to belittle or undermine the essential work carried out by those who provide the services to which the new clause relates, but there are good reasons why health data should be regarded as being in a class of their own. I need do no more than quote the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) who, in Committee, said:
personal health information is special, peculiar and different from anything else."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H,5 April 1984; c. 684.]Health data are, of course, recognised by the Council of Europe convention and, indeed, by clause 2 of the Bill, as being special. The convention places them in a category with data relating to a person's racial origin, his political 186 or religious beliefs and his criminal convictions, and says that such data may require special protection. This is because, as the explanatory memorandum to the convention makes clear, they are regarded as specially sensitive. The sort of data covered by this new clause are not regarded by the convention as being in the same category. Of course, health data are also different because they are relevant in so many circumstances that, sensitive and confidential though they are, the health professional cannot always retain direct control over them.
That is the main substance of the debate that has been brought to our attention by the health professionals. If a health professional works within the National Health Service, the records will technically be the property of the health authority. If he is carrying out a routine medical check for an employer or a life assurance company, the data will, of course, be passed on to those concerned. The data subject is aware of all this, but he still has a right to expect that information about his health, which most people regard as particularly confidential and sensitive, will be properly protected. I am, to some extent, anticipating the arguments for amendment No. 3, which we shall, I hope, be discussing shortly.
My point is that the data covered in new clause 4 are not routinely passed on as, we are told, health data are passed on. The confidential material obtained by the priest is certainly not passed on as a matter of routine. If the priest decides to breach confidentiality, that is a matter for him. The Bill has no bearing on that whatsoever. Confidential material obtained by the marriage counsellor or the social worker is not generally required for other purposes. Such professionals retain control of the information. The data subject can be confident that information about him will not be passed on indiscriminately, since he knows that he can trust the professional concerned to use his discretion fairly.
That is why, although the categories of data mentioned in new clause 4 are culled from an earlier version of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, no special provision is needed for them in this Bill. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill deals with an entirely different situation. It deals with the powers of the police to obtain evidence, if necessary against the will of the people who have it. It is, therefore, right that special safeguards should be put in that Bill covering information which has been given to those people in special confidence. However, in this Bill we are dealing with voluntary disclosures. Subject to the Bill's restrictions on disclosures, the decision whether to disclose is left to the discretion of the counsellor, as it is at present.
I have said that health data are different from social work data, but that needs qualifying in one respect. It is necessary to make the qualification in answer to the first question posed by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. It is, of course, likely that counsellors, whether spiritual, marital, professional or whatever, will occasionally hold information of the sensitive nature mentioned in clause 2. A social worker may, for example, hold health data. Those data will not suddenly become social work data simply because they are held by a social worker. If health data are held by a social worker, they remain health data and will be covered by the provisions that we hope shortly to insert into the Bill through another new clause. They will still be data about a person's physical or mental health and, as such, will be subject to the provisions of any order made under clause 2.
187 5.30 pm
The main point, and the reason why the new clause is unnecessary, is that the Bill does nothing that could diminish the confidence that is necessary in the relationship between counsellor and client. Indeed, it helps to underpin that confidence, as the data will be subject. as they are not now, to the data protection principles and to the general restrictions on disclosure imposed by the Bill. That is something of which we should not lose sight.
As I have said in the past, the Bill is a positive measure that introduces new safeguards, which I believe are adequate to protect the sort of data covered by the new clause. I therefore recommend that it be rejected.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI am not convinced by the Minister's argument that health data are different from social services data. I do not believe that this argument can be upheld after careful scrutiny of the issue.
§ Mr. WaddingtonDoes the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was the proposition advanced by the Opposition during the debate on health data in Committee?
§ Mr. HowellI do not think that the Minister is correct. The BMA held a major campaign on behalf of doctors. I concede that the Government met its point—although in an odd manner — as a result of discussion with a Department that was not represented in Committee. Home Office Ministers have been carried along with the BMA's discussions on the confidentiality of medical records. I congratulate the BMA on its victory. However, I wish that it had shown a little more concern for the British Association of Social Workers. If that association had been affiliated to the BMA, the position of social workers would be as well covered as that of doctors. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) has experience as a practising doctor. As he said, it becomes more and more difficult to divorce medical information from social information on a patient's record. Quite often, medical illnesses, such as depression and mental illness, result from some social evil or distress. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we cannot divorce the two issues.
I am not sure whether the Minister understands the point about priests. Any priest worth his salt will, in a confessional or other relationship with his congregation, receive confidential information which, if he is to carry out his priestly duties properly, he must do something about. In cases of physical or mental illness, the priest must convey that information to a general practitioner or directly to a consultant in a hospital. That information will be put on record and will become part of the data. What the priest says will not be protected, but what the doctor says will be protected. That is illogical.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can advance that proposition. If the priest discovers medical information, that information remains medical information whether it comes from the mouth of a priest or the mouth of a doctor.
§ Mr. HowellWhat the priest discovers will not be medical information; it will be attitudes of mind, causes of distress and examples of unsatisfactory behaviour. He will refer those cases to a doctor for analysis, diagnosis and treatment. We cannot divorce one from the other.
There are many examples of the problem, such as child adoption and abuse of children. I know that the Home 188 Office is as concerned as we all are about child battering. In those cases, information will not originate with a doctor. A doctor will be asked to give information about the extent of an abuse. He may refer the case to the police or to the social services. At that point everything becomes confused. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, we cannot divorce one part of the information from the other part. That is why social workers should have the same protection as doctors.
