§ Mr. Bryan Gould (Dagenham)
I beg to move,That the Personal Community Charge (Relief) (England) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 2) dated 2nd January 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th January, be revoked.
§ Mr. Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following two motions:That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Personal Community Charge (Relief) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 402), dated 2nd March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th March, be annulled.That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Personal Community Charge (Relief) (Wales) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 288) dated 16th February 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Would hon. Members who are not remaining for the debate please leave quietly, particularly those beyond the Bar?
§ Mr. Gould
Our sympathy for the Secretary of State, who I am sorry does not appear to be present, must be strictly limited when we consider the plight of millions of people who will pay the price for his convolutions and incompetence and for the iniquitous scheme that he and the Government are imposing on them. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State is now present, although I am sorry that he will not be opening the debate for the Government.
The saga of the poll tax has been increasingly marked by a desperate search for expedients and bolt holes and by increasingly implausible resort to inventions and fictions to try to mask and to conceal what has been done. We are dealing tonight with a prime example of that.
Viewed in retrospect, perhaps one of the most poignant moments in the development of the poll tax was in October, at the Tory party conference, when the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities announced the introduction of the transitional relief scheme, under which, he assured Tory Members and councillors, no one would pay more than £3 above their rates bill. As alarm and anxiety had been expressed by Tory Members and councillors, they were mightily relieved by that assurance. They allowed themselves—they deserve no criticism for this—to be lulled into a false sense of security. Their fears were allayed; they were bought off by that assurance.
§ The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt)
It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would quote the exact words that I used and the exact words used by my noble Friend Lord Hesketh on the same day, when he made it clear that the pledge about people paying no more than £3 above their rates would apply only if the council concerned spent in accordance with Government spending guidelines.
§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
I wish to kill this point straight way. Two weeks ago on our television screens we all saw the briefed and educated Tory candidate for Mid-Staffordshire tell people that their poll tax would not be more than £3 a week more than their rates. He gave that impression because that was the impression that everyone else was supposed to get.
§ Mr. Gould
It is for the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to explain himself to the House when he addresses us.
Like so much else in the poll tax saga, and so many of the measures designed to smooth off the rough edges, the relief scheme has turned out to be a massive and fraudulent disappointment. The scheme excludes many of those who might otherwise have been expected to benefit, arid offers only an illusion of help to many others. Even for those who, in principle, fall within it, many will pay much more than £3 per week extra, but will not qualify, and many others will qualify for transitional relief but will end up paying more than the £3 per week extra.
We are entitled to ask how a Government promise, so solemnly made to their own supporters, was so comprehensively broken so soon. The answer lies first in the scheme's structure. Many people are, by the scheme's rules, excluded from it. Like the transitional relief scheme for the uniform business rate, many people whose circumstances change after the scheme's introduction will lose its benefit.
That is true for those who turn 18 after 1 April 1990. It is true of those who cease to be exempt, for whatever reason—for example, those who hitherto have been mentally ill, but then recover and rejoin the community after 1 April 1990. They will not be entitled to the scheme's benefits. Those who move house and change their address, even within the same local authority district, after 1 April 1990—of whom there will be many in the ensuing three years—will not qualify. Those who fail to qualify in the first year will be disqualified in successive years, even if their poll tax bill goes us sharply in those successive years.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on the advice of the Department of the Environment to local authorities, one group of people wholly excluded from transitional relief will be pensioners living in sheltered housing schemes, such as those provided by Anchor Housing? As their rates were paid by the housing association, and by them to the housing association, they will not be classed as ratepayers and the Department is advising local authorities not to pay relief.
§ Mr. Gould
What the hon. Gentleman said about that case is more generally true, but for slightly different reasons, for many of those living in buildings in multiple occupation.
The scheme's structure also makes it unlikely that two further and large classes of people will benefit to any great degree. Single poll tax payers living by themselves are virtually certain not to qualify, because to do so they would have had to have a rates bill in the current financial 155 year £156 lower than the assumed poll tax bill they will shortly receive. That is a virtually impossible requirement in most local authority districts. It would require a ridiculously low rates bill for the current year.
For example, in Pendle, it would require a rates bill of £16 or less, in York, one of just £30 or less, in Hyndburn, just £25 or less. Another way of putting the same rather implausible point is that, in Leominster, the notional poll tax would have to rise by 1,770 per cent. above the rates bill before anyone would qualify for transitional relief.
For different reasons—I refer here to a point related to that made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) a moment ago—poll tax payers in large families or in buildings in multiple occupation are unlikely to gain much, if any, benefit from the scheme because the scheme is calculated on the basis of a notional poll tax paid by two members of a household only. However, the relief that they may or may not be entitled to is divided among the number of householders, and that may be three, four, five, six or more.
For all those reasons, the scheme is not what it seems. Like the uniform business rate transitional relief scheme, and perhaps even more like the relief offered to those claiming rebates but hitherto disqualified because of the savings limit, the measures taken by the Government have promised much more than they have delivered.
However, we have not yet considered the main reason why so many expectations have been disappointed. The reason why the scheme so signally fails in its stated purpose is that it is based on a fairy tale. It is vitiated by the same deliberate error that underlay the Government's ill-fated attempt to pursuade local government and the British people that somehow or other their poll tax bills were going to average just £278. Transitional relief is based on the amount by which rates bills plus £156 fall short of what is quaintly called an "assumed" poll tax. That is not the actual poll tax bill that will fall through letter boxes in a week or so's time; it is an assumed poll tax.
What is the assumed poll tax? I received a letter this morning from the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the chairman of the Tory party, in which he addressed that question. I do not know whether he meant to describe the assumed charge in exactly these terms, but he certainly gave the game away. He wrote that the assumed chargeis an assumption, not a prediction or guarantee.Many millions of people who might have hoped to qualify for transitional relief will now know that he spoke the truth—on that occasion, at any rate. The reality is that the assumed poll tax bears virtually no relationship to the size of the actual poll tax bill. We know why that assumption is wrong.
§ Mr. Gould
I am delighted to congratulate my authority on its ability to meet the Government's prediction. However, that is not the case for the vast majority of local authorities, and the reason for that is understood by Conservative Members as well as by everyone else.
156 The Government underestimated, and assumed a level of local government spending £1.6 billion lower than the actual level for the current year. They then assumed that no new commitments would be undertaken by local authorities, including new commitments imposed on them by the Government, such as the costs of collecting the poll tax. They also assumed that 100 per cent. of the poll tax would be collected. Not one Conservative Member can tell me that that is the assumption on which his or her district or borough treasurer is operating. The most ludicrous assumption of all is that inflation is running at 3.8 per cent. Again, I ask any hon. Member to tell me whether that is an accurate forecast or assumption.
§ Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the Suth Derbyshire district, which covers most of my constituency, the assumed charge offered by the Government is £301, which is a 13 per cent. increase over the average rates charged in the area in the previous year? The South Derbyshire district has increased its budget by 9.9 per cent. The reason why our local community charge is 45 per cent. above that figure is the free-spending idiots in Derbyshire county council.
