§ Mr. Flynn
Clause 3 is at the heart of the Bill and seeks to extinguish entitlement to reduced earnings allowance. The amendment, by contrast, seeks to extinguish the clause.
The clause represents an obvious cut in benefit. To introduce some of the Government's promised reforms —the disablement employment credit and the disablement allowances—the Government must first cut. They are robbing Peter to pay Peter. This follows the Treasury's edict, which has dominated the 11 years of Thatcher's misrule in social security—that any apparent improvement must be self-financing. To reward the disabled with long overdue benefits, they must first be robbed of existing benefits.
Even on the Government's own figures, the abolition of reduced earnings allowance will reduce benefits paid to the 1100 victims of industrial accidents and diseases by £41 million in 1992–93, rising to £130 million in the year 2001–2 and to £150 million in the year 2025–26. These figures are almost certainly a gross underestimate because they are based on unrealistic assumptions of the rate of increase in earnings, but even if they are correct they represent a ferocious cut in the incomes of disabled people.
Reduced earnings allowance is an important benefit in terms of the considerable numbers of people affected, of its great value and of the reason for which it is paid. It is received by 146,000 disabled people—a number that has scarcely changed in the past 20 years—so the Government are not obliterating a minor, arcane, anachronistic benefit payable only to a handful of people. It is important to remember that for more than half of those who receive it, it is their only compensation from the industrial injuries scheme.
What is the value of the benefit? In theory, it varies with a loss of earning capacity, but as the maximum allowance for 1990–91 in £30.54, and the loss of earnings generally is far more than that, the maximum is payable in most cases. At least 120,000 people will lose more than £30 per week from the abolition of the REA.
What is the purpose of the benefit? In 1948, our predecessors in this place wisely introduced the allowance, and their reasons for so doing are as compelling today as they were then. Loss of earnings is still specifically excluded from the factors taken into account in assessing entitlement to basic industrial disablement pensions. Since 1986, no disablement pension has been paid at all if a disability is less than 14 per cent., but even a relatively minor disability which does not qualify a person for disablement pension can result in a critical loss of earnings. The REA provides a modest but entirely justified level of compensation for that loss.
In Committee, the Minister produced some eccentric counterfeit arguments to pretend that REA was both unnecessary and a duplication of other provision. He cited the extreme case of a man whose earnings had dropped from £350 per week to £300 per week, as though it was self-evident that such a person did not need REA. But if such a man is sufficiently disabled not to be able to return to a previous job and his earnings have fallen by £50 per week, REA of £30 is probably the only compensation to which he is entitled, so how can it possibly be argued that he does not need it?
What about a man whose income was slashed not from £350 to £300, but from £250 to £200, or a woman whose earnings dropped from £200 to £150, or a man or a woman whose earnings may have dropped not by £50 per week but by £100 a week or even more? There are many such cases. Can it really be the Government's view that such people do not need the £30 allowance?
The Minister also claimed that most REA recipients who cannot work receive invalidity benefits, which he described as an anomalous overlap—a phrase which occurs in the White Paper. If it is an overlap, it has not been regarded as one of any insignificance by anyone in the past 40 years. Is it an overlap? Invalidity benefit, including the highest rate of invalidity allowance, is only £56.90 a week in the current year. Even when allowances for a non-earning spouse and children are added to the total, it is still far below the average take-home pay of the average 1101 manual worker. There is no question of overcompensation for the loss of earnings. In the vast majority of cases, there is immense under-compensation. The £30 allowance fills only a small part of the gap.
The only component of invalidity benefit which could conceivably be regarded as overlapping with REA is the earnings-related addition payable under the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, but that is to be abolished under clause 4. The argument that two benefits overlap may justify abolishing one of them, but it can never justify abolishing both. That would be an act of unbridled meanness, but that is what the Bill appears to do.
Very little is left. The clause is a malign, crude attempt to save money by picking the pockets of those who have suffered the afflictions of industrial accidents and diseases. The defence that the cut is part of a package of measures to improve the lot of disabled people is false. The Government claim that it will increase spending on disability benefits up to the turn of the century, but that claim is almost certainly unjustified because of the Government's unrealistic assumptions about the increase in average earnings.
Some disabled people will gain from some of the changes proposed in the White Paper when they come, but only a minority of those entitled to REA will qualify for the proposed new benefits. Those who cannot work will lose both REA and earnings-related invalidity benefit. Among those who can work, some may qualify for the means-tested disability employment credit, but that benefit is expected to reach only about 50,000 people in total. If as many as half those who now qualify for REA are reached, which is most unlikely, that would account for only one sixth of the present total of REA recipients.
