'(1) No charge to Schedule E tax shall arise in respect of travel facilities provided for members of the Northern Constabulary and their spouses and children posted in Orkney, Shetland or the Western Isles, going on or returning from leave, up to a maximum of three return journeys per year.
(2) This applies whether the charge would otherwise have arisen under—
(3) This section has effect for the year 1986–87 and subsequent years of assessment.'.—[Mr. Wallace.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
When we consider the Finance Bill in the House, we are used to dealing with provisions involving millions, sometimes even billions, of pounds, but, according to a written answer given to me on 7 February this year by the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the cost to the Exchequer, if the new clause were implemented, would beunlikely to exceed £40,000 per annum."—[Official Report, 7 February 1986; Vol 91, c. 279.]In the context of the Finance Bill, it seems to be a relatively small sum. However, if the new clause were passed, substantial justice would be done to the police officers posted to my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
I should like to give a brief background on how the matter arises. Until 1981–82, police officers posted to the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland were given three free journeys a year to the mainland for annual leave purposes, for themselves and their family, and a car. They never received cash in hand. They got no compensation if all the warrants were not used up. That arrangement was in accordance with an agreement of the Police Council for the United Kingdom. Doubts were raised subsequently about the non-taxability of the warrants. Thereafter, the Inland Revenue concluded that the warrants should be taxed under section 36 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975. Since the financial year of 1983–84, tax has been paid.
The Northern Constabulary covers the local authority areas of Highland region, Orkney islands council, Shetland islands council and Western Isles islands council. The area, although small in population, is the largest 1238 geographical area of any police constabulary in the United Kingdom. The officers, who come from all over the area, have no choice of where they are posted, and so many from the mainland, the Highland region, are posted to the remote islands of my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Western Isles.
The new clause seeks to return us to the situation before 1983–84. In proposing the new clause, I have leaned heavily on section 37 of the Finance Act 1977, which allows exemption for travel warrants for members of the armed forces. When that provision was under discussion in the House, on 14 July 1977, the then Financial Secretary in the Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), said that it appliednot only to travel vouchers and warrants for particular journeys but also to allowances and other payments for and in respect of leave travel, whether or not a warrant is available".He went on to say that service men are subject to discipline and restrictions on where they can travel. They are subject to recall and they commit an offence if they do not return. He said:They are subject to compulsory transfer without warning from one part of the country to another and they are regarded as being on duty at all times".—[Official Report, 14 July 1977; Vol. 935–1, c. 829.]6.30 pm
We submit that policemen in the category covered by the new clause are in a similar position to members of the armed forces. As I have said, under the Police (Discipline) (Scotland) Regulations 1967 they cannot refuse a posting. They are always subject to recall when on leave. They are subject to transfer and are liable to have leave cancelled at very short notice or to have rest days cancelled.
That may be a concept which hon. Members representing other parts of the country may not readily be able to understand. If one happened to be the only policeman on the island of Unst in the very northern part of Shetland, one would never be off duty. At any time during the day or night the people of the island might wish to turn to the police officer. That is an onerous duty to impose on any police officer and that is the position in many parts of my constituency.
Under the police regulations there are restrictions on the private lives of these serving police officers. Although these are the formal regulations to which officers are subject, we must also consider the reality of life in the remoter parts of the country. The officers are obliged to take their families with them because they would have to pay additional rent if the family remained behind. There may be no shops in the remote location to which an officer is posted for his wife and family to spend time in. Even planning leave and holidays — which is the subject matter of the new clause — can often be hazardous because of unforeseen weather conditions. As it is important to arrange relief and to provide a locum when a police officer in an outlying area goes on leave, early notice must be given of holiday arrangements.
The Scottish Police Federation sent a briefing to Scottish hon. Members which described the policeman's lot on an island as one in which the officer suffered from:Isolation, frustration, despair — and now anger at taxation.These are no mean words to come from a body such as the Scottish Police Federation.
Hon. Members may wonder why these officers should be entitled to relief on transport costs when other police 1239 officers serving within mainland parts of the Northern constabulary are not so entitled. The travel concession award only takes the police officer from the island to the nearest place on the mainland by air or by sea. I visited the Transport Office before the debate and discovered that the cost of a return flight from Lerwick to Inverness is £138; the cost of a return flight from Kirkwall to Inverness is £110; and from Stornoway to Inverness it is £80. Obviously other figures could be provided for ferry crossings and other routes. However, once the officer reaches the mainland he must make arrangements for himself and his family and that must come out of his own pocket.