§ Mr. Gould
I had hoped for a moment, as the hon. Lady rose in her place, that she was about to draw my attention to a little local miracle in South Derbyshire—that she was going to tell me that, in her constituency and in her local authority district, somehow or another, exempt from the inflation rate that applies throughout the rest of the country, inflation was only 3.8 per cent. I noticed that she somehow forbore making that claim.
§ Mr. Tracey
May I bring the hon. Gentleman's attention back to Barking and Dagenham? The leader of the hon. Gentleman's council was quoted in the newspapers as saying that he had no complaints about the grant that he had received from the Government, and that his community charge was arrived at by good management, which had been going on for a number of years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to confirm or deny that quote. If he confirms it, will he tell us why other Labour councils cannot achieve the same level of efficiency?
§ Mr. Gould
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us why so few Tory council leaders have been able to make a similar claim. The reason is that, in their local authority districts, inflation is running at 7.5 per cent., which is twice the Government's assumption. That is why there is no relation between the assumed poll tax and the real poll tax. That is why, according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy surveys, the average poll tax bill is 34 per cent. above the Government's projections. That is why Conservative local authorities throughout England and Wales have set their poll tax bills 31 per cent. higher than the Government said they would. That is why the average poll tax bill is £90 greater than the Government's assumed poll tax bill.
It is on that £90 average that no relief whatsoever is available under the transitional relief scheme. Because that £90 average conceals gaps which, in some cases, are much 157 greater and which in theory could be unlimited, the Government have so signally failed to keep their promise. That is why so many people will now be required to pay more than the £3 a week extra that they were told was their maximum increase. That is why people are not protected in the way that the Government have promised. That is why the transitional relief scheme is so fatally flawed.
The scheme has at its heart a myth that the Government hope to get away with, but that myth has now been fully exposed. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, nothing can remedy the basic unfairness of the poll tax, but, when a Government make promises—not least to their own supporters—we, and I hope they, are entitled to see that those promises are kept.
If Conservative Members are serious, if they are honestly trying to mitigate the worst effects of the poll tax, and if they want to be able to say to their constituents that they have done their best by them, they should not accept the shamefully broken promise. They can vote the regulations down. If we vote the regulations down, the consequence will be that the Government will have to take the regulations away and come back with a better scheme that would be a more accurate attempt to fulfil the promise that they have made.
We want to see whether Conservative Members will join us in insisting that the Government keep their promises.
§ The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt)
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made an unworthy speech. If he had wanted credibility in the House, he should not only have quoted the promise that he alleged that I made, in the terms incorrectly advanced by him; he should also have quoted and referred to Hansard for the other place, because the details of the scheme were carefully set out by my noble Friend Lord Hesketh on 11 October 1989.
§ Mr. Hunt
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I took over the responsibility of local government in the Department of the Environment eight months ago, we found that there was no scheme to protect ratepayers from the consequences of the change to a new system. We felt that circumstances suggested that such a scheme should be introduced. We also found that a safety net would last for four years and decided that we should give our right hon. and hon. Friends an indication that the period for contributions to the safety net would last for only one year. In the first year, half the gains would flow through, and in the second year the full gains would flow through.
We decided that rather than abolish the first year of the contributions to the safety net, we would use the money to bring in a transitional relief scheme. At that time, we 158 quoted figures of just over £600 million for a transitional relief scheme that would last for three years. We chose our words extremely carefully, which is more than the hon. Member for Dagenham has just done. We said that we would introduce a transitional relief scheme that would protect ratepayers from the consequences of the changes in such a way that, provided the council spent in accordance with the assumptions made by the Government, ratepayers would not be more than £3 per week worse off.
§ Mr. Gould
When the hon. Gentleman expressed himself in those terms, did he have any inkling that in almost every case the assumed poll tax figure would fall so far short of the real poll tax figure? If, as I expect, he had no such inkling, how did he expect those who were listening to him to realise that the promise that he was apparently giving them was conditional on an assumed figure turning out to be right?
§ Mr. Hunt
If the hon. Gentleman refers to the statement made in the House of Lords on that day and to the speeches made subsequently, he will see that it was made absolutely clear at all stages that the assumed charge would be based—[Interruption.] No, let me answer the hon. Gentleman—that the assumed charge would be based on the precept levied by the council from the ratepayer, plus grants from the Government and the business rate, increased by 4.64 per cent. Those figures were published in full on 6 November. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is nodding his head. Those figures were known on 6 November, and were published on 11 January—
§ Mr. Hunt
Only in respect of the adjustments made as a result of the grant settlement consultation. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the differences, he will see that they were minimal.
We also met the local authority associations, almost immediately after the announcement of the transitional relief scheme was made. We explained to them the basis on which the Government figures were to be assumed, and the fact that external finance for local authorities would be increased in the coming financial year over this financial year by 8.5 per cent. and that the total amount of standard spending assessment would be increased by 11 per cent. We said that, in those circumstances, we hoped that local authorities would reach community charges in accordance with the level of spending that increased by an amount within the rate of inflation. As it so happens, local authorities have decided to increase their spending by much more than the rate of inflation. Because the level of the community charge depends very much on the local spending decisions of each council, that has immediately increased the community charge.
When I announced the scheme at the party conference, and my noble Friend Lord Hesketh announced it in the other place, we estimated that the total cost of it would be, in the first year, £300 million, that the total amount would be £600 million over three years, and that in the first year 6 million people would benefit. These are important figures which show that we have not gone back on any promise that we have made—the accusation that has been levelled.
We have since revised the figures, and, based on the same commitment, we now find that it will cost not £300 million but £350 million in the coming year, that not just 159 6 million but 7.5 million people will benefit, and that the total cost of the scheme will not be £600 million but, over three years, £810 million.
§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)
Would it not have been a great help to my hon. Friend if more councils had copied the example of Rochester upon Medway, which has set a community charge of £248, which would have been even less if we had not had to make arrangements to bail out councils elsewhere by contributing to the safety net?
§ Mr. Hunt
That is a helpful comment because it enables me to point out something on which the Labour party has sought to mislead the public—this is a serious accusation. This misleading statement has been picked up, quite incorrectly, by many in the media. It was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said that those in overspending council areas would lose their right to transitional relief. That is untrue. It is important to say this because that statement has been repeated several times by Opposition Members. Once the transitional relief figure has been fixed, in accordance with the assumed figures, not one penny or pound of it is lost, even if the recipient of that relief is in the area of an overspending Labour council.
§ Mr. Gould
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) made was that there would be no relief for the gap between the assumed figure and the real figure. If the Minister will look at column 750 of Hansard for 6 November, he will see the record set out clearly. Unlike the wriggling to which the right hon. Gentleman treated us when he gave his assumptions about the level of poll tax charges, he purported to give us specific figures about the cost of the transitional relief scheme and the numbers who would benefit. Does he agree with paragraph 2 of the report from the working party on the community charge, from his own Department? It says that the figures that he has quoted and the figures on which he bases his argument are "indicative" rather than "precise forecasts".
§ Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there is much uncertainty and anxiety. Will he upgrade the assumed community charge, which in Leeds was £257, to the assumed target average of £278? That is one of the reasons for a sense of injustice. Will he consider extending the period of transitional relief so that the unwinding of it in conjunction with the unwinding of the safety net does not produce substantial losses in northern town after northern town?