The unfairness of discriminating in this way against the victims of industrial injuries is all the greater because, until now, industrial injuries benefits have always been part of the national insurance scheme, financed out of contributions to the scheme and paid for by employers and employees. In Committee, the Minister invented a convenient theory that the benefits were non-contributory, so no breach of contract was involved in their abolition. He wrote to me on that subject and there is no point in re-running the argument, but if the Minister still adheres to the same view, he should have a quiet word with his statisticians. In their annual publication, "Social Security Statistics", they list industrial disablement benefit clearly under the heading "Contributory Benefits".
The abolition of REA is almost the last stage in the process of dismantling the industrial injury benefit scheme. There might be some justification for that if the benefits were to be replaced by equally generous provision for all disabled people, regardless of the cause of disability, but that is not what the Government propose. On the contrary, they are engaged in a massive cost-cutting, cost-juggling exercise in recycling money, in which the victims of industrial accidents and diseases will be among the greatest losers.
Mr. Scott: My first point was touched on by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). The provision that we have included in the Bill needs to be seen in the wider context of the Government's overall provision. What we have tried to do is to produce a package of measures that will significantly alter the balance of 1102 provision for disabled people within the overall provision. By 1992, when disability employment credit and disability allowance are in place, we shall have addressed the needs of the disabled population as a whole much more effectively. We shall be addressing in particular the needs of those among the disabled who suffer the most disabling of incapacities, particularly people who are disabled from birth or early in life who do not have the capacity to build up entitlement to contributory benefits.
I make no secret of the fact that some of our proposals are specifically designed to redress the balance and direct resources to areas of greater need. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that that was the approach that I took in Committee. The ending of entitlement to reduced earnings allowance for new claimants is a sensible measure which forms part of the overall strategy. I stress that the change relates to new entitlements. All existing REA entitlements will be preserved and uprated in future under the rules that apply now.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we were trying to abolish the industrial preference altogether. He is jumping the gun substantially. I have no intention of doing that. I cannot say that there will not be further changes in the industrial injuries benefit system or amendments to the industrial preference, but the clause is not part of a long-term strategy to remove that preference. Sensibly, we are adjusting the balance between different aspects of provision for disabled people.
It is true that the preferences available to the industrially disabled are at present significant and go some way beyond the provisions available to other disabled people. What is more, the benefits are tax-free, non-contributory and generally payable in addition to other benefits, unless they are means-tested, in which case they would be partially disregarded. Furthermore, the benefits are payable whether or not the beneficiary is working. In consequence, someone who receives maximum industrial injuries benefits, along with invalidity benefit and mobility allowance, could have a net weekly income of over £250. That compares with take-home pay of £156 a week for a married man on average manual earnings.
It is not surprising that industrial injuries benefit recipients are not only better off than comparable benefit recipients but, when looking at the population as a whole, are more likely to be found in the middle or upper parts of income distribution.
Within the overall framework of industrial injuries provision, reduced earnings allowance may be paid where a person's earning capacity suffers as a direct result of an industrial accident or disease. However, a person does not have to be severely disabled to receive the allowance. Only 1 per cent. disablement is required to qualify. In the majority of cases, the least disabled benefit from that provision.
I conclude by emphasising two points. First, I reiterate that present beneficiaries and new entitlements established before the Bill becomes law are protected. They will continue to receive REA as long as they fulfil the qualifying conditions and the benefit will be uprated on the same basis as now. I emphasise again that this is part of a wider consideration of the balance of provision among disabled people generally. All hon. Members who consider the matter fairly will look forward to 1992, when the disability allowance and disability employment credit are available. They will represent significant steps in meeting the needs of disabled people that have long been 1103 campaigned on but which we have not been able to meet. The clause is part of the way in which we shall introduce those two new benefits.
§ Mr. Allen McKay
I wish to ask the Minister several specific questions about the reduced earnings allowance and other matters that I have raised before. I accept that existing beneficiaries will continue to qualify. That means that new claimants will not be able to receive reduced earnings allowance.