We are not comparing these concessions with the islands' allowances which local government employees or employees of other companies receive when they are transferred to these locations. Often these are cash-in-hand allowances which can be used how the recipient wishes. We are considering a limited case of travel warrants.
The police officers involved have visited my surgeries and expressed their great frustration over what has happened. They would like to see a return to the pre-1983 position. Although there was an exemption from tax, that was not necessarily a precedent and the floodgates were not opened. For that reason, I ask the Minister, even if he feels that there is something defective about the new clause, to make a positive response and show a sensitivity to the problems faced by police officers in my constituency. I hope that he will show a willingness to meet the difficulty which I have highlighted in the debate.
§ Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)
I need only make a short intervention in support of the new clause and the excellent submission made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
The system had worked fairly well for many years until, in the last year or two, someone regarded these warrants as liable for tax under section 36 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975. Police officers directed to go to the islands have no choice in the matter. They must go or suffer the consequences under the discipline of the police force. Although it may be a surprise for my hon. Friends to learn this, not all the officers are pleased to move in that direction. Some feel a sense of isolation or object as family men to the high cost of living on the islands. The islands' councils have made provisions for other people in the form of island allowances. Some companies and indeed the Civil Service have also made concessions. However, no concessions are made to police officers. The officers involved have a real sense of grievance. They are discriminated against in relation to their mainland colleagues.
The effect of the Finance Act (No. 2) 1975 was modified at a later stage to meet objections from members of the armed forces. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has explained, the criterion is exactly the same for the armed forces as it is for the police. Justice demands that that concession—if that is the correct word, or at least that modification—ought to apply to the police as well.
Many of us have been pressing the Exchequer for some time to arrive at an equitable decision on this matter. Officers directed to the islands face hardship and many are liable for duty around the clock. Fair treatment would demand that they have the same right as members of the 1240 armed forces. The removal of this sense of injustice could be achieved by the acceptance of the new clause. I hope that the Minister will take that into account.
§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)
I rise briefly to support the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart).
I was the parliamentary adviser to the Scottish Police Federation for six years from 1970. In 1971 the Police Council for the United Kingdom agreed that police officers serving in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland would be entitled to three travel warrants a year. That, after all, did not involve a large number of travel warrants. The right hon. Member for Western Isles and my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland have explained the justification for that. That entitlement operated for 10 years. We would all be happy to see the allowance for police officers re-established and administered in that way, without necessarily having the statute altered. There were no problems with the procedure which existed for 10 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland made the important point about the comparison between the armed forces and the police force. I must repeat that the position of the police officers in the islands is the same as that of the armed forces. Indeed, in many respects it is more onerous, as police officers are required to carry out their duties in a more focused way than are members of the armed forces.
It is perfectly fair to remark that the case has not been made for an island allowance. One can make a case for that, but it is not the case being made this evening. Many people work on islands for a variety of reasons. They volunteer for island positions, often for promotion, and they are well aware of the pros and cons. But travel warrants are a fair way of dealing with the problems of distance and separation which police officers encounter, especially because of their responsibilities in small communities.
It is true that travel warrants are used for annual leave, but to suggest that that is their sole use is inaccurate. They are a lifeline and are used for visiting the mainland, whether because of bereavement, to see sick relatives or for treatment. This is a fair case and, knowing that the Minister is reasonable, I hope that he will listen to it sympathetically.
§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye)
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), and the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), I shall be brief in completing this quartet from the far north which is seeking to persuade the Minister on this point.
It is an unjust anomaly that members of the armed forces, rightly, enjoy this concession while the police do not, although its terms and description are equally applicable to the police. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, service men are also subject to discipline, restrictions and compulsory transfer, and are regarded as being on duty at all times. The position of the sole police officer serving on the island of Unst, which he described, is repeated elsewhere in the Western Isles, 1241 Orkney and Shetland. Surely the position of police officers is identical in every sense with that of service men in respect of this concession.
In March my hon. Friends and I had further correspondence with the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said in a letter to me:While I certainly do not undervalue the work done by these officers, nor minimise the importance of these trips to their families, I am afraid that it is plain that a valuable benefit does arise which ought, in principle, to be taxed.The second half of that sentence makes the case for why that benefit should not be taxed. It was, indeed, a valuable benefit, not in terms of the Treasury's coffers — it receives an insignificant, negligible income from this—but to the individuals and their families.