§ Mr. Hunt
The assumed level of spending is based on last year's spending plus 4.64 per cent. That applies throughout the country, and it does not bear a direct relationship to what my hon. Friend was talking about when he referred to the standard assessment. It is designed purely to cover the consequences to a ratepayer for a 160 change in the system and not to cover changes in the spending pattern of his local authority. That is key, and that was the basis on which the scheme was announced.
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Dagenham. I cannot recall being accused—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has levelled this accusation at others—of misleading the House. Let there be no misunderstanding about this: what the Labour party has said about transitional relief is entirely untrue and has led to much uncertainty in the country. There are many who believe that they will not be entitled to transitional relief because of statements made by Opposition Members when they will be entitled to it.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
We are grateful to my hon. Friend for the relief that has been made available, but there are many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are faced with considerably higher bills than they had last year. Some of them are relatively low paid, yet they are faced with increases of up to £8 a week. Many pensioners are still concerned about the rate of attrition of their savings. Can my hon. Friend tell the House—many of his hon. Friends are deeply anxious—that the Government will be introducing further support and relief this year for those who are most hard pressed?
§ Mr. Hunt
We are debating a transitional relief scheme which, despite the accusations of the Opposition, has not been changed one jot from the moment when we announced it, although its scope has increased. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a serious circumstance in which local people are facing the consequences of their local councils deciding to increase their spending by substantially more than the rate of inflation. I can offer no immediate sustenance by means of the scheme to deal with that. The level of the community charge depends much on the spending decisions of a local authority. The scheme provides transitional relief at a cost of £350 million in the first year to 7.5 million people to cover the changes in the system. It is nothing to do with the change in the system that there have been spending decisions that would mean an increase in rates of 33 per cent. That is nothing to do with the change in the system. It has everything to do, however, with the way in which spending decisions have been made.
§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)
I ask a question as a naive constituency Member without an understanding of the variety of figures which have been quoted. I have a letter from one of my constituents, Amanda Dawn Singleton, who has received a document which tells her that she will have to pay £42.90 a month on the introduction of the community charge. She receives £44 and a £10 training allowance per week. She writes:I cannot afford to pay this amount. I am in a desperate situation, could you please please help me.I have her community charge bill with me. It states:Less your Government transitional relief 0.00Less your Government rebate 0.00What can I say to my constituent?
§ Mr. Hunt
I always dislike trying to deal with complicated cases across the Floor of the House. I do not know the particular circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put those facts to me, I shall consider them. Transitional relief is intended to benefit those who are currently ratepayers or members of ratepaying couples 161 and we have singled out pensioners and disabled people who do not fall into that category and given them special relief, which means that they will pay a community charge of £158 in the hon. Gentleman's area and £156 in Wirral.
§ Mr. Keith Speed (Ashford)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the burden of the Opposition's case is that they endorse local government expenditure increases of 35 per cent. and expect the taxpayer to underwrite them?
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
Order. I ask the Minister to respond to each intervention. We cannot have one on top of another—[Interruption.] I should like a little less noise from the Benches below the Gangway.
§ Mr. Hunt
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) is absolutely right. The transitional relief scheme covers and protects ratepayers and members of ratepaying couples from changes in the system. My hon. Friend has clearly demonstrated that what is now arising is the result not of the change in the system but of spending decisions that would have meant a 33 per cent. increase in domestic rates.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
Am I right in believing that in my hon. Friend's constituency ratepayers had a choice between the lower Conservative community charge and that suggested by the Liberals, which was higher? Would it not have been an enormous advantage to the citizens of Lancashire if they could have chosen between the additional £123 million of expenditure by the Labour party and the reduction of £60 million by the Conservative party?
§ Mr. Den Dover (Chorley)
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech at Blackpool. It was my opinion—shared, I am sure, by the many thousands present—that each individual in a married couple would benefit to the tune of £3 a week. Many of my constituents now think that there has been an act of bad faith. They are now told that it is £3 a week maximum—assuming that the spending levels are adhered to—shared between two or more people. Can my hon. Friend assure us that that was never the intention? My constituents are very concerned about this matter.
§ Mr. Hunt
I said clearly at the party conference that, with the proviso I made about spending by local authorities, the new scheme would ensure that in areas where local authorities spent sensibly no ratepayer or ratepaying couple would be more than £3 a week worse off when the community charge was introduced, whatever 162 their income. I can add that we shall now single out pensioners and the disabled for special treatment, whether or not they pay rates.If the local authority decides to spend above Government guidelines, it is right that the full amount of the excess—these are my exact words at the party conference—should fall to be met by the local charge payer".
§ Mr. Rooker
Does the Minister appreciate that, if that statement had been made where it could have been tested by questioning—for example, in the House—the misinformation and false promises would not have been planted in people's minds? It was reading that from the conference platform that caused the difficulty. I have one general question.
§ Mr. Hunt
May I get this absolutely straight? The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that my comments at the party conference were repeated in the other place at almost exactly the same time by Lord Hesketh. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman has some criticisms of his hon. Friends in the other place, but on 11 October 1989, at column 344, Lord Hesketh—
§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sure that the Minister is a sufficiently practised parliamentarian to paraphrase that for me.
§ Mrs. Currie
May I refer my hon. Friend to the Library research note No. 477 of 3 November 1989, almost immediately after we returned to the House, in which the details that he has set out on the transitional relief, which will go to 10,000 families in my constituency, are set out precisely? The only difference since then has been that the allowance for inflation has been raised. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if Labour Members did their homework in the Library, they would not have made the mistakes that they have made tonight—unless they are doing it deliberately?
§ Mr. Gould
I am grateful to the Minister for at last giving way. [Interruption.] Before his hon. Friends attempted to rescue him, he was making an interesting point about the special relief, as he termed it, which would be available to elderly and disabled people. He will know that in the regulations relief takes the form of a limit to what they must pay of £156 plus Z, Z equalling the difference between the assumed poll tax and the real poll tax. He will accept that Z on average throughout England and Wales amounts to £90. That means that the average bill for an elderly and disabled person will be £246 a year. As we are talking about elderly and disabled people who 163 hitherto have paid nothing whatever, how can he describe an obligation to pay £246 as special help and transitional relief?
§ Mr. Barry Porter
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) talked about mist. There is no mist surrounding the rebates available to pensioners and the disabled in the Wirral. I am glad that my hon. Friend gave us the figures for those groups. The mist is when Labour Members talk of honesty, seriousness, promises and a better scheme. That is more than a mist; it is a complete fog. I have heard nothing. Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten me.
§ Mr. Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise yet again that transitional relief is just a part of the picture. The scheme has not changed one little bit since we announced it last October. It is in no way related to people's means. It would have been impossible for us to give a blank cheque and to say that we would cover the difference between this year's rates bill and next year's community charge whatever the level. I do not think that anyone in his right mind could have expected that. So we announced the scheme, and we have fulfilled our pledge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is right to point out that there is also a rebate system, which is another part of the same picture. He is equally right to point out that in Wirral no pensioner or disabled person who is a ratepayer or a member of a ratepaying couple will be worse off by more than £156.
§ Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)
I am convinced that my hon. Friend means the transitional relief to effect exactly what he has said it will effect. Will he, most kindly, assure me that he will continue to consider its operation very carefully, since neither he nor I can be comfortable when, in one of the lowest-spending boroughs in England—West Devon borough—not one single person will qualify for transitional relief, and very few couples —perhaps a few thousand—will qualify. That means that three quarters of the people in West Devon borough will pay more than £3 extra a week.
§ Mr. Hunt
It may well be that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West did not mean nobody in her area, but meant no single person in her area. That may well be the case. The whole purpose of this 164 scheme is to protect the ratepayer and the ratepaying couple from changes in the system. In the main, the system benefits single people.
The hon. Member for Dagenham said a few moments ago that one of the defects of the system was that it did not give relief to single people, for instance, in a borough such as Wandsworth. That was a direct quote from the press release by his hon. Friend the Member for Brightside which said, "e.g. Wandsworth". The reason why single people do not benefit—except pensioners or disabled people who do not presently pay rates or are not part of a ratepaying couple—is that the majority of them are generally better off. In Wandsworth they will pay £148 and therefore they will pay only three—[Interruption.] Wandsworth gets the second lowest amount of Government help of any inner London borough. In Wandsworth the charge is £148. As the scheme protects people against a payment of £156, that is why single people in Wandsworth do not benefit.
§ Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry South-East)
The Minister says that single people will be better off. Is he aware that in Coventry those under 25 who earn more than £70.85 a week do not qualify for any form of rebate and will have to use between a month and a month and a half of their wages just to pay the poll tax? According to yesterday's opinion poll in The Sunday Correspondent, 7.6 million people, including a third of all those under 34, will refuse next Monday to pay this Tory tax.
§ Mr. Hunt
One of the sad features of what the hon. Gentleman has just said is that he appears to show no shame for having said it. He has the privilege of being a Member of Parliament. In using that privilege, he should be aware that people listen to Members of Parliament when they say something about whether they should obey the laws of the land. By urging people throughout the country not to pay, which is what he is doing, he is putting an increased burden on the remaining people in his constituency who will have to pay for the free ride that he is seeking and that he is urging others also to seek.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I request the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to resume his seat.
§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
I intend to make only a few points, just to give the Minister a chance to calm down.
Twice as many people will pay the poll tax as paid the rates. According to the Government, the same amount of money will be collected. People do not understand why so many people will qualify for relief. That has to be explained. It was never explained while the legislation was being considered. I remind the Minister that it was pushed through the House by a party which got only 42 per cent. of the votes at the last election and which used the guillotine. The legislation was never fully and properly discussed. We were unable therefore to consider every possible defect that was alluded to either in the other place or in this House. I suspect that many more defects have still to come to light.
The Minister discovered a few months ago that transitional relief would be needed for all the losers. How can hundreds of millions of pounds be required when only the same amount of money is to be collected from twice as many people? Ministers must explain that, outside the House.
§ Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield)
May I help the hon. Gentleman? As a Birmingham Member, he will know that Birmingham city council's approved budget for last year—1989–90—was £622 million. The budget for the coming year has risen to £744 million: that is why we are paying more. He will have observed, in his travels around the city, that Birmingham has not spent this year's budget. That is clear from the fact that it is repairing roads, and doing a number of other things that it should do in any case.
§ Mr. Rooker
As the hon. Gentleman knows, next year's increase in new money and new spend for Birmingham is £17 million—2.38 per cent.—of which £13 million is going to education and social services. We make no apology for that. The Government have manipulated the figures so that the amount can be made to look like more than £100 million, but for the purposes of the people of Birmingham who will experience any improvement in services it is £17 million. I defend that, and will continue to do so; what I do not defend are the funny-money figures that the Government have foisted on Birmingham.
I do not wish to detain the House: I want to hear Conservative Members make the explanations that they must make. However, I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)
Even when viewed in the most favourable light, do not the Government's proposals mean that a married couple must be more than £6 a week worse off before they can receive a penny of transitional help? To many people, that is a tremendous amount.
§ Mr. Rooker
The Minister has said that the Labour party is to blame for giving the country false information. The last time that I looked up the figures, the Government employed 800 press and information officers; to the best of my knowledge, the Labour party employs fewer than can be counted on the fingers of one hand. How can we have managed to put all that false information around the country? It does not make sense.
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)
My hon. Friend has mentioned false information. The Minister appeared to approve the assumption of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that 10,000 families in her constituency would receive poll tax relief. If that is the case—unless the circumstances are extremely unusual—the prediction of 7.5 million beneficiaries and a figure of £350 million is surely a gross underestimate.
§ Mr. Rooker
We need to look at the figures to find out how many people, on average, will benefit in each constituency, but we shall not know for certain until the bills come through the letter boxes. The real row about the poll tax has not started yet. I know that Croydon, for example, has already sent out its bills—without any rebate details—but until all the bills arrive I do not think that the country will wake up. The Government may think that there is trouble now; let them wait until next month and the month after.
§ Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North)
I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be very brief.
Conservative Members are grateful for the transitional payment arrangements. The Minister has made no attempt to misrepresent the facts; he has always been not only courteous but accurate, and any disagreement between him and me has nothing to do with misrepresentation. The transitional arrangements will be helpful, but they do not go far enough. That is the problem. I consider that four categories require help.
First, it is wrong to take away the safety net in the second, third and fourth years and not the first year. In the first year, the built-in safety net will be at great cost to many careful Conservative boroughs where up to £70 per person is being transferred to what they consider to be spendthrift Labour boroughs. That will stick in the gullets of people there.
The second category was also affected by last week's Budget—a husband has to pay his wife's poll tax if she is at home. At the same time as the Government have separated taxation between the husband and wife, they have brought it back in the poll tax. That will cause great resentment in the country. If a wife stays at home to look after her children, her husband will have to pay her poll tax although they are taxed separately.
The third category is pensioners. If pensioners live in their own homes or with their relatives, they have to pay the poll tax, or their families have to pay it for them. If they live in residential homes, they do not have to pay the poll tax. That is another anti-family measure that was introduced, not without thought, but without considering the possible reactions to it, and some help should be provided.
§ Sir Rhodes Boyson
I shall not give way, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
My fourth and final point is that I quite understand why my hon. Friend the Minister said that, if an authority spends more than what the Government intend, the charge payers in that area will have to pick up the bill. But that is hard luck on Conservative voters in Conservative areas swamped within Labour boroughs. They have voted Conservative all their lives, as in Brent where 19 out of 21 councillors are Conservatives. We cannot get many more 167 than that. We have tried to get 23, but so far we have not achieved it. I have some sympathy with those Conservative voters in such areas, because they are doing all they can, yet they are penalised without any transitional help. I make only those four points, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
§ Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport)
I shall be factual, but not too brief.
I begin with a quotation:If your actual community charge bill is more than the assumed community charge bill the relief will be calculated on the basis of the assumed charge.That is a quotation from the Department of the Environment press release of 7 March when it announced that 7.5 million people, rather than 6 million people, will get transitional relief.