Many people in industry, particularly my industry of mining, have, over the years, relied upon the reduced earnings allowance. I have persuaded people who were obviously unfit to continue their present work to take on lighter duties either on the surface of the colliery or underground. The availability of REA encouraged those people to leave the work of which they were no longer capable. Previously, many had attempted to carry on because they were worried about a reduction in their earnings. The onset of an industrial disease or the suffering of an industrial accident had a traumatic effect on households with on-going commitments as they realised that their earnings would be reduced. Sometimes such families fell into debt. Until that time, the worker felt that, to all intents and purposes, his working life would continue until he was 65.
The Bill will take us back to the days before REA was available and it will encourage people to stay in work for which they are unfit. As a result, their injuries or industrial disease will worsen. The Bill is a step backwards. We do not know what 1992 will bring, but I know what the Bill will bring. The person injured or suffering from an industrial disease will henceforth ask himself whether he can afford to leave his work, given that that could cause problems at home. He will have to decide whether to continue in his present work in the certainty that his industrial disease or the injury that he sustained will worsen. If that happened, the cost to the social fund and to the welfare fund would he greater than REA in the long run as the need for care would be so much greater.
A person in low-paid work does not pay so much towards his retirement as he would were he in high-technology work. The fact that REA carried on in retirement until the age of 70 compensated for the loss of superannuation and works pension as a result of injury or disease. That allowance encouraged people to leave work for which they were unfit and to have a better, and probably longer life. It also ensured that the effect of the loss of earnings was cushioned until the age of 70. It is important to reconsider the Bill in the light of those arguments.
It is one thing to look to the future and another to say that existing beneficiaries will not be affected. There is a gap that could cover a lot of people in and out of work. We should fill that gap.
§ Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)
I have to make a contribution now, because it is obvious that the Government are taking us back to the 1930s. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. I listened to what the Minister had to say and he knows how far my age group goes back. I well remember the bad old days in the mining industry to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and 1104 Penistone (Mr. McKay) referred. I remember the serious injuries and diseases from which miners suffered. My hon. Friend was also right to talk about a reduction in earnings.
Who do the Government think they are kidding? We have been around a long time. It was under a Conservative Government that all the problems first occurred in the mining industry. That happened when I was young. The Minister is not helping to make things any better.
Many people will be shoved on to the scrap heap because they cannot carry out their normal work. The Government are not helping people who suffer an industrial accident or from an industrial disease. They are clobbering such people. I know that the Minister is trying to kid me; he has done it before and is doing it again tonight. I warn him that the workers out there will not like it. The Minister and the Prime Minister have told us that many such workers voted Conservative last time. They will have second thoughts because of the Bill, never mind the poll tax.
I am not satisfied with what the Minister had to say. Never mind the benefits the Minister described, which he believes will encourage workers to leave unsuitable work. Those workers will be chucked on the scrap heap and they will be unable to find another job anywhere else, because no one will be prepared to take them on. People who have suffered an industrial accident or caught a serious industrial disease should be properly looked after by us. It is a high time that the Government rethought their policy on this. We shall do that for them when we are over there on the Government Benches. After the next election we will put things right, make no mistake about it. Perhaps the Minister will not be here to see it happen.
§ Mr. Haynes
That is true; I am retiring at the next election. The Parliamentary Private Secretary is opening his mouth behind the Minister when he should be keeping quiet. He is making snide remarks at me, but I have already announced my retirement. I note that the hon. Gentleman has just nipped off to get some advice for the Minister.
I shall not be here after the next election because I belong to a particular age group, but I shall keep my eye on this place, there is no doubt about that. I shall keep my eye on how these Tories react in Opposition when the Labour Government do all kinds of marvellous things.
§ Mr. Haynes
I note the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Does he want to make an intervention? Apparently not. The hon. Gentleman is busy shaking his head and making snide remarks to the Minister instead of getting up and being honest with himself and the House.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has heard how I feel about the Bill, following what the Minister said. I am not pleased with what he said, nor am I pleased with him. He should have used a different tone and said different things. Most of my colleagues now in the Chamber were employed at one time in heavy industry. We know what it is all about. I bet the Minister has never had a shovel in his hand.
§ Mr. Haynes
He probably used it to make a fire, but I am talking about real work and a No. 10 shovel. That shovel is as big as a table top.
Some of the poor lads in the mining industry all those years ago suffered under the coal owners and the Minister and the Government are trying to take the mining industry back to those times with all their legislation. We do not accept the Bill.
