HC Deb 06 June 1989 vol 154 cc66-78

'.—(1) Section 10(2) of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 shall be amended as follows— (2) In paragraph (a) the words ", which shall not be less than 3%," shall be inserted after the words "a standard percentage".'.—[Mr. Wareing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It will be convenient to consider at the same time the following:

New clause 16—Proceedings under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944— '. —(1) Section 19 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 shall be amended as follows— (2) Subsection (1) shall cease to have effect. (3) In subsection (2) the words "brought by the Minister" shall be inserted after "proceedings for an offence under this Act".'. New clause 17—Discrimination on grounds of disability— 'It shall be unlawful for any person to offer employment at an establishment in the United Kingdom which may unreasonably discriminate against any person on the grounds that they are disabled in—

  1. (a) any advertisement or other arrangement made to notify prospective employees, or
  2. (b) the methods of determining who shall be offered employment, or
  3. (c) the terms and conditions on which employment is offered, or
  4. (d) refusing to offer employment.'

Mr. Wareing

The new clause would enshrine in an Act of Parliament for the first time the 3 per cent. figure often accepted as the quota for disabled people as a percentage of a work force. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 mentions only "a standard percentage". That was determined to be 2 per cent. by a statutory rule and order in 1945 and to be 3 per cent. by the Disabled Persons (Standard Percentage) Order No. 1258 of 25 July 1946.

The new clause gives the Government an opportunity to address the problem. Current rumours are giving great concern to organisations representing disabled people and require an answer, for the rumours are that the Government intend to abolish the quota system. No doubt Thatcherite principles will dictate that the quota system is a burden on employers. Compassion plays no part in the race to surrender everything to the hidden and often grotesque hand of the market.

One would have expected the Government to give a lead in ensuring that in their Departments at least 3 per cent. of the work force was disabled. This afternoon I received a written answer to a question that I put to the Prime Minister about the number of registered disabled people employed by the Cabinet Office. I was told: There are 16 registered disabled persons employed by the Cabinet Office, which represents approximately 1 per cent. of the total work force, and none at 10 Downing street. The answer added, ironically: The Cabinet Office is an equal opportunities employer". The right hon. Lady could have fooled all of us. Indeed, she will be trying to do that if it is suggested that the Government want to adhere to the 3 per cent. quota.

The number of people who chose to register under the 1984 Act fell from 936,196 in 1950 to 389,273 in 1986. This signifies a complete lack of confidence on the part of disabled people in the adequacy of the existing law and even more in the willingness of the Government fully to apply and implement—to use the Prime Minister's own word—the law as it now stands.

It is rather interesting that more than 1,230,000 people have registered with local authorities as disabled under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which shows that people have more confidence that local authorities may try to provide them with services than in their providing them with suitable employment.

The percentage of employers abiding by the law and meeting the quota fell from 53.2 per cent. in 1965 to 26.8 per cent. in 1986. In 1986, 56 per cent. of employers were not meeting the quota and were being issued with permits by the Minister's Department. It was even true in 1986 that no fewer than 17.2 per cent. of those not meeting the quota had no permit to break the law—I insist, "break the law".

If the Government are considering the quota system in their internal review, as the Minister has told me in answer to a parliamentary question, they should take on board the views of disabled people's organisations. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf says of the quota system: despite some calls for its abolition we believe it should be retained, strengthened and enforced. The Spastics Society, in consulting its members in April this year, found that Most favoured the retention of the quota system and the majority of these argued strongly for stricter enforcement and fewer exemptions. The Government may argue that this is one of those famous burdens on industry. They are not too worried about burdens on the disabled, but they are worried about burdens on industry. However, it is hardly a burden on industry when it can so easily be lifted by Tory Ministers, as has happened in the past five years. In each of the past five years Ministers have issued over 18,000 permits. I should like to know what the criteria are that lead Ministers to exempt so many employers. The law is certainly needed, but it also needs to be applied. This is something else that Tory Governments in particular have failed to do.