I do not think that it will blow the Government's spending plans before the general election if the concession is conceded, or that the Star Chamber will descend on the heads of Treasury Ministers if they give way on this point. Therefore, I hope that they will be sympathetic and constructive. It is a genuine point and has all-party support. All hon. Members from this part of the country appreciate the difficulty and hope that the Government can do something about it.
§ The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Brooke)
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) moved his new clause eloquently. In passing and removed from the rest of my comments, I wish to remark that the Committee of the whole House at the beginning of May coincided with a by-election in Derbyshire, West and tonight this stage coincides with a by-election in Newcastle-under-Lyme. On the previous occasion it was notable that alliance Members were absent from the Benches, but I notice that more of them are present today. Whether that is an index of their forecast of the election result will be for time to tell.
The new clause seeks to exempt from tax the travel warrants provided for police officers in the Northern constabulary who serve in the offshore islands, so that they, their families and cars can return to the mainland three times a year.
I can understand the hon. Members' concern for the 120 or so officers in question and their families posted to the islands far away from other members of their families, and the authority's action in making it easier for them to be reunited with their families at reasonable intervals, but I am afraid that in law there can be no doubt that the warrants are taxable, and that since it cannot he argued that the officers or their families are in any way travelling in the performance of the officers' duties, there is no way in which, under the present rules, relief can be allowed.
Nor would it be right to allow relief on what amounts to a valuable benefit. I also took the global sum, which hon. Gentlemen have mentioned. But the cost of a return journey between Shetland and the mainland is about £130, and, as each officer is entitled to three journeys a year for him, his wife, family and car, the total benefit can easily amount to £1,000. These travel warrants are for what is clearly private travel, and to allow relief in those circumstances would merely open the door to a host of similar claims from other groups who would claim that they were being unfairly treated. It would immediately create an indefensible anomaly.
§ Sir Russell Johnston
What the Minister describes as an anomaly operated for a decade. Since it was originally established by the Police Council for the United Kingdom, why not let it continue?
§ Mr. Brooke
I noted the word "decade" against the hon. Gentleman's name and I shall come to that later.
Civilian employees of the Highland regional authority are posted to these islands and receive—
§ Mr. Wallace
That is factually incorrect. Apart from the islands close to the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), Highland region does not extend to Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles which are in entirely separate local authority areas. There is no posting of local authority staff from Highland region to them, unless they go to promoted posts of their own free will.
§ Mr. Brooke
As the hon. Gentleman said, there are allowances for other people being posted to the islands. I accept that they are in the form of cash, not warrants, but if tax relief were granted on these warrants and this travel — I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentlemen who spoke would be quick to seek further relief for other groups — there would be pressure for relief to be available to others. It is difficult to see why a broadly similar allowance paid to policemen serving in the same islands should be exempt from tax while civilians pay tax on their allowances.
I shall now deal with the decade point raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland quoted the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) during the passage of the relevant legislation. Warrants such as these have been taxable in the hands of all employees since 1976–77 by virtue of section 36 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975, which was introduced by the Labour Government. Its passage preceded the moment in March 1977 when the Liberal party was seduced into supporting that Government in office, so I cannot hold the Liberals responsible for the 1975 Act. But that was the genesis of it.
It was not until 1983 that the Inland Revenue became aware that warrants were being provided to these officers. The Revenue immediately made arrangements for tax to be collected in the normal way on the value of warrants from 1983–84. The employer agreed to meet the policemen's liability for earlier years. I accept that, up to 1983, the policemen were not being taxed, but the authority acknowledged that there was a liability and met the outstanding liability in 1983–84 when it was discovered.
Various hon. Members made much of the comparison with the armed forces. Section 37 of the Finance Act 1977 exempts from tax travel facilities provided for members of the armed forces going on or returning from leave. This is a specific and limited exception designed to meet the special and unique circumstances of forces life. A service man is always on duty and is subject to instant recall from leave and immediate transfer. The requirements of military discipline and national security, which are not features of a police officer's job, demand a high degree of mobility. It was agreed on all sides that it was fair and reasonable to exempt service men's leave facilities from tax. This 1243 specific exemption is designed to meet special circumstances which do not apply elsewhere and is not a reason for exempting other benefits. I could go through the issue of the law again to illustrate this point.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye was seductive on the cost, but one still has to come back to the principle of the tax. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber cited a number of cases which may involve journeys of travel, but in the process he demonstrated that those journeys were not being undertaken as part of an officer's duty. That is the critical criterion by which relief, under the legislation, is judged.
§ Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)
I think that I shall be only hon. Member on this side of the House to speak in a different accent. Certainly I cannot be accused of having any constituency or personal interest. I have never visited these charming and delightful constituencies, represented by the hon. Members who have spoken, and I think it unlikely that I will. It is even more unlikely that I will fall foul of the police in those islands.
I have listened to the debate with great interest. I have received representations on this issue from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and other hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. I came to this debate with an open mind and I appreciate the importance of the principle which the Minister has put before the House. I am not convinced, having listened to the debate, that we should not amend the law in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). If the benefit is so valuable that it is worth £1,000, it follows that the tax on that benefit is very heavy. If an officer takes advantage of the warrants the tax must be about £290.
I am impressed by the argument that people do not usually have any choice about being posted. At the time of local government reorganisation I can well remember the sense of grievance felt by people in the west midlands. Fifteen years ago, policemen found that the area in which they were based was transferred from one authority to another. Police were transferred willy-nilly; they had no choice in the matter. Those who had joined the police force intending to be police in rural areas suddenly found themselves, as the result of local government boundaries being redrawn, in a totally different police force in a different area. I can understand that for policemen who are posted, against their wishes but because it is a disciplinary service, to the islands it is important for them to visit their family and elderly parents. From time to time they must take advantage—not a great benefit—of the three travel warrants a year. Those warrants may cover periods of sickness and family needs—the need to take children to see specialists. I do not consider that these warrants are of great importance but the tax on them is fairly significant, especially for people on low incomes.
We should take a more sympathetic attitude than that of the Government. It is significant that no other examples of people who would be posted involuntarily to the islands have been given. The Minister referred to people working for local authorities. If such people are sent considerable distances to another place of work, I would take a similar sympathetic attitude. The Minister did not give any other specific examples, and I would have been more impressed by his argument if he had been able to tell us the number of people who would fall into the new category if we passed the new clause.
1244 I am not impressed by the Minister's argument with regard to the anomaly of the Army. Its position seems similar to that of the police. If the Minister intends to make a fetish of the principle of people being taxed on these benefits, I find it difficult to justify treating members of the armed forces differently. I would not have been surprised if the Minister—in the interests of consistency—had asked us to remove the benefits and tax relief enjoyed by members of the armed forces. I emphasise I am not suggesting that, but one cannot have it both ways.
§ Mr. Donald Stewart
At the beginning the Army were caught in the same trap and an exemption was made for it. That is all that we are asking to be made for the police.
§ Mr. Davis
I accept the right hon. Gentleman's valid point.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) in one small particular. He argued that it was not necessary to change the law. I do not agree. It is necessary to be open, above aboard and frank about these exceptions. I do not agree that this should be done in some extra-statutory way against the wish of the House. It is right and proper that we should make exemptions where they are justified, but we must be clear about the reasons for making such exemptions. That is why I am impressed by the new clause.
I accept the Minister's point that it was an Act introduced 11 years ago by the Labour Government which had the effect of taxing benefits received by people who enjoyed the benefit of travel warrants. I do not take that criticism too seriously. We have found that, during the passage of legislation—there are many examples with which I will not bore the House—the Government have subsequently found it necessary to amend the law because it has had an effect which was not intended.
In the Bill we have the classic example of the American service men who are now to be exempt from car tax. On a previous occasion the Government's legislation imposed car tax—quite rightly—on American service men. The Minister cannot make too much about the errors of my predecessors. I do not believe it was the intention of my hon. Friends in the previous Labour Government to impose a tax in this situation. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber may make fun about our not spotting the defect at the time, but I do not believe it is a serious issue. Since 1983 some people have found that they are subject to tax, especially those who get the benefit of workplace nurseries. My hon. Friends and I have voted to restore that privileged position to those people who found the imposition of that tax a great burden.
If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland decides to press the new clause to a Division, I shall advise my hon. Friends to join him in the Lobby.
§ Mr. Wallace
I listened to the Minister's reply with disappointment. I accept that, as the law stands, these warrants are taxable, but that was the reason for bringing forward the new clause. One of our functions in the House is to change the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said that these warrants were not being taxed during a 10-year period and that that was not against the law. Although they were exempt from tax, there was no clamour from other sections of the community for the exemption and no other specific examples have been given.
§ Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)
I am broadly sympathetic with the new clause. Although I understand that many members of the Northern constabulary are obliged to travel to places to which perhaps they do not wish to be posted, how many members of the constabulary in Orkney and Shetland are posted against their will?