The press release highlights so well the Government's inability to estimate or forecast anything correctly. It is worrying that the entire poll tax system is based on estimates and assumptions. It is quite clear that the Government have got their assessments totally wrong and it is not surprising that the country is now in uproar.
It was not long ago that the Government, desperate to sell the poll tax system to the electorate, were suggesting that no one would have to pay an increase of more than £3 a week. It is abundantly clear that that figure is no more than fiction, as are most of the other figures that we have heard tonight.
The Government have hugely underestimated the cost of vital services. That is probably due to their ignorance of the needs of local people, the elderly, children in state schools and those less able than themselves to participate fully in our communities and to their ignorance of the recreation needs of children and adults in small and large communities.
The Department of the Environment's statement in the press release that I quoted is without explanation or apology and does not spell out that more than 90 per cent. of local authorities are setting poll tax rates well above the assumed charge. That means that the 7.5 million who are entitled to relief will not get the full amount.
This lack of clarity is reprehensible. It is clear that the Government hope to ride out the storm and that they hope that, once the system is up and running, people will get used to it and complain less. With other kinds of policies, that attitude may work, but I am afraid that it will not work with this one.
People were misinformed about this tax, and they are still being misinformed. They believed that the Government had guaranteed that increases would be no more than £3 a week, but they are finding that they have to pay far more, without any means of relief, but also without fully understanding why. On top of that, many people did not realise that in households where there are more than two people the relief will be calculated on the basis of only two persons, and the amount of relief will be shared between all the poll tax payers in that household.
§ Mr. David Hunt
I may not have dealt properly with that point when I responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), so I am grateful for this further opportunity.
168 Before making our announcement, we consulted the local authorities. They told us that if they were to come anywhere close to completion of the scheme in time—and at that time they thought that it might not be possible to complete all the administration, and so on—there would have to be an automatic allocation of relief for households with more than two people. We considered that view very carefully, and, in response to local authority pressure, we conceded the point and allowed the relief to be spread equally between all occupants. But that does not prevent the pensioner or the disabled person who has not been a ratepayer, or part of a ratepaying couple, from claiming his special relief in addition to the automatically allocated relief. I hope that that explains the position.
§ Mr. Beith
The Minister still has not explained why this relief is not available to pensioners living in sheltered housing, whose rates were paid through housing schemes. They are not allowed to qualify for the special relief, because they previously contributed to the rates through their payments to the housing association.
§ Mr. Fearn
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. So far, the Minister has nodded twice to that question. No doubt he will have an answer later.
I want to refer now to the problems of young people on low incomes. Often these people come from low-earning families. They are less likely to be able to move out of their homes or to do what their better-off neighbours do. The number of such people is increasing as Government policy impairs moves by young persons to become independent by finding their own homes. These people are to be penalised even further. They are not being treated as deserving of full participation in the transitional relief scheme. They are, however, seen as being deserving when it comes to paying the poll tax. They are not entitled to a rebate—they will pay in full. A young person earning less than £3,750 per year will have to pay as much as 11 or 12 per cent. of net income.
As I said earlier, the whole poll tax system is based on assessment and assumption, which is bound to create anomalies. But of even more concern to local authorities is that, for many counties, the notional expenditure level to be used in the calculation of transitional relief is significantly below the standard spending assessment. The Association of County Councils requests that, for the purposes of calculating transitional relief, the 1990–91 community charge calculation be based on the higher of the notional spending level and the standard spending assessment.
It would be even better if the Government were to take this opportunity to increase their benchmark figure of £278 for standard spending, which was calculated and set many months ago—before there was any concrete evidence of the real spending levels of local councils for 1990. I note that the Government have promised £21 million to cover the cost of administration. I believe that, so long as the full amount is distributed in such a way that the councils get the benefit and that part of it is not clawed back into the Treasury, local authorities will consider the amount to be reasonable. But I wonder whether the Minister has any idea of the sheer weight and physical effort that will go into the administration of the poll tax scheme. The massive 169 volume of paperwork, claims and rebates will lead to long delays, and that will result in hardship for many of those least able to manage.
Already, 40,000 people have applied to Sefton council's finance department for rebate forms, 10,000 have applied to the social services department, 20,000 to the housing department and a further 5,000 to the Department of Social Security. So far, a total of 75,000 applications have been made. Since Budget day and the doubling of the limit on savings, there has been a further deluge.
§ Mr. Fearn
Sefton council received 3,500 Government-sponsored newspaper coupons, which proved to be almost useless because they made no distinction between rented and owner-occupied accommodation. Those coupons have been returned for people to explain the information that they put on them. That is a further example of ratepayers' money being wasted. I find it hard to comprehend, given those figures for a not unusual local area, that the Government could possibly have accounted for all administration costs. I am certain that they have not considered the hardships of many people, who will suffer from the inevitable delay in the production of forms.
The poll tax is unfair, unworkable and expensive to run. The poll tax, not the statutory instruments that we are discussing, should be revoked.
§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)
When the debate began, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) sought to suggest that the transitional relief announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities at the Conservative party conference was different from the scheme now before us. As he sought to explain his remarks, and after the reply from the Minister, it became abundantly clear that the comments of the hon. Member for Dagenham were in line with most comments that we have heard from Labour Members: they simply were not based on facts. Labour Members were trying once again to mislead the public that the scheme is other than what it is. It is disgraceful for them to pretend that people are being denied relief when it was never offered.
Is it reasonable that the transitional relief scheme should be available for use by any Labour council that wants to set an excessive community charge, irrespective of the needs of the borough? I say that for a particular reason. Despite the humbug that we have heard from Labour Members, we have never heard, in this debate or in others on the rating system, any suggestion that transitional relief would be available for people who have suffered enormous rates increases at the hands of Labour councils. What about Labour councils that year after year caused misery to thousands of people by increasing rates in excess of inflation?
§ Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Will the hon. Gentleman consider the case of a pensioner couple in my constituency who before the poll tax paid £84.20 in rent and rates but this year will have to pay £91.24? Does he agree that that is £7.04 more a month, not £3? Does he expect his constituents to be equally worse off, or will this be another example of people in England being better off?
§ Mr. Hughes
I shall be happy to consider that matter provided that the hon. Lady will consider all those people in the London borough of Ealing who, last year, had rate increases of more than 50 per cent., all those older people who were denied money for food and heating because they had to pay excessive bills to a Labour council. It is that sort of point, coming from Labour Members, which does the Labour party no credit because Labour Members shed crocodile tears when it is they who take money from people's pockets to pay for excessive spending. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who can explain some of those matters.
§ Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)
I can explain the suffering of some of my constituents. The constituents of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) do not know they are born. If they lived in Ealing they would suffer. In Ealing, we have had a rate—a local tax—increase of 264 per cent. in four years, when inflation was only about 20 per cent. What about that for Labour wickedness?
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to withdraw that remark.