Since the 1944 Act, there have been only 10 prosecutions. The last one was in 1975, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I understand. Only one of those prosecutions was during the lifetime of a Tory Government, and that was in 1973. Of the 10 cases that have been heard, two were dismissed and one employer received only an admonition. Fines covering the other seven cases totalled only £434. So there is a case for stiffening the law, and new clause 16 would enable people other than the Minister to take proceedings against employers who deliberately break the law.

New clause 17 is, if anything, the most important of these clauses because for the first time it will enable the House of Commons to vote on the question of discrimination against disabled persons. There have been disgraceful events such as the one on 18 November 1983 when my own private Member's Bill to outlaw all discrimination against disabled people was "unofficially" whipped against by the Government and there was a vote on a closure. This is the first time that we can vote on discrimination against disabled people on matters of employment. Incidentally, by pushing forward the boundaries of equal opportunities, we shall be doing what would have been done had a Labour Government been in office after 1979 because in 1979 my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe appointed the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, which recommended that Government should take action to outlaw discrimination, particularly in this vital area of employment.

The first seven clauses of this Bill deal inadequately with the question of discrimination on grounds of sex. It is illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex or of ethnic origin or race, but it is still perfectly legal in this country that calls itself civilised for an employer deliberately to discriminate against a person because he or she is disabled. I believe that the time has now come for the abolition of this scourge of disabled people.

The number of disabled people is very great. We know from the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that 6 million people in our country are disabled. The Royal College of Physicians estimates that approximately one person in 10 is physically disabled and that about 2 million of those people are of working age. Yet only 31 per cent. of disabled people of working age are in paid employment. That is according to the Government's own OPCS survey—and I tell the Minister this because he seemed in some doubt about it some weeks ago.

The degree of unemployment among disabled people is enormous, and the more severe the disability the worse it is, so that 48 per cent. of disabled people in severity category 1 are working but only 2 per cent. in severity category 10 are working. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has estimated that there are in this country 1.4 million adults of working age with a clinically significant loss of hearing, but that only 50,000 who are profoundly deaf are in the working population. So there is quite clearly a job to be done, and the Opposition believe that the Bill provides the opportunity to do something.

When we look at the question of unemployment among disabled people we find that not only are they discriminated against, not only are they the people who are most likely to be without a job, but they are also the ones who are most likely to be without a job for the longest time. Whereas only 8 per cent. of non-disabled people have been jobless for more than two years, no fewer than 26 per cent. of disabled job seekers have been jobless for more than two years.

The Government's willingness to tackle the problem can be measured by the fact that between 1981 and 1985 they cut the number of disablement resettlement officers by 30 per cent. and reduced the training period of those officers to two weeks—a measly two weeks to train people to do a vital job for a part of the community which has talents that should be taken into account. I believe that far too often society takes more account of the supposed incapabilities of disabled people than of their capabilities.

That discrimination exists there can be no doubt. The Spastics Society survey in 1986 showed that 152 secretarial jobs were applied for and two applications based on two standard letters were sent out for those jobs. Where there was no disability involved, 97 per cent. of the applicants received positive responses. Where a disability was mentioned, only 59 per cent. received positive responses. There is also much anecdotal evidence of which the Minister should be aware, although I doubt whether he is, and should be exploring as the Minister responsible for the disabled.

It is not only an absence of job opportunities but an absence of adequate earnings that faces so many disabled people. The average gross weekly earnings of male full-time workers is £192.40, whereas for disabled male full-time workers the figure is only £156.70. That is 81 per cent. of the average wages of the working population.

6.30 pm

The figures I am quoting are from the OPCS survey—the Government's own survey. When gross weekly earnings are broken down by severity category, the differences are even more stark. For male full-time employees in severity categories 1 and 2, the level of earnings is only 86 per cent. of that for the average working population. Men who are categorised in group 5 or above receive only 72 per cent. of the average earnings of their non-disabled counterparts. That disparity is seen even when the figures are broken down into hourly rates of pay. For categories 1 and 2, the hourly rate is 90 per cent. of the rate paid to able-bodied workers. For categories 5 and above, the figure is only 74 per cent.