If the Minister is on the Opposition Benches after the next election he will see what we will do in the interests of poor people who cannot help themselves, particularly those who have given a lifetime to industry and who are seriously hurt or who catch a serious industrial disease as a result. We will help those people and we shall not scratch round for a copper or two like the Government. We will treat them properly and pay them what they are entitled to receive. Those people have made their contribution to our economy so that we might enjoy the benefits. They must be looked after properly, but the Minister has not offered such help tonight. I felt that I had to tell him that.
§ Mr. Haynes
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the Minister has just said is not true. If I were to stand at the next election he would want me to lose my seat. He should be honest about it.
§ Mr. Scott
Obviously, I retain my partisan approach to the political struggle, but in terms of personal affection and admiration, I shall be sorry to see the hon. Gentleman go. I wonder whether his ghost will come back to haunt us and his vibrant tones resound across the Chamber. Certainly, he will be with us in our imagination.
The hon. Gentleman caricatured the Government's approach to these problems. He knows as well as I do that while this Government have been in office, benefits for the long-term sick and disabled have almost doubled in real terms—£4 billion extra has been put into provision for them—and that we are continuing to provide £500 million a year for the industrially injured under the special scheme designed for them. Therefore, nobody is neglecting them, but, as I tried to say in my earlier intervention, we are trying to adjust the scheme to make better provision across the range of people who suffer from disabilities.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) asked me two specific questions, one of which involved retirement allowance. People may be entitled to invalidity allowance on top of invalidity pension. Those who do not receive invalidity benefit, but qualify for severe disablement allowance, will be entitled to the new age-related addition, included in the Social Security Bill, which increases payments to them. Any provision in retirement must be seen against the general improvement in the standard of living of pensioners overall during the past 10 years.
The total net income of pensioners has increased by 31 per cent. during this Government. Anyone who goes out and about knows that there has been, on average—I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, that we acknowledge that this is an average— significant improvement in the standard of living and net income of pensioners while we have been in office. We 1106 want that to continue and particularly wish to address the needs of pensioners who have been unable to gain access to that increase in their standard of living or net income. We have done that by producing special packages to meet their needs.
§ Mr. Kennedy
I wish to make a small point, one that has often been made in this place. When the Minister talks about real net increases in pensioners' income, he must remember that it has to be set in the context of the break in the link with earnings and the massive difficulties that that has caused over the years. He talked about us going round the country and listening to what pensioners were saying. I am sure that they would not deny any of the increases that they have been given, but they were rightly riled about the fundamental break which has devalued all the other additions that the Government have made.
§ Mr. Scott
Indeed I did. The point of the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone should be seen against the background of the general improvement in living standards which nobody can deny. The standard of living should not be seen just against the state retirement pension, which the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye mentioned. It should be seen against the spread of occupational pensions and the increased income for pensioners from savings in recent years. All those factors have contributed to the overall increase in pensioners' living standards. We should not forget that when we discuss this issue.
§ Mr. Allen McKay
There are a number of flaws in the Minister's argument. We could disagree about the real level of pensions, but that is another argument. My argument was that reduced earnings allowance also made up for the loss of earning capacity and pension benefits. Irrespective of whether the Minister argues that living standards should be seen against that background, those people's incomes have been reduced. Occupational pensions are based on a person's last 12 months' earnings, which will be reduced if reduced earnings allowance is abolished. The occupational pensions will be based on a reduced earning capacity and will not take into account the addition of hardship allowance or reduced earnings allowance, as the Government prefer to call it. They need increased benefits to make up for the loss of earnings.
§ Mr. Scott
I acknowledge that new cases will be unable to receive reduced earnings allowance, but a casual reading of the hon. Gentleman's contribution might suggest that we are taking away present entitlements from those entitled to reduced earnings allowance. As I said earlier, not only entitlements gained up to the present, but those gained before the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be preserved.
I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's other point, but I hope that I can persuade him that it is not as relevant as he suggested. I appreciate the argument. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which represents the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry 1107 and other experts, the point was made that somebody in a particular job might contract a condition which, if he continued in that occupation, would endanger his long-term health. In that case, he could be moved to another job in the company and receive REA to top up his income. When we pressed for evidence that that was a problem, the only evidence that we received was anecdotal. There was no real evidence to show that that was a major problem.
The vast majority of REA recipients are not in work in the first place and therefore would not be covered by that provision. There may be the odd case, but I do not think that the provision of REA is likely to be a decisive factor when an employee decides whether to leave his job and find something less arduous which does not leave him open to the conditions that led to his contracting a particular disease.
Even with high earnings, if disability is assessed at 14 per cent. or more, disablement benefit is payable. The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about the mining industry and I highly respect his knowledge. For the three major respiratory diseases common in the mining industry, and one or two others, disablement benefit does not have the 14 per cent. cut-off point, but is payable right down to the 1 per cent. scale. Notwithstanding the fact that disablement benefit is paid as a form of compensation, it is surely right to recognise that, in comparisons of pre and post-accident earnings, disablement benefit makes a contribution to people's income.
Therefore, I still stand by the Government's decision that clause 3 is an important part of a package of measures that will enable us, once we have introduced the two new benefits, to make much better provision and tilt the balance towards those who in recent years have been neglected by the provision —for example, those disabled from birth or early in life. This is a necessary part of that package.
§ Mr. Flynn
Traditionally, for the purposes of paying this benefit, a distinction was made between those suffering industrial injuries or diseases, and those suffering problems from birth—who had been short-changed by nature—because for so long those who suffered industrial disease were normally the breadwinners in the family. We now know that there is an equally compelling case to provide similar benefits for others who have never worked. That is accepted as a normal, civilising advance which can be seen in almost every country in Europe which try to help disabled people in that way. Sadly, the Government believe that the only way of achieving this is to give to the severely disabled by cutting the allowances to those who are slightly disabled.
While my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) reminded us of the past—we are all aware of the crippling diseases contracted as an unwanted bonus by many people in mining and other industries—it is not reasonable to suggest that this is over or done with; in the new industries, even more crippling and sinister diseases are emerging. We heard recently of the 500 cases of radiation exposure, unknown and unsuspected in workers in the nuclear industry. There was a programme on "Scottish Eye" about the silicon industry, where again unsuspected problems are arising and unexpected diseases appearing.
I can remember vividly when I started out on my career in laboratories how many of the reagents that we used 1108 were regarded as benign, such as benzine and carbon tetrachloride; we splashed them about and used them for degreasants and so on. We now know that these reagents are viciously carcinogenic and that in consequence there is a short life for those who work in laboratories.
The justification for this REA continues. It is a bleak indictment of the Government that, after this long period of trying to introduce proper allowances for the disabled —the five years of waiting for the reports to start and the five years waiting for them to be published—the Government have promised that they will help the disabled, they have trailed the news, they have announced it and re-announced it, and now we find that it is only to come in at the expense of other disabled people.
We would like to press this tonight, but we are aware of the other problems. On second thoughts, another bolt of lightning has struck me and, because of the force of the arguments, we would like to press this to a division.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 262.1111
|Division No. 155]||[7.51 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Eadie, Alexander|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Eastham, Ken|
|Allen, Graham||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)|
|Ashton, Joe||Fatchett, Derek|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Fearn, Ronald|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Barron, Kevin||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Beckett, Margaret||Fisher, Mark|
|Beggs, Roy||Flannery, Martin|
|Bell, Stuart||Flynn, Paul|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Foster, Derek|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Foulkes, George|
|Blunkett, David||Fraser, John|
|Boyes, Roland||Fyfe, Maria|
|Bradley, Keith||Galloway, George|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Buchan, Norman||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Buckley, George J.||Gordon, Mildred|
|Callaghan, Jim||Gould, Bryan|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Hardy, Peter|
|Canavan, Dennis||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Henderson, Doug|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)|
|Clay, Bob||Home Robertson, John|
|Clelland, David||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cohen, Harry||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Howells, Geraint|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)|
|Corbett, Robin||Hoyle, Doug|
|Cousins, Jim||Hughes, John (Coventry NE)|
|Crowther, Stan||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Cryer, Bob||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Cummings, John||Ingram, Adam|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Johnston, Sir Russell|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Darling, Alistair||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Kennedy, Charles|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||Kilfedder, James|
|Dixon, Don||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Doran, Frank||Lambie, David|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lamond, James|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Leighton, Ron|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth||Litherland, Robert|
|Livingstone, Ken||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Reid, Dr John|
|Loyden, Eddie||Richardson, Jo|
|McAllion, John||Rooker, Jeff|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|McCartney, Ian||Ross, William (Londonderry E)|
|McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)||Rowlands, Ted|
|McKelvey, William||Ruddock, Joan|
|McLeish, Henry||Salmond, Alex|
|Maclennan, Robert||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McNamara, Kevin||Sheerman, Barry|
|Madden, Max||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Marek, Dr John||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Short, clare|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Martlew, Eric||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Maxton, John||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Meacher, Michael||Smith, J.P. (Vale of Glam)|
|Meale, Alan||Soley, Clive|
|Michael, Alun||Spearing, Nigel|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)||Stott, Roger|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Strang, Gavin|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Morley, Elliot||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Turner, Dennis|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Vaz, Keith|
|Mowlam, Marjorie||Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Mullin, Chris||Walley, Joan|
|Nellist, Dave||Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)|
|O'Brien, William||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Patchett, Terry||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Pendry, Tom||Wilson, Brian|
|Pike, Peter L.||Winnick, David|
|Powell, Ray (Ogmore)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Prescott, John||Wray, Jimmy|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Radice, Giles||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Randall, Stuart||Mr. Frank Hayes and|
|Redmond, Martin||Mr. Robert N. Wareing.|
|Adley, Robert||Bright, Graham|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Brown, Michael (Brigg & cl't's)|
|Alexander, Richard||Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick|
|Allason, Rupert||Buck, Sir Antony|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Amess, David||Burns, Simon|
|Amos, Alan||Burt, Alistair|
|Arbuthnot, James||Butcher, John|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Butler, Chris|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Butterfill, John|
|Ashby, David||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Carrington, Matthew|
|Atkinson, David||Carttiss, Michael|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Cash, William|
|Baldry, Tony||Chapman, Sydney|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Chope, Christopher|
|Batiste, Spencer||Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Conway, Derek|
|Benyon, W.||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Coombs, Simon (Swindon)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Cope, Rt Hon John|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Couchman, James|
|Body, Sir Richard||Cran, James|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Curry, David|
|Boswell, Tim||Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)|
|Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Day, Stephen|
|Bowis, John||Devlin, Tim|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Brazier, Julian||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Dover, Den||McCrindle, Robert|
|Durant, Tony||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Eggar, Tim||MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Maclean, David|
|Evennett, David||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Fallon, Michael||McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael|
|Favell, Tony||McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Madel, David|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Malins, Humfrey|
|Fishburn, John Dudley||Mans, Keith|
|Fookes, Dame Janet||Marland, Paul|
|Forman, Nigel||Marlow, Tony|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Forth, Eric||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Freeman, Roger||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|French, Douglas||Mayhew, Rt Hon sir Patrick|
|Gale, Roger||Mellor, David|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Gill, Christopher||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Glyn, Dr Sir Alan||Mills, Iain|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Mitchell, Sir David|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Gow, Ian||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Morrison, Sir Charles|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Moss, Malcolm|
|Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')||Moynihan, Hon Colin|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Neubert, Michael|
|Grist, Ian||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Ground, Patrick||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Grylls, Michael||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley|
|Hague, William||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)||Paice, James|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Patnick, Irvine|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Patten, Rt Hon John|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Pawsey, James|
|Hannam, John||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Harris, David||Portillo, Michael|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Price, Sir David|
|Hayes, Jerry||Raffan, Keith|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)||Renton, Rt Hon Tim|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Hill, James||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Hind, Kenneth||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Rost, Peter|
|Holt, Richard||Rowe, Andrew|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Hunter, Andrew||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Irving, Sir Charles||Shersby, Michael|
|Jack, Michael||Sims, Roger|
|Janman, Tim||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Jessel, Toby||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Speed, Keith|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Squire, Robin|
|Key, Robert||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Stern, Michael|
|Knapman, Roger||Stevens, Lewis|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Lang, Ian||Stokes, Sir John|
|Latham, Michael||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Sumberg, David|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Summerson, Hugo|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Luce, Rt Hon Richard||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Warren, Kenneth|
|Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)||Watts, John|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)||Wells, Bowen|
|Thurnham, Peter||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Townend, John (Bridlington)||Whitney, Ray|
|Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Tracey, Richard||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Tredinnick, David||Wilshire, David|
|Trippier, David||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Trotter, Neville||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Twinn, Dr Ian||Wolfson, Mark|
|Viggers, Peter||Wood, Timothy|
|Wakeham, Rt Hon John||Woodcock, Dr. Mike|
|Waldegrave, Rt Hon William||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Waller, Gary||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Ward, John||Mr. David Lightbown and|
|Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)||Mr. Nicholas Baker.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Amendment made: No. 64, in page 5, line 28, leave out "'and' and insert "'or'.—[Mr. Scott.]