§ Mr. Hughes
If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, advise me that the remark is unparliamentary, of course, I withdraw it, but it is no worse than anything that anyone who is going to be—
§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is a most objectionable word, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
§ Mr. Hughes
What the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is doing to those people who will have to pay for the services that he enjoys on his high salary simply defies description. What makes it worse is that anyone who follows his lead and does not pay the community charge will be dragged through the courts. He can sit behind his privilege as a Member of Parliament and not be dragged through the courts; he is making people do things that he will not have to do.
§ Mr. Hughes
I have already told the hon. Member that I will not give way to him.
The transitional scheme is generous and will come to the aid of those people who have to pay more money as a direct result of the new scheme of local taxation. That is what it is designed to do and what the Government promised it would do. If the Labour party wants to talk about councils which charge a high community charge, it must come up with the explanation of why people have to pay more money. It is no good the Labour party criticising, when it refuses not only to come up with a scheme of its own, but to come up with the answers to any of the questions posed by Conservative Members. Labour 171 Members may want to act like deaf mutes, but in the end they will not get away with that, because the electorate will rumble them.
§ Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside)
The Council of Welsh Districts proposed transitional relief as a less administratively complicated system than that for England. However, since the Welsh Office revealed the final details, the Council of Welsh Districts, the architect of the transitional relief scheme, has expressed deep concern that the Welsh Office has not gone far enough, either in the period of relief—three years, not five—or in the extent of the relief.
Many Welsh communities will not receive transitional relief—541, nearly seven out of 10, will not. Only 323 will receive transitional relief. There are anomalies in the system. Due to the way that community boundaries are drawn, people living on opposite sides of the road, using the same services, may receive different levels of relief. For example, residents in part of Trehafod in the Rhondda will receive £41 relief, but their neighbours whose homes are in Taff-Ely will receive no help. Similarly in north Wales, residents in Llanfynydd in Alyn and Deeside will receive no transitional relief while their neighbours in Brymbo in Wrexham Maelor will receive £8 relief.
With regard to anomalies, the professionals in local government finance in Wales believe that the Government are less than competent in deciding what area should have relief. The anomalies set area against area and it is clear that the Government have not done their homework. The arbitrary use of areas means that thousands of people are losing.
The average community charge in Wales will be £232, which is almost £60—or one third—more than the Government's figure of £173. A comparison between the average rates bill for the current year for adults and the community charge starting next month shows that poll tax payers in Blaenau Gwent, in Cynon Valley and in Rhondda will pay more than £100 more per person once transitional relief ends.
No council in Wales—be it Labour, Conservative or independent—has levied a poll tax at the Welsh Office figure. The introduction of transitional relief smacks of panic by a Government who have recognised the enormity of the opposition to the poll tax among ordinary people and the size of electoral disaster that threatens to engulf them. The Government have dug themselves such an immense hole that they need more than transitional relief stepladders to get out of it.
If Welsh authorities are charge-capped, who will do the capping? Will that be the last act of the present Secretary of State for Wales or the first act of the present Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities? That question should be answered. Should there be charge capping, the Secretary of State should make a statement in the House. We are tired of statements of importance to Wales being made outside this place. We are tired of Government by press release.
The poll tax is unpopular in Wales. We believe that it will create more debt in the Principality. We fear that it will divide families and that young people may leave home because of the tension and debt that it will create within 172 homes. We regret that people looked after by carers or relatives must pay the poll tax, while those in institutional care will not. We also believe that the Government have greatly underestimated the administrative costs of this iniquitous tax. No council treasurer in Wales believes that there will be 100 per cent. collection of the poll tax.
We in Wales believe that the poll tax is unjust. It is not related in any way to ability to pay. Nobody would deny that Wales is a mature political democracy. However this despised tax is dubbed and however it is tarted up, the Welsh people will continue to believe that the poll tax is unjust and entirely unacceptable. When the poll tax demands go through letter boxes in Wales next week, the shame will be that the poorest of our people will be hit the worst. That is why the Opposition oppose what the Government propose.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist)
It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) accords such importance to this subject that, at the last sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee, instead of debating this subject, we debated the effect on Wales of the Channel tunnel. That demonstrates the hon. Gentleman's depth of feeling.
I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have the operation of the community charge very much in mind and we are aware of their concerns about it. We listen to what is said, and that is why we have the regulations and why they are in the shape they are. The Government will go on listening and taking note of what happens on the ground, and we will act accordingly. We could, of course, do absolutely no less. I certainly make that promise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson).
§ Mr. Grist
I shall not give way.
The regulations are designed to ease the passage from one system to another—they are not permanent crutches. Indeed, the three years over which they are to operate give local authorities, if they have any concern for their poorer citizens, time to moderate their expenditure ambitions and thus to keep their community charge at a reasonable and moderate level. Certainly, as we have seen north of the border, after the initial disgraceful burst when the new system was set up last year, local authorities have begun to moderate this year as those who pay the charge come to understand the system a little better.
What is clear is that many councillors, mainly supporters of the Opposition, enjoy spending other people's money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, their motto is "Spend, spend, spend." Of course we are still in the dark about just how Labour Members would raise the money that they are going to spend. Will it be from income tax, a roof tax, or from some sort of capital values? Will rates be revived? We never hear the answer. We always hear how to spend money, never how to raise it. It beggars belief that they should propose such expenditure; the effect on inflation and interest rates would be catastrophic.
A major purpose of the community charge is that local councils will be answerable to local electors. Electors will quickly see in their bills the results of councils' inefficiency 173 or empire building. The effects of local authority overspending were outlined very clearly in the earlier speech by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The regulations for Wales have been welcomed by Welsh local authorities and by the financial adviser to the Welsh counties, who said that they were extremely well targeted. They are clear, easily understood, and cheap to operate. [Interruption.] Hon. Members from England could not have been listening to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. He accepted that the Welsh system is easily understood, and so it is. It has benefited about 750,000 people by between £1 and £93. It is based on communities, or parishes as they are called in England, and compensates all those who—
§ Mr. Grist
It compensates all those who, on the basis of last year's rates, uprated by the retail prices index and allocated per head, find themselves paying £18 or more than the Welsh Office's target figures. Any payment above that figure is the result of the local authorities dunning their own citizens. As a result of the transitional scheme, 324 communities out of 860 in Wales will benefit and 35 out of 37 districts contain communities that will benefit from the relief.
Already community charge bills incorporating this scheme have been sent out. Were the regulations to be defeated, all those authorities and communities involved would have to cancel their current bills and send out higher, and in some cases much higher, fresh bills—at heaven knows what expense—and to the dismay of beneficiaries and local authorities. That, of course, applies to England as well as Wales.