The discrimination in earnings has obvious repercussions on the living standards and lifestyles of disabled people. The cost of disability must be taken into account, as well as the low amounts that so many disabled people receive. Those who are on the lower incomes find that they have to make choices about priorities. The need to spend extra on disability-related items may result in a lower standard of living than that of non-disabled people on the same income level.

It could be argued that our proposal is in line with previous statutory provisions and actually strengthens them. I remind the Minister that the Companies (Directors' Report) (Employment of Disabled Persons) Regulations 1980, administered by the Department of Trade and Industry, require information to be given in directors' reports on what is being done to train, employ and promote the career prospects of disabled employees. It is time to act. The Government should act in combination with the Department of Trade and Industry to strengthen the cause of giving a wider choice to disabled people. After all, this Government talk about freedom and choice, yet the only thing that they seem to give disabled people is sympathy. Disabled people require more than sympathy; they require positive action. Any Government with a semblance of humanity would endorse the new clauses.

The Government's response will be watched carefully by the 6 million disabled people in our country. I hope that the recent report that the Government are planning to axe disability allowances for those who take up employment training is not a precursor of what to expect when it comes to tackling the real problems of disabled people in the labour market. I hope that the House will endorse the new clauses. If it does not, it will be to the detriment of the Government in the near future, who will have to face the wrath of that large minority of the population who are disabled and the wrath of the members of their families.

Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I want to speak briefly in support of the new clauses. Throughout the years, various Governments have tried to end the quota system and the argument they use is that persuasion is better than prosecution. The fact that their unemployment figures are so high and that so many disabled people are short of employment makes an absurdity of that claim. We need both persuasion and prosecution. We need to persuade some employers to accept their moral and legal obligations to employ registered disabled people as 3 per cent. of their labour force. We also need to prosecute those who are breaking the law, when persuasion fails. It is essential that we should now do both.

The Government must stop evading the issue and they should ensure that the quota is fully implemented. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, break the law by parking your car on a double yellow line, or by stealing cash from a store, you are prosecuted—and rightly so. The same is true of any hon. Member. But employers who break the law by failing to fulfil the quota and then by taking on non-disabled workers without a permit are not prosecuted. This Government are condoning law-breaking and that is wholly inexcusable.

There is no substitute for the quota unless the Government are prepared to bring in a levy system. If the Government want to drop the quota, let them bring in a levy system, which imposes a levy on those employers who will not employ disabled people as 3 per cent. of the work force. That is fine. We would then have good employers who employed disabled people as 3 per cent. of their work force and bad employers who would not, but who would pay nevertheless. That is why the Government should either enforce the quota or bring in a levy of 3 per cent. of the payroll, to be paid to the good employers.

The amount of discrimination against disabled people in Britain is appalling. Severely disabled people find that every day of their lives, especially in jobs and in applications for jobs. Unless this Government take action, severely disabled people will continue to suffer abysmal discrimination. As the OPCS report mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, we cannot seek to justify any kind of wild discrimination. All we are trying to do is to outlaw unjustified discrimination, as the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People pointed out. The best way of tackling discrimination is to outlaw it, as is being done in other countries, such as the United States and Australia, and there is no reason why we should not do that.