§ 7 pm
§ Mr. Wallace
I understand that 108 officers serve on the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland and that 21 of them are native. It is impossible to go through the 87 non-native officers and ask them whether they are willing to go to the islands. Neither the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) nor I can understand why anyone could possibly not want to go there, but the Scottish Police Federation has made representations to us and individual police officers have drawn our attention to the considerable disadvantages of being separated from their families. It is not that they are wildly reluctant about their posting; it is just that it is simply not possible to be with relatives for the weekend as can be done on the mainland, even if quite large distances are involved.
The Minister gave no example of groups who would seek a similar exemption and mentioned the armed forces. As he read out the conditions of members of the armed forces, I thought that he seemed to describe the conditions which I said applied to the police. He rightly said that it is important for reasons of national security that there is mobility, but I do not think that he would devalue the importance of the police to local security. Moreover, they are always subject to recall when on leave.
Relatively, police officers might not have to travel very far, but the costs involved can be high—as high as, if not higher than, those incurred by members of the armed forces. We seek only comparability.
§ Mr. Kennedy
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we would not have been astounded to discover that the Minister disagreed with us, we have been surprised by his negative response? He has given no undertaking to consider the matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is significant that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who said that he approached the issue with an open mind, feels that the balance of the argument rests with us? Is there not therefore a case for inviting the Minister to give a commitment to consider the matter again?
§ Mr. Wallace
The Minister will have heard my hon. Friend. We might have to consider how to dispose of the new clause if the Minister does not undertake to reconsider, especially in view of the clear comparability between the police and the armed services and the lack of examples of groups who would seek the same exemption.
I was grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Although I had not intended to push the clause to a Division, in view of the Minister's negative response and the fact that an independent arbiter—if there can be such in the House —has so clearly seen where the weight of the argument lies, I invite the House to support the clause.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 153.1247
|Division No. 267]||[7.04 pm|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Maclennan, Robert|
|Blair, Anthony||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Boyes, Roland||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Nellist, David|
|Cartwright, John||Penhaligon, David|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Cohen, Harry||Randall, Stuart|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Raynsford, Nick|
|Corbett, Robin||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Shields, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)||Snape, Peter|
|Dubs, Alfred||Spearing, Nigel|
|Ewing, Harry||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Faulds, Andrew||Wallace, James|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)||Wilson, Gordon|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Woodall, Alec|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Howells, Geraint||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Mr. Russell Johnston and|
|Livsey, Richard||Mr. Charles Kennedy.|
|Alexander, Richard||Gregory, Conal|
|Ancram, Michael||Griffiths, Sir Eldon|
|Ashby, David||Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Ground, Patrick|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.||Gummer, Rt Hon John S|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Baldry, Tony||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Bellingham, Henry||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Benyon, William||Harris, David|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hawksley, Warren|
|Bottomley, Peter||Hayward, Robert|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Heddle, John|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Henderson, Barry|
|Bright, Graham||Hickmet, Richard|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Hill, James|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Hirst, Michael|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Holt, Richard|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Butterfill, John||Jackson, Robert|
|Carlisle, John (Luton N)||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Carttiss, Michael||Jessel, Toby|
|Cash, William||Jones, Robert (Herts W)|
|Chope, Christopher||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Conway, Derek||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Coombs, Simon||Lang, Ian|
|Cope, John||Latham, Michael|
|Couchman, James||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Crouch, David||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Lord, Michael|
|Eyre, Sir Reginald||Luce, Rt Hon Richard|
|Fallon, Michael||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Favell, Anthony||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Fletcher, Alexander||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Forth, Eric||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Major, John|
|Franks, Cecil||Malins, Humfrey|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Maples, John|
|Galley, Roy||Marlow, Antony|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Gorst, John||Mills, Iain (Meriden)|
|Gow, Ian||Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)|
|Moate, Roger||Sims, Roger|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton S)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Moynihan, Hon C.||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Neale, Gerrard||Speed, Keith|
|Nelson, Anthony||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Neubert, Michael||Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)|
|Newton, Tony||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|Norris, Steven||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Onslow, Cranley||Thome, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Osborn, Sir John||Thurnham, Peter|
|Ottaway, Richard||Viggers, Peter|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Waller, Gary|
|Portillo, Michael||Ward, John|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Powley, John||Warren, Kenneth|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Raffan, Keith||Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Wilkinson, John|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Yeo, Tim|
|Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Rowe, Andrew||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Mr. Peter Lloyd and|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Mr. Archie Hamilton.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.