§ Mr. WaddingtonI must clarify one point. The right hon. Gentleman must know that an inter-professional working group came to the Home Office and asked us to take special measures on health data. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, perhaps I should tell him now that represented on that working group were people working in the various areas to which he has referred. It would be quite erroneous to give the impression that the views of those working in those areas were not considered when we discussed the matter with the inter-professional working group and decided to table the new clause that we shall discuss shortly.
§ Mr. HowellI accept that the Minister has considered these matters. Indeed, I would expect him to do so. Our complaint is that he has reached the wrong conclusion. It is as simple as that. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is valiantly trying to defend his conclusion, but it does not make sense.
I could list a whole range of examples, such as defects in houses that can lead to health problems and the relationship of educational social services with educational health services. We cannot divorce the social services aspect from the medical aspect.
We are delighted that the Government have gone halfway, but they have not faced the reality of life. Therefore, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 208.
190| Division No. 343] | [5.38 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Dormand, Jack |
| Anderson, Donald | Douglas, Dick |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Dubs, Alfred |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. |
| Ashton, Joe | Eadie, Alex |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Eastham, Ken |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE) |
| Barnett, Guy | Evans, John (St. Helens N) |
| Barron, Kevin | Ewing, Harry |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | Fatchett, Derek |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Blair, Anthony | Flannery, Martin |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Buchan, Norman | Forrester, John |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. | Foulkes, George |
| Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) | George, Bruce |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Clay, Robert | Godman, Dr Norman |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) | Gould, Bryan |
| Coleman, Donald | Gourlay, Harry |
| Conlan, Bernard | Hamilton, James (M'well N) |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) |
| Corbett, Robin | Hardy, Peter |
| Cowans, Harry | Harrison, Rt Hon Walter |
| Craigen, J. M. | Haynes, Frank |
| Crowther, Stan | Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Home Robertson, John |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Howells, Geraint | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Pendry, Tom |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Pike, Peter |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Redmond, M. |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Kennedy, Charles | Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Rooker, J. W. |
| Kirkwood, Archibald | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Lamond, James | Sheerman, Barry |
| Leighton, Ronald | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Litherland, Robert | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Loyden, Edward | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| McCartney, Hugh | Skinner, Dennis |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Spearing, Nigel |
| McKelvey, William | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) |
| Maclennan, Robert | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| McTaggart, Robert | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| McWilliam, John | Tinn, James |
| Madden, Max | Torney, Tom |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Wainwright, R. |
| Martin, Michael | Wallace, James |
| Mason, Rt Hon Roy | Wareing, Robert |
| Maxton, John | Weetch, Ken |
| Meadowcroft, Michael | Welsh, Michael |
| Millan, Rt Hon Bruce | Winnick, David |
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | |
| Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Nellist, David | Mr. Don Dixon and |
| Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Mr. Roger Thomas. |
| O'Neill, Martin |
| NOES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Fox, Marcus |
| Arnold, Tom | Freeman, Roger |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Fry, Peter |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) |
| Batiste, Spencer | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Bottomley, Peter | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Bright, Graham | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Ground, Patrick |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Grylls, Michael |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Budgen, Nick | Hargreaves, Kenneth |
| Burt, Alistair | Harris, David |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Harvey, Robert |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Conway, Derek | Hayward, Robert |
| Cope, John | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Crouch, David | Heddle, John |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Henderson, Barry |
| Dicks, Terry | Hickmet, Richard |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Hind, Kenneth |
| Dunn, Robert | Hirst, Michael |
| Durant, Tony | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Eggar, Tim | Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Holt, Richard |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Hooson, Tom |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Fallon, Michael | Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) |
| Favell, Anthony | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Forman, Nigel | Irving, Charles |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Forth, Eric | Jessel, Toby |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Kershaw, Sir Anthony | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Key, Robert | Rowe, Andrew |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Ryder, Richard |
| Knight, Gregory (Derby N) | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Knowles, Michael | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Knox, David | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Lawler, Geoffrey | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Shersby, Michael |
| Lester, Jim | Silvester, Fred |
| Lightbown, David | Sims, Roger |
| Lilley, Peter | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant) | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Luce, Richard | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Speller, Tony |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Spencer, Derek |
| MacGregor, John | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Maclean, David John | Squire, Robin |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Major, John | Stanley, John |
| Malone, Gerald | Stern, Michael |
| Marlow, Antony | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Mather, Carol | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Mayhew, Sir Patrick | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Mellor, David | Tapsell, Peter |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Moate, Roger | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Moore, John | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | Thurnham, Peter |
| Mudd, David | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Murphy, Christopher | Tracey, Richard |
| Neale, Gerrard | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Nelson, Anthony | Viggers, Peter |
| Neubert, Michael | Waddington, David |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Norris, Steven | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Onslow, Cranley | Walden, George |
| Oppenheim, Philip | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Osborn, Sir John | Waller, Gary |
| Page, John (Harrow W) | Ward, John |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Parris, Matthew | Watts, John |
| Patten, Christopher (Bath) | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Pawsey, James | Wheeler, John |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Whitney, Raymond |
| Porter, Barry | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Powley, John | Wood, Timothy |
| Price, Sir David | Woodcock, Michael |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | |
| Rathbone, Tim | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Mr. Archie Hamilton and |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Mr. Ian Lang. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.