Today I wear three hats. I am the chairman of the all-party disablement group. We deplore the failure of employers to fulfil the quota. As chairman of that group, I speak for hon. Members of all parties. We want to keep the quota and we want it to be enforced properly. I also speak as president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. That organisation feels deeply about the discrimination against deaf people in employment. I also speak as a disabled person. We resent the discrimination against all kinds of disabled people, we regret it and we ask the Government to act. That is all we are seeking. We do not seek punitive or wild measures, just reasonably firm action to ensure that disabled people get a decent chance of a job.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

Disabled people have been the victims of unemployment in the past decade more often than fit people. That is true not only of industry in general, but even of Remploy, the organisation especially devoted to helping provide jobs for disabled people. We have seen stagnation in certain sections there. I represent a part of Remploy which has seen stagnation and reduction. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us how many extra jobs have been created in Remploy for disabled people in the past decade. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) was right to demand a categorical assurance from the Minister that the quota system, which the new clauses seek to improve, will not be abolished and is not being threatened by any proposed Government changes.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, we are talking not only about disabled people who are unemployed but about those in employment, who are paid lower wages than other people. There is nothing more degrading for disabled people than being paid poor wages—except, that is, being unemployed.

My hon. Friend said that disabled people were being paid £150 a week, compared with a national average of £190. I remind the House of the wages paid to those in the one organisation that is devoted to offering job opportunities in manufacturing to disabled people. I refer to those in Remploy, who earn £90 a week. The level at which the Government pay income support is £110 a week. The TUC threshold level is £133 a week. The wages of those in Remploy come nowhere near that, let alone the European decency wages of £141 a week. That means that even those employed in the organisation that has been specially devoted to creating and maintaining employment for the disabled are some of the poorest wage earners in the country. Those people deserve a much better deal.

Since 1980, the gap between the income of those in Remploy and those outside it has grown. Remploy workers' wages used to be related to those paid for local government work. In 1980 the difference in wages between those inside Remploy and those outside it was 12p a week; in 1989, the difference is £11 a week. Not only have opportunities stagnated in many sections of Remploy; there is a growing gap between the wages paid to its workers and those paid elsewhere.

I wholeheartedly support the new clause, which would increase the quota. We demand from the Minister a categorical assurance that there is no suggestion that the Government will abolish the quota system—as it has been suggested they will abolish wages councils. At the same time, I underline the point that even those disabled people who are in employment—and particularly in Remploy—are some of the poorest paid workers in the country.

Mr. Lee

The new clauses would affect in various ways the arrangements for ensuring that people with disabilities can obtain and retain suitable employment. Although I am in sympathy with the motives underlying them, they are all of doubtful value as a means of achieving improvements in this very important area.

New clause 15 would make it impossible to lower the standard percentage of registered disabled people under the quota scheme from its current level of 3 per cent. Registration under the Act is voluntary and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said the number of people who choose to register has declined steadily—from more than 660,000 in 1961 to fewer than 375,000 in 1988. It is therefore now impossible for all employers who fall within the scope of the quota scheme to achieve the 3 per cent. figure. It would be unwise, therefore, not to retain the flexibility to lower the percentage if it were judged that that would increase the quota scheme's effectiveness.

Mr. Haynes

Will the Minister tell the House the percentage of disabled people who work in the Palace of Westminster? Then we shall see whether the Government should be prosecuted.

6.45 pm
Mr. Lee

As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I do not have that figure with me—

Mr. Haynes

The hon. Member should have.

Mr. Lee

—and indeed, it is not my personal ministerial responsibility.

Although I should emphasise that we currently have no plans to do this, it seems to me perfectly possible that, at some time in the future, circumstances might make it appropriate to move to a lower figure.

Mr. Rowlands

I am trying to ascertain what the Minister has just mumbled to us. Was he talking about lowering the quota or actually abolishing it? Will he give us a categorical assurance that the Government do not contemplate abolishing the quota?

Mr. Lee

What I would say is that the quota is one of many items under consideration in the overall review that we are undertaking. That has been made perfectly clear.

New clause 16 would end the current arrangement whereby the power to bring or authorise prosecutions for offences under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 is restricted to this Department. It has been the policy of successive Governments, since the Act was first introduced, to bring prosecutions only as a last resort and to pursue a policy of education and persuasion designed to secure and improve the policies and practices of all employers in relation to the employment of people with disabilities. There is no evidence that the current policy on prosecutions has led to a major problem of employers failing to employ people with disabilities. Although 76 per cent. of eligible firms are below the standard percentage, this is largely because of the decline in numbers of registered disabled people. In any event, no offence is committed unless they recruit someone other than a registered disabled person without first obtaining a permit to do so.