In the Welsh context, it is noticeable that 14 district authorities and two counties have increased budgets by 10 per cent. or less from 1989–90. If they were able—
§ It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Order [23 March]:
§ The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 305.177
|Division No. 141]||[12 midnight|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Bradley, Keith|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Bray, Dr Jeremy|
|Allen, Graham||Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)|
|Alton, David||Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)|
|Anderson, Donald||Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Buckley, George J.|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Caborn, Richard|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Callaghan, Jim|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)|
|Ashton, Joe||Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Campbell-Savours, D. N.|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)|
|Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)||Cartwright, John|
|Barron, Kevin||Clark, Dr David (S Shields)|
|Battle, John||clarke, Tom (Monklands W)|
|Beckett, Margaret||Clay, Bob|
|Beith, A. J.||Clelland, David|
|Bell, Stuart||Clwyd, Mrs Ann|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Cohen, Harry|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Cook, Frank (Stockton N)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Cook, Robin (Livingston)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Corbett, Robin|
|Blair, Tony||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Boateng, Paul||Cousins, Jim|
|Boyes, Roland||Cox, Tom|
|Crowther, Stan||Lewis, Terry|
|Cryer, Bob||Litherland, Robert|
|Cummings, John||Livingstone, Ken|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Livsey, Richard|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Darling, Alistair||Loyden, Eddie|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||McAllion, John|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||McCartney, Ian|
|Dewar, Donald||Macdonald, Calum A.|
|Dixon, Don||McFall, John|
|Dobson, Frank||Mckay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Doran, Frank||McKelvey, William|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Maclennan, Robert|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||McNamara, Kevin|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth||McWilliam, John|
|Eadie, Alexander||Madden, Max|
|Eastham, Ken||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Marek, Dr John|
|Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)||Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)|
|Fatchett, Derek||Martlew, Eric|
|Faulds, Andrew||Maxton, John|
|Fearn, Ronald||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Meacher, Michael|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Meale, Alan|
|Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Fisher, Mark||Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)|
|Flannery, Martin||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Flynn, Paul||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Morley, Elliot|
|Foster, Derek||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Foulkes, George||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Fraser, John||Mowlam, Marjorie|
|Fyfe, Maria||Mullin, Chris|
|Galloway, George||Murphy, Paul|
|Garrett, John (Norwich South)||Nellist, Dave|
|George, Bruce||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||O'Brien, William|
|Gordon, Mildred||O'Neill, Martin|
|Gould, Bryan||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Graham, Thomas||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)||Patchett, Terry|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Pendry, Tom|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Pike, Peter L.|
|Grocott, Bruce||Prescott, John|
|Hardy, Peter||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Radice, Giles|
|Haynes, Frank||Randall, Stuart|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Redmond, Martin|
|Henderson, Doug||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Hinchliffe, David||Richardson, Jo|
|Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)||Robertson, George|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)|
|Home Robertson, John||Rogers, Allan|
|Hood, Jimmy||Rooker, Jeff|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Howells, Geraint||Ruddock, Joan|
|Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)||Salmond, Alex|
|Hoyle, Doug||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)||Sheerman, Barry|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Short, Clare|
|Illsley, Eric||Skinner, Dennis|
|Janner, Greville||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)|
|Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Snape, Peter|
|Kennedy, Charles||Soley, Clive|
|Kilfedder, James||Spearing, Nigel|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Lamond, James||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Stott, Roger|
|Leighton, Ron||Strang, Gavin|
|Straw, Jack||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)||Wilson, Brian|
|Turner, Dennis||Winnick, David|
|Vaz, Keith||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Wall, Pat||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Wallace, James||Worthington, Tony|
|Walley, Joan||Wray, Jimmy|
|Wardell, Gareth (Gower)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Wareing, Robert N.|
|Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)||Mrs. Llin Golding and|
|Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)||Mr. Ray Powell|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Alexander, Richard||Curry, David|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)|
|Allason, Rupert||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Day, Stephen|
|Amess, David||Devlin, Tim|
|Amos, Alan||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Arbuthnot, James||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Dover, Den|
|Ashby, David||Dunn, Bob|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Durant, Tony|
|Atkins, Robert||Dykes, Hugh|
|Atkinson, David||Eggar, Tim|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)|
|Baldry, Tony||Evennett, David|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas|
|Batiste, Spencer||Fallon, Michael|
|Bellingham, Henry||Farr, Sir John|
|Bendall, Vivian||Favell, Tony|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Fishburn, John Dudley|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fookes, Dame Janet|
|Boswell, Tim||Forman, Nigel|
|Bottomley, Peter||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Forth, Eric|
|Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)||Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Fox, Sir Marcus|
|Bowis, John||Franks, Cecil|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Freeman, Roger|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||French, Douglas|
|Brazier, Julian||Fry, Peter|
|Bright, Graham||Gale, Roger|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Gardiner, George|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Glyn, Dr Sir Alan|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Burns, Simon||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Burt, Alistair||Gorst, John|
|Butcher, John||Gow, Ian|
|Butler, Chris||Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)|
|Butterfill, John||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Gregory, Conal|
|Carrington, Matthew||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Grist, Ian|
|Cash, William||Ground, Patrick|
|Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda||Grylls, Michael|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Hague, William|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Chope, Christopher||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)||Hannam, John|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Harris, David|
|Colvin, Michael||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Conway, Derek||Hawkins, Christopher|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)||Hayes, Jerry|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hayward, Robert|
|Cope, Rt Hon John||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Couchman, James||Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)|
|Cran, James||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Hind, Kenneth||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Holt, Richard||Norris, Steve|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Page, Richard|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Patnick, Irvine|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)||Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Patten, Rt Hon John|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Hunter, Andrew||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Portillo, Michael|
|Irving, Sir Charles||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Jack, Michael||Price, Sir David|
|Jackson, Robert||Raffan, Keith|
|Janman, Tim||Redwood, John|
|Jessel, Toby||Renton, Rt Hon Tim|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Riddick, Graham|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Key, Robert||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Knapman, Roger||Rost, Peter|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Rowe, Andrew|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Knowles, Michael||Ryder, Richard|
|Lamont, Rt Hon Norman||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Lang, Ian||Sainsbury, Hon Tim|
|Latham, Michael||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Lilley, Peter||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)||Shelton, Sir William|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Lord, Michael||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Luce, Rt Hon Richard||Shersby, Michael|
|Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Sims, Roger|
|Macfarlane, Sir Neil||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Maclean, David||Speed, Keith|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Madel, David||Stern, Michael|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Stevens, Lewis|
|Malins, Humfrey||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Mans, Keith||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Maples, John||Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)|
|Marland, Paul||Stokes, Sir John|
|Marlow, Tony||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Sumberg, David|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Summerson, Hugo|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Mellor, David||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Miller, Sir Hal||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Mills, Iain||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Mitchell, Sir David||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Moate, Roger||Thorne, Neil|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Thurnham, Peter|
|Moore, Rt Hon John||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Morris, M (N'hampton S)||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)||Tracey, Richard|
|Moss, Malcolm||Tredinnick, David|
|Moynihan, Hon Colin||Trippier, David|
|Neale, Gerrard||Trotter, Neville|
|Needham, Richard||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Nelson, Anthony||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Neubert, Michael||Viggers, Peter|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Walden, George||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Waller, Gary||Wolfson, Mark|
|Ward, John||Wood, Timothy|
|Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)||Woodcock, Dr. Mike|
|Warren, Kenneth||Yeo, Tim|
|Watts, John||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Wheeler, Sir John||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Whitney, Ray||Mr. Alastair Goodlad and|
|Widdecombe, Ann||Mr. David Lightbown|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question put forthwith, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Personal Community Charge (Relief) (Wales) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 288), dated 16th February 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be annulled—[Mr. Barry Jones.]
