§ Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 29, line 44, leave out second 'her' and insert 'either parent'.
In the form in which the Bill left the Committee, it appeared that there was an exemption from an obligation to co-operate that related to the parents of the child if by so doing they would cause harm and undue distress to the child or children. That did not appear to extend to children of the absent parent, and there could be circumstances in which co-operation could cause harm and undue distress to such children. The matter was brought to my attention by the NSPCC, which was naturally concerned about it. Accordingly, I tabled my amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security then tabled new clause 5, and I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber when the clause was discussed. I believe that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to the problem which concerned me. I should explain that I was detained by a meeting of a Select Committee.
It seems at first glance that new clause 5 might meet my concerns. Rather than discuss the matter at length, I will give my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity to respond now.
§ Mr. JackI thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for introducing this important amendment and I well understand the motives behind it. The amendment is designed to protect the interests of children living with absent parents. It was an underlying theme of earlier discussions, on which we have sought to reflect, that concerns about children in that position should be recognised.
We do not take lightly the risk of harm or undue distress to the children of the absent parent. New clause 5, to which my hon. Friend alluded, obliges the Secretary of State and child support officers, when taking action under the Bill, to have regard to the welfare of any child affected by the exercise of discretion. That covers consideration both by the Secretary of State under clause 6, and by a child support officer under clause 43. I believe that that existing obligation is sufficient in itself to respond to genuine risks to the welfare of the absent parent's children. However, I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks and I will reflect further on them when we devise the advice and guidance that we shall be giving to the staff who will have to operate that provision.
§ Mr. HardyI share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) who gives distinguished service to the NSPCC. May we take it that the interests of children born into the absent parent's subsequent family will also be considered?
§ Mr. JackClearly it will be a case of the child support officer listening—in accordance with the requirements of the clause—to the information that is put before him. I cannot anticipate the nature of that information or other aspects of it, but we shall give that aspect consideration when devising the guidance to which I referred earlier.
§ Mr. SimsI am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation and for the assurances that he has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Miss LestorI beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 30, line 6, after '(5)' insert '(a)'.
§
No. 3, in page 30, line 7, leave out
'may give a reduced benefit direction with respect to the parent' and insert 'shall notify this to the parent, in writing;
§
No. 4, in page 30, line 19, at end insert—
`(11) Once a reduced benefit direction has been given in respect of a parent no further reduced benefit direction may be given in respect of her failure to comply with any requirement under section 6(1).'.
§
No. 5, in page 30, line 34, at end insert—
'(12) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying circumstances in which the child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction—
§ Miss LestorI reiterate our support for the principle that parents should, as far as possible, and whatever the circumstances of their partnership—if they had a permanent relationship in the first place—maintain their children. That support should be emotional as well as financial, and the two are not interchangeable.
We are considering a sensitive and often distressing aspect of human relations, as was said by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). Most of us agree that such matters should remain in the private domain wherever possible. If it is necessary for outside agencies to become involved, one hopes that they will handle matters with suitable sensitivity, and with respect for the decisions and opinions of the parents—particularly lone parents—and the children concerned. I am not convinced that clause 43 goes anywhere near meeting those criteria.
Most mothers will and do co-operate when questioned in pursuit of a maintenance claim, as the figures show. Women who do otherwise have good reason. They may not be sure who the father is, or disclosure of his name may cause distress to his new or former partner. The child may have been conceived in a relationship with a very close relative. It is also possible that the mother fears violence. She may have experienced it already—or fears it because she has lived under the threat of violence in the past. Some 555 women also have a perfectly reasonable desire to have nothing more to do with the father, even through a third party.
If the new arrangements are as positive for parents as the Government suggest, a mother's reasons for not co-operating must be very strong. The Government claim that specially trained people will determine whether to proceed with an individual claim, but many women will find it difficult to talk freely to a stranger—however sympathetic that person may be—without knowing whether their fears will be respected, or whether their remarks will lead to the claim not being pursued.
Many women have told me that they are willing to talk only if there is a guarantee that their partner or ex-partner will not be pursued. One is dealing with subjective judgments, and it is difficult to put oneself in another person's shoes. The sums of money involved are pathetic, and I wonder whether the process can be justified in terms of the potential human misery to which it may give rise.
6.45 pm
I am all in favour of increasing co-operation with agencies, but I cannot condone what is clearly an attempt to gain information by a form of coercion. Why do the Government turn their back on incentives and choose instead to impose benefit penalties and the withdrawal of passported benefits, even if the mother co-operates and a maintenance claim is successfully concluded?
I was pleased when, earlier this year, their Lordships overturned the benefit penalty clause—the old clause 22 but I was disappointed to see it reintroduced in Committee. It is the view of a wide range of voluntary organisations, children's charities, church groups, and other bodies and individuals that there is no financial or practical justification for imposing economic penalties on people who are already poor—penalties that will punish the child along with the mother.
Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House received an excellent briefing from 17 voluntary organisations which spells out in detail their shared objections and fears. The Government claim that without sanctions the whole scheme would flounder. However, I do not recall any Minister ever telling the House that a major cause of a reduction in maintenance recovery by the DSS over the past decade has been the absence of benefit penalties. On the contrary, in a previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) eloquently pointed out the disastrous consequences of the DSS giving maintenance collection a low priority in its allocation of staff, which is partly responsible for the fall in maintenance payments.
In Committee, the Government agreed to widen to some extent the groups of mothers who would be exempted from penalties. Clauses 6 and 43 allow a woman not to co-operate where there is a real risk of harm or undue distress to her, or to the child living with her. I welcome that provision, but the Secretary of State admitted that the benefit penalty will be one of the harshest in the social security system. There are good grounds for allowing greater flexibility, including a reduction in the penalty in cases of hardship. The Secretary of State claimed that clauses 6 and 43 provide a safeguard that goes beyond the existing legal position. That is true, as far as it goes, but is it not currently the case 556 that maintenance must be pursued before any benefit can be paid? If so, how can penalties for non co-operation be viewed as an additional safeguard? That is totally illogical.
It is not clear what action might be taken against a woman who does not know the whereabouts of a former partner. A west midlands citizens advice bureau cites the case of a lone parent with two children, in which, under a court order, the father paid maintenance of 5p per child because he was unemployed. However, it was suspected that he might be working again, so the DSS said that the lone parent should seek a variation of the order, to have it increased to £20 per week. It has been deducting that amount from her benefit even though she has not received a penny extra in maintenance. She gave the DSS her ex-partner's last known address, but she has been told that the address is incorrect and unless she applies again with his current address her benefit will be stopped altogether. That cannot be right, but most of the agencies, and in particular the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, have given us examples of that. How will clause 43 apply in those circumstances?
We all support the view that it is in the child's interest to have continuing contact with the non-resident parent whenever possible. However, the Government have deliberately kept separate the issues of maintenance and access—and, in that context, I do not mean access awarded by the courts. The Bill fails to take proper account of the different ways in which a non-resident parent may have agreed to share the caring of his child. I have raised that point on many occasions with the Minister, but I have not received a satisfactory explanation or elucidation of his views.
Weekends, holidays and days out may have been agreed to the mutual satisfaction of both parents and the child. Many non-resident fathers make a useful contribution to the upbringing of their child. Indirectly they make a financial contribution by having the child at weekends and holidays, as I have said. However, the Government, in their wisdom, see fit in all circumstances to reassess the situation and bring the issues down to money.
If a father has remarried, but says, "I'll have Johnny at the weekends and for holidays because that is my responsibility; however, I can't pay any money because my circumstances are difficult", we will intervene in law and force him to pay money. We will therefore inject into a relationship a sourness and disgruntlement that were not there before.
In Committee we expressed our grave concern that so much of the detail of the new maintenance collection system would be left to regulations. We have yet to see those regulations. Will regulations under clause 43 be available in draft? Will they go to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consideration? Will guidance on the implementation of the regulations be sent for comment to all the voluntary organisations which have sent their detailed comments on the proposals to the Minister? That is the least that we can expect in view of the fact that, as I have said, much of this is being left to regulation.
I share the concern expressed by organisations that appeals on the benefit penalty cannot work satisfactorily if there is no published guidance on the circumstances in which the penalty will be applied. The issue should not have to wait for case law to emerge, but I am afraid that that will happen. For those reasons, although we accept 557 the principle that the absent parent should help to maintain the child, we want to amend the Bill to provide additional safeguards to mothers and their children.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are intended to ensure that the benefit penalty would be applied only after the expiry of the time limit for appealing against it or after an unsuccessful appeal. That is very important. In other words, the benefit penalty should be used as a last resort after all hearings, including appeals, have been completed. That seems only fair. In view of the evidence that I have referred to from the NACAB—and I could have spent much longer referring to other cases—I hope that the Minister will respond favourably.
In Committee the Minister said that a parent with care who refused to co-operate and who did not seem to have reasonable grounds for non-co-operation would have six weeks to change her mind. After that time had elapsed, the case would be referred to a second child support officer who would notify the mother in writing of a further period in which to change her mind. That would probably be about two weeks. If the mother continued to feel unable to co-operate and failed to persuade the child support officer that she had good cause, the benefit penalty would be imposed immediately. Only then could she appeal to a child support tribunal. That seems less than fair. In fact, it could cause real harm to the child because of the effect on the family's income.
It is important that the agency treats lone parents and non-resident parents fairly and in a similar way. It seems quite illogical and unjust that, where there is a paternity dispute, no maintenance assessment will be made until after the case has been heard by the courts. However, the same principle would not apply to the lone parent with care who may find the benefit reduced before appeal to the tribunal. The fact of granting an appeal takes for granted the fact that she might win the appeal. Why should she be deprived of benefit in the meantime?
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the way in which that issue is handled in the Australian maintenance system which the Government have used as a model for the system that underlies this Bill. In Australia the benefit penalty is not brought to bear until after the appeal process is completed. In 1988–89 there were just eight cancellations of benefit and in 1989–90 there were 35. That seems a much fairer system.
There is also a parallel within our legislation. Since April of this year, any unemployed person receiving benefit and challenging an application for voluntary unemployment deduction made by the state on the ground that he or she is capable of work continues to be paid at the normal level until after the appeal. Why are we harsher on children and lone parents when that system applies to the unemployed? Within the Bill there is a proposal that no maintenance assessment will be made in cases involving disputed paternity until paternity is proven.
It is important that any new system that could threaten the economic well-being of a family should be seen to be fair. We believe that there is a strong case for testing decisions on appeal, before they are carried out, on the grounds of natural justice. There is an inconsistency in the way in which we deal with many aspects of benefit. I can envisage a situation in which many mothers and their children will suffer in the short term who, in the longer term, will not have the penalty clause applied. It is essential that no reduction should take place when there is uncertainty about the mother's ability to co-operate.
558 I hope that the Minister will respond positively to those points. In addition, we should bear in mind the fact that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to save the Treasury money. Child support officers will therefore be working within strict targets for levels of maintenance collection. The resulting harm to lone parents and especially their children cannot possibly be justified in those circumstances. Lone parents have told me in my advice surgeries that they have already been told that they will lose benefit if they do not name the father—and that happened even before this Bill entered Committee. That problem is not confined to my area. Organisations such as NACAB and the Child Poverty Action Group have gathered substantial evidence from many parts of the country to show what is happening.
Amendment No. 4 proposes to ensure that a benefit penalty cannot be repeated simply because a parent with care moves from one benefit to another—for example, if a mother moves from income support to family credit or disability working allowance. It also covers circumstances in which a parent with care may have a break in a benefit claim and then moves back on to the same benefit.
In Committee the Secretary of State said that there was no intention of reapplying a further period of deduction to the same claim for the same benefit. However, that still leaves open the possibility of a repeat penalty in the kind of cases that I have just outlined. I thought that the Government wanted to encourage lone parents to seek work. Applying a second benefit penalty for parents with care, the majority of whom will be lone parents trying to move to work and on to family credit or disability working allowance, can hardly be described as providing an incentive for that lone parent to return to work.
Research carried out by the DSS has shown that lone parents as a group often go into and out of work possibly more often than others and that is a result of their dual role as carers and workers. We are therefore talking about a significant number of people who could be affected by repeat penalties at the very time when they are trying desperately to achieve some measure of progress towards independence. As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West said, the pay packet is a key to economic independence. Many young mothers are striving for that independence. As a result, many of them may feel a disincentive to look for work that involves 16 hours or more a week.
I now give the House a couple of examples that have come to the attention of citizens' advice bureaux. In Derbyshire, a client who is divorced had a court order for the payment of £60 a week for her two sons. The husband paid irregularly. In the weeks when he defaulted, she received income support. When he paid, she was 10p over the limit. As a result, she was yo-yoing on and off income support. I ask the House to imagine what that meant in terms of budgeting and managing her family income. In Yorkshire, a client's family credit book had been delayed. She contacted the family credit unit, which said that she should have been notified and that she should put in a fresh claim and that it would be backdated. In the meantime, of course, she fell behind with all her bills.
7 pm
As the House knows, Opposition Members are concerned about the damaging effect that the legislation will have on children who are caught up in the process. This is not a Child Support Bill; it is a Treasury support 559 Bill. There is no incentive for a woman to name the father of her child. In fact, many who receive maintenance will lose their passported benefits. A repeat penalty will significantly worsen the effects of a benefit reduction. A parent with care who has already suffered an 18-month benefit penalty will have little money to meet her children's needs. I cannot see any justification for repeating the penalty just because she has had a break in a claim or has moved into work of 16 hours or more a week. That is a real worry. I ask the Minister to confirm that that is not the Government's intention and that he takes on board my criticisms of the application of the Bill, particularly the penalty clauses.
§ Mr. JackI could never accuse the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) of being uncharitable, but, in her comments about our intentions in respect of the Bill, she has perhaps done something that she did not intend to do. Ever since the Bill was introduced, we have made it abundantly clear that the interests of children—hence the name of our White Paper—come first. That means that we see in the measure the pre-eminence of the child. It is sad that the hon. Lady has not reflected on the fact that the Bill sorts out the most unsatisfactory present situation in which maintenance is a concern or, more important, is not even paid.
I can give the hon. Lady an assurance in respect of sensitivity. We share her anxiety on that matter, but I am disappointed—I can understand why she has her views —that she does not reflect on the fact that the Government have moved greatly in terms of the original benefit sanction as proposed in the White Paper. We have moved to reflect on the sensitivity of the human situation with which we are dealing—for example, our amendment, which was accepted in Committee, about the adoption of an onus of proof determined by the words "harm and undue distress".
The hon. Lady did not give any weight to the presumption to be believed on behalf of the parent with care when she explains the sometimes difficult and sensitive human circumstances which lead her to resist co-operating with the Bill. We have given an assurance that people will be presumed to be believed, but the hon. Lady knows that part of the reason why, under the present arrangements, people are sometimes frightened to co-operate is that they do not have reassurance of the kind that we shall introduce with the Bill. I cannot allow the hon. Lady to dismiss with an easy hand the thought that our people will not be properly trained to deal with sensitive matters and to give guidance, advice and counselling, as we said in Committee they would.
§ Mr. HardyNo matter what the training may be, will the Minister deny that, if maintenance equals the amount that a lady is receiving in income support, she and her child will be worse off because she will lose the passported benefits to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) referred? She will lose the value of the free school meal. Therefore, substantial numbers of children may have a less satisfactory diet than they currently enjoy.
§ Mr. JackIf that is the hon. Gentleman's understanding of our proposals, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have failed to get the message across, so let me try again. We are talking about a benefit sanction, which, again, we have reduced to 20 per cent. of the adult rate—it has nothing to do with the children's rate—of income support. 560 We have softened our approach by having a cooling-off period and a period of structured reduction in benefit. The woman parent with care will still be on income support and have full access to the range of passported benefits associated with that benefit. The hon. Gentleman has not entirely caught up with our proper intent.
§ Mr. AllenWill the Minister therefore take the final step in being flexible by ensuring that the penalty is not a flat rate sledgehammer which applies to all women who are fined for refusing to name the father but can be a graded approach such as that which operates in respect of other benefits?
§ Mr. JackThe easiest way to deal with the problem is ultimately for the parent with care to reconsider her position—that is, precisely by giving a six-week cooling off period and a further two weeks before any benefit sanction would come into operation. We have given the parent with care the chance to end the benefit sanction with no tapers and no fancy frills if she chooses to co-operate. We believe that parents will, with the right guidance, be encouraged so to do.
I cannot accept the hon. Lady's argument that our system is draconian. She prays in aid Australia, but she has been a little selective in her information. Under the Australian system, somebody who ultimately decides not to co-operate does not have our reduction of benefit; he or she loses the lot for ever and a day. If that is the Opposition's policy, I hope that everybody has taken note of their advocacy of the Australian system and their association with something that is clearly draconian compared with our much softer and more sensitive approach.
The hon. Lady discussed the shared costs of parenting. I owe her a reply on that point. Where the absent parent looks after the child for a substantial time, and when there are special weekends or time put aside, the absent parent will retain an appropriate proportion of the maintenance available. I assure the hon. Lady that we are giving careful thought to that matter. I hope that those words reassure her.
The hon. Lady asked me about consultation on the regulations. The Bill is not, effectively, a social security provision, but, out of courtesy, we are to put our regulations before the Social Security Advisory Committee. Of course we shall consult as widely as we consulted in respect of replies to the White Paper. We want the benefit of the views of others.
The hon. Lady seems to be taking a typical Opposition approach, which is never to bring matters to a head and always to postpone them until the day after and the day after that. A decision must be made whether people regard the flow of maintenance or the child as the most important or whether they wish to stick to their principles. Our proposals give a woman the opportunity to end any sanctions straight away. We believe that, in our much softer and gentle approach, that stage should be reached rather than postponing the decision for ever and a day.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 30, line 34, at end insert—
'(12) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying circumstances in which the child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction—
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 268.
563| Division No. 223] | [7.09 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Lestor, Joan (Eccles) |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.) | Lewis, Terry |
| Allen, Graham | Livingstone, Ken |
| Anderson, Donald | Livsey, Richard |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Ashton, Joe | Loyden, Eddie |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | McAllion, John |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | McCartney, Ian |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Macdonald, Calum A. |
| Battle, John | McFall, John |
| Beckett, Margaret | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Beith, A. J. | McMaster, Gordon |
| Bellotti, David | Madden, Max |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Meacher, Michael |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Meale, Alan |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Mullin, Chris |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Murphy, Paul |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Nellist, Dave |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | O'Hara, Edward |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Pike, Peter L. |
| Cox, Tom | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Crowther, Stan | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Cryer, Bob | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Cummings, John | Randall, Stuart |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | Redmond, Martin |
| Dewar, Donald | Richardson, Jo |
| Dixon, Don | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Dobson, Frank | Ruddock, Joan |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Salmond, Alex |
| Fisher, Mark | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Flannery, Martin | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Flynn, Paul | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Short, Clare |
| Foster, Derek | Skinner, Dennis |
| Fraser, John | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Godman, Dr Norman A. | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) | Soley, Clive |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Grocott, Bruce | Steel, Rt Hon Sir David |
| Hardy, Peter | Turner, Dennis |
| Haynes, Frank | Wallace, James |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) | Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C) |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | Winnick, David |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Worthington, Tony |
| Janner, Greville | |
| Johnston, Sir Russell | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Thomas McAvoy. |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | |
| Leighton, Ron |
| NOES | |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) |
| Allason, Rupert | Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) |
| Amess, David | Baldry, Tony |