Mr. Wallace

I understood the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) to say that the number of registered disabled people had fallen so much because of a lack of confidence in the quota system. To some extent, it is a chicken and egg situation, I suppose, but will the Minister respond to the specific criticism made by the hon. Member for West Derby?

Mr. Lee

As anyone concerned with these matters will concede one of the problems is that we just do not know the size of the market or the size of the problem. That is one of the reasons why my Department is undertaking a major survey whose results we expect to have by the end of the year.

Many employers have other employees who could have registered disabled but who have chosen not to do so. I believe that our policy, backed up, as it is, with practical help to individuals to assist them to overcome problems that they face as a result of their disability, is the best way of securing a genuine commitment among employers to employing people with disabilities.

New clause 17, which seeks to make it unlawful for employers to discriminate against potential employees on the grounds of their disability, is similarly inconsistent with the Government's line. There may be discrimination, although its scale is not clear. The Government believe that encouragement to employers to adopt good practices, combined with practical help in doing so, is the right way forward, and preferable to anti-discrimination measures such as that proposed in the new clause, which would undoubtedly be difficult and costly to enforce and possibly even counter-productive, making a constructive approach by employers less likely.

The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that people with disabilities are given appropriate help in obtaining and retaining employment. We maintain a wide range of services which provide invaluable assistance to a large number of people with disabilities who are seeking employment or who are already in employment.

We are currently reviewing all our services and have commissioned a major survey of the number and characteristics of people with disabilities. The first draft of the consultative document is being considered by Ministers—

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)

On the subject of that first draft, the Minister has suggested that a degree of flexibility will be required. The law regarding the employment of disabled people passed in 1944 said that not less than 3 per cent. of a given work force should be disabled. The new clause seeks to achieve what was intended then. For 45 years we have had no success in persuading employers to abide by the law. The Department has issued permits of exemption, which shows that the Government have no intention of ensuring that the law is abided by. The first draft has fallen short of what should be the aim, and the Minister has even come here without relevant figures—even those for the disabled employed in the Palace of Westminster or in Government Departments. His sincerity is in question.

Mr. Lee

With respect, the hon. Gentleman's points suggest to us the need for the flexibility that we seek. I reiterate my earlier comment that the whole question of the quota is being looked at in the review that is under way. We shall take the figures to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred into consideration in the consultative document. We are pledged to publish that document and consult interested parties. Our considered view is that the new clauses would not help the continuing development of appropriate provision.

Mr. Wareing

Will the Minister take the opportunity to tell us what criteria his Department uses in granting permits to allow employers to avoid the quota system?

Mr. Lee

I should have thought that the answer was fairly obvious—the criteria would be the requirements of the particular employer and the numbers of disabled people available for employment in the relevant jobcentre areas. Those would be the dominant considerations, together with any other sensible and realistic evidence. I hope that the Opposition will not press the amendments, but if they do we shall resist them.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a compelling case and I congratulate him on his speech. These are very important matters for disabled people, and their representatives have made it strikingly clear that they want the legislative change sought by the amendments.

My hon. Friend recalled that in 1979, as the then Minister for the Disabled, I set up the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People—CORAD—to establish the nature and extent of discrimination and whether legislation was required. Many of the submissions to CORAD stated that … cases of discrimination are serious and widespread. Hundreds of responses gave specific and very disquieting examples. There was discrimination against the disabled then, as there is now, and it is deplorable that the Government's reaction to that committee's report has been so utterly negative.

CORAD strongly recommended legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. It asked for legislation similar to that designed to protect women and ethnic minorities, to prevent … the unjustifiable withholding, whether intentional or not, of some service, facility or opportunity from a disabled person because of that person's disability. As well as providing legal protection and redress, legislation would, as both CORAD and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in his speech tonight emphasised, also affect people's attitudes and behaviour through education, persuasion and example.