§ The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 297.180
|Division No. 142]||[12.13 am|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Darling, Alistair|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Allen, Graham||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Alton, David||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)|
|Anderson, Donald||Dewar, Donald|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Dixon, Don|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Dobson, Frank|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Doran, Frank|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Ashton, Joe||Dunnachie, Jimmy|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Eadie, Alexander|
|Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)||Eastham, Ken|
|Barron, Kevin||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Battle, John||Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)|
|Beckett, Margaret||Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)|
|Beith, A. J.||Fatchett, Derek|
|Bell, Stuart||Faulds, Andrew|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Fearn, Ronald|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Fisher, Mark|
|Blair, Tony||Flannery, Martin|
|Boateng, Paul||Flynn, Paul|
|Boyes, Roland||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bradley, Keith||Foster, Derek|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Foulkes, George|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Fraser, John|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Fyfe, Maria|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)||Galloway, George|
|Buckley, George J.||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Caborn, Richard||George, Bruce|
|Callaghan, Jim||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Gordon, Mildred|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Gould, Bryan|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Graham, Thomas|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Cartwright, John||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Clay, Bob||Hardy, Peter|
|Clelland, David||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Cohen, Harry||Haynes, Frank|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Henderson, Doug|
|Corbett, Robin||Hinchliffe, David|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)|
|Cousins, Jim||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Cox, Tom||Home Robertson, John|
|Crowther, Stan||Hood, Jimmy|
|Cryer, Bob||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cummings, John||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Howells, Geraint|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hoyle, Doug|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)||Pendry, Tom|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Pike, Peter L.|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Prescott, John|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Illsley, Eric||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Janner, Greville||Radice, Giles|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Randall, Stuart|
|Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)||Redmond, Martin|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Richardson, Jo|
|Kennedy, Charles||Robertson, George|
|Kilfedder, James||Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil||Rogers, Allan|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Rooker, Jeff|
|Lamond, James||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Rowlands, Ted|
|Leighton, Ron||Ruddock, Joan|
|Lewis, Terry||Salmond, Alex|
|Litherland, Robert||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Livingstone, Ken||Sheerman, Barry|
|Livsey, Richard||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Short, Clare|
|Loyden, Eddie||Skinner, Dennis|
|McAllion, John||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)|
|McCartney, Ian||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Macdonald, Calum A.||Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)|
|McFall, John||Snape, Peter|
|McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)||Soley, Clive|
|McKelvey, William||Spearing, Nigel|
|Maclennan, Robert||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|McNamara, Kevin||Steinberg, Gerry|
|McWilliam, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Madden, Max||Straw, Jack|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Marek, Dr John||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Turner, Dennis|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Vaz, Keith|
|Martlew, Eric||Wall, Pat|
|Maxton, John||Wallace, James|
|Meacher, Michael||Walley, Joan|
|Meale, Alan||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)||Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Morley, Elliot||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Mowlam, Marjorie||Wilson, Brian|
|Mullin, Chris||Winnick, David|
|Murphy, Paul||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Nellist, Dave||Worthington, Tony|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Wray, Jimmy|
|O'Brien, William||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Mrs. Win Golding and Mr. Ray Powell|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Batiste, Spencer|
|Alexander, Richard||Bellingham, Henry|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Bendall, Vivian|
|Allason, Rupert||Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Bevan, David Gilory|
|Amess, David||Bonsor, Sir Nicholas|
|Amos, Alan||Boscawen, Hon Robert|
|Arbuthnot, James||Boswell, Tim|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Bottomley, Peter|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Bottomley, Mrs Virginia|
|Ashby, David||Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)|
|Atkins, Robert||Bowis, John|
|Atkinson, David||Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Brandon-Bravo, Martin|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Brazier, Julian|
|Baldry, Tony||Bright, Graham|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Harris, David|
|Burns, Simon||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Burt, Alistair||Hawkins, Christopher|
|Butcher, John||Hayes, Jerry|
|Butler, Chris||Hayward, Robert|
|Butterfill, John||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hind, Kenneth|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Cash, William||Holt, Richard|
|Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda||Hordern, Sir Peter|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Chapman, Sydney||Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)|
|Chope, Christopher||Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)|
|Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Colvin, Michael||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)|
|Conway, Derek||Hunter, Andrew|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Irving, Sir Charles|
|Cope, Rt Hon John||Jack, Michael|
|Couchman, James||Jackson, Robert|
|Cran, James||Janman, Tim|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Jessel, Toby|
|Curry, David||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Davis, David (Booth ferry)||Jones, Robert B (Herts W)|
|Day, Stephen||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Devlin, Tim||Key, Robert|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Knapman, Roger|
|Dover, Den||Knight, Greg (Derby North)|
|Dunn, Bob||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Durant, Tony||Knowles, Michael|
|Eggar, Tim||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Lang, Ian|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Latham, Michael|
|Evennett, David||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Fallon, Michael||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Favell, Tony||Lilley, Peter|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Fishburn, John Dudley||Lord, Michael|
|Fookes, Dame Janet||Luce, Rt Hon Richard|
|Forman, Nigel||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Macfarlane, Sir Neil|
|Forth, Eric||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Mackay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Maclean, David|
|Franks, Cecil||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Freeman, Roger||McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael|
|French, Douglas||Madel, David|
|Fry, Peter||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Gale, Roger||Malins, Humfrey|
|Gardiner, George||Mans, Keith|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Maples, John|
|Glyn, Dr Sir Alan||Marland, Paul|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Marlow, Tony|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Gorst, John||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Gow, Ian||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Mellor, David|
|Gregory, Conal||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Mills, Iain|
|Grist, Ian||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Ground, Patrick||Mitchell, Sir David|
|Grylls, Michael||Moate, Roger|
|Hague, William||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Morris, M (N'hampton S)|
|Hannam, John||Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)|
|Moss, Malcolm||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Moynihan, Hon Colin||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Neale, Gerrard||Stern, Michael|
|Needham, Richard||Stevens, Lewis|
|Nelson, Anthony||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Neubert, Michael||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Stokes, Sir John|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Sumberg, David|
|Norris, Steve||Summerson, Hugo|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Page, Richard||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Patnick, Irvine||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Patten, Rt Hon John||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Thorne, Neil|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Thurnham, Peter|
|Portillo, Michael||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Raffan, Keith||Tracey, Richard|
|Redwood, John||Tredinnick, David|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Trippier, David|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Trotter, Neville|
|Riddick, Graham||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Viggers, Peter|
|Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Walden, George|
|Rossi, Sir Hugh||Waller, Gary|
|Rowe, Andrew||Ward, John|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Ryder, Richard||Warren, Kenneth|
|Sackville, Hon Tom||Watts, John|
|Sainsbury, Hon Tim||Wells, Bowen|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas||Whitney, Ray|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Shelton, Sir William||Wolfson, Mark|
|Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)||Wood, Timothy|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Woodcock, Dr. Mike|
|Shersby, Michael||Yeo, Tim|
|Sims, Roger||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Mr. Alastair Goodlad and|
|Speed, Keith||Mr. David Lightbown.|
|Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.