The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 already establishes disabled people's rights in important areas such as housing, personal social services and access. CORAD reported the many notable improvements in those and many other areas during the first 10 years of the Act, but there has been scant progress since. This is an opportunity to make progress that would be welcomed by many of the major national organisations of and for disabled people.

The figures for unemployment among disabled job seekers shout of discrimination against them. They suffer from low pay and lack of opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby should be congratulated both on the amendments and on his earlier attempt to legislate against discrimination by means of a private Member's Bill. As he said, the House has its first opportunity tonight to vote on discrimination against disabled people. I welcome that opportunity and ask all who wish to show their concern for what people with disabilities are seeking for themselves to support the amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER having directed that the doors he locked—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. I direct the doors to be reopened for another two minutes.

Whereupon the doors were unlocked.

Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow)

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if the timing for the Division could he checked. It appears to me that the Division started at 6.54 pm and that the order to lock the doors was given at 7 pm, thus allowing only six minutes instead of eight minutes to vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here earlier. There was an error, and I instructed the doors to be locked too early. It was for that reason that I instructed the doors to be unlocked. They are still unlocked.

The House having divided: Ayes 169, Noes 259.

Division No. 221] [6.53 pm
AYES
Allen, Graham Anderson, Donald
Alton, David Archer, Rt Hon peter
Armstrong, Hilary Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ashton, Joe Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Illsley, Eric
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) Janner, Greville
Barron, Kevin Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Battle, John Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Beckett, Margaret Kennedy, Charles
Beith, A. J. Kirkwood, Archy
Bell, Stuart Lamond, James
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Leadbitter, Ted
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Leighton, Ron
Bermingham, Gerald Lewis, Terry
Bidwell, Sydney Livsey, Richard
Blunkett, David Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Boyes, Roland Loyden, Eddie
Bray, Dr Jeremy McCartney, Ian
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Macdonald, Calum A.
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Buckley, George J. McKelvey, William
Caborn, Richard Madden, Max
Callaghan, Jim Mahon, Mrs Alice
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Marek, Dr John
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Canavan, Dennis Meacher, Michael
Cartwright, John Meale, Alan
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Michael, Alun
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Clay, Bob Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Clelland, David Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Moonie, Dr Lewis
Cohen, Harry Morgan, Rhodri
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Morley, Elliott
Corbett, Robin Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Corbyn, Jeremy Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Cousins, Jim Mullin, Chris
Crowther, Stan Nellist, Dave
Cryer, Bob Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Cunliffe, Lawrence Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Dalyell, Tam Patchett, Terry
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Pike, Peter L.
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I) Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Dixon, Don Prescott, John
Dobson, Frank Quin, Ms Joyce
Doran, Frank Randall, Stuart
Douglas, Dick Redmond, Martin
Duffy, A. E. P. Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth Reid, Dr John
Eadie, Alexander Richardson, Jo
Eastham, Ken Robertson, George
Evans, John (St Helens N) Robinson, Geoffrey
Fatchett, Derek Rogers, Allan
Faulds, Andrew Rooker, Jeff
Fearn, Ronald Rowlands, Ted
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Ruddock, Joan
Fisher, Mark Sedgemore, Brian
Flannery, Martin Sheerman, Barry
Flynn, Paul Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Short, Clare
Foster, Derek Skinner, Dennis
Foulkes, George Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Fraser, John Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Galbraith, Sam Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Snape, Peter
George, Bruce Soley, Clive
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Spearing, Nigel
Godman, Dr Norman A. Steinberg, Gerry
Golding, Mrs Llin Stott, Roger
Gould, Bryan Strang, Gavin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) Straw, Jack
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Turner, Dennis
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Vaz, Keith
Grocott, Bruce Wall, Pat
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Wallace, James
Hinchliffe, David Walley, Joan
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Wareing, Robert N.
Howells, Geraint Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) Wigley, Dafydd
Hoyle, Doug Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Winnick, David Tellers for the Ayes:
Wise, Mrs Audrey Mr. Frank Haynes and
Worthington, Tony Mr. Allen Adams.
Young, David (Bolton SE)
NOES
Adley, Robert Freeman, Roger
Alexander, Richard French, Douglas
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Fry, Peter
Amos, Alan Gardiner, George
Arbuthnot, James Garel-Jones, Tristan
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Gill, Christopher
Atkins, Robert Glyn, Dr Alan
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Goodhart, Sir Philip
Baldry, Tony Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Gow, Ian
Batiste, Spencer Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bellingham, Henry Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bendall, Vivian Gregory, Conal
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Benyon, W. Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bevan, David Gilroy Ground, Patrick
Blackburn, Dr John G. Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Hague, William
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Boswell, Tim Hampson, Dr Keith
Bottomley, Peter Hanley, Jeremy
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Hannam, John
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Harris, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin Haselhurst, Alan
Brazier, Julian Hayward, Robert
Bright, Graham Heathcoat-Amory, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Heddle, John
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Budgen, Nicholas Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Burt, Alistair Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butler, Chris Hind, Kenneth
Butterfill, John Hordern, Sir Peter
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Howard, Michael
Carrington, Matthew Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Carttiss, Michael Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Cash, William Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Chapman, Sydney Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Chope, Christopher Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Irvine, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon John Jack, Michael
Cormack, Patrick Jackson, Robert
Curry, David Janman, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry) Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Devlin, Tim Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dorrell, Stephen Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Key, Robert
Dunn, Bob Kilfedder, James
Durant, Tony King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) Kirkhope, Timothy
Evennett, David Knapman, Roger
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Fallon, Michael Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Favell, Tony Knowles, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Knox, David
Fishburn, John Dudley Lamont, Rt Hon Norman'
Fookes, Dame Janet Lang, Ian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Latham, Michael
Forth, Eric Lawrence, Ivan
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Lee, John (Pendle)
Franks, Cecil Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Lilley, Peter Roe, Mrs Marion
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) Rost, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Rowe, Andrew
Lyell, Sir Nicholas Rumbold, Mrs Angela
McCrindle, Robert Ryder, Richard
Macfarlane, Sir Neil Sackville, Hon Tom
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Sainsbury, Hon Tim
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) Sayeed, Jonathan
Maclean, David Shaw, David (Dover)
McLoughlin, Patrick Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Shersby, Michael
Madel, David Sims, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John Skeet, Sir Trevor
Maples, John Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Marlow, Tony Soames, Hon Nicholas
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Speller, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Stanbrook, Ivor
Mates, Michael Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Maude, Hon Francis Steen, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stevens, Lewis
Mellor, David Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Miller, Sir Hal Sumberg, David
Mills, Iain Summerson, Hugo
Miscampbell, Norman Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mitchell, Sir David Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Moate, Roger Temple-Morris, Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Moore, Rt Hon John Thorne, Neil
Morrison, Sir Charles Thornton, Malcolm
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester) Thurnham, Peter
Moss, Malcolm Townend, John (Bridlington)
Moynihan, Hon Colin Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mudd, David Tracey, Richard
Nelson, Anthony Trotter, Neville
Neubert, Michael Twinn, Dr Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Waddington, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Waller, Gary
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Ward, John
Norris, Steve Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley Warren, Kenneth
Page, Richard Watts, John
Paice, James Wells, Bowen
Patnick, Irvine Wheeler, John
Patten, Chris (Bath) Widdecombe, Ann
Patten, John (Oxford W) Wiggin, Jerry
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Wilshire, David
Pawsey, James Winterton, Mrs Ann
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Winterton, Nicholas
Porter, David (Waveney) Wolfson, Mark
Portillo, Michael Wood, Timothy
Powell, William (Corby) Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Price, Sir David Yeo, Tim
Raffan, Keith Young, Sir George (Acton)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Younger, Rt Hon George
Redwood, John
Renton, Tim Tellers for the Noes:
Riddick, Graham Mr. David Lightbowne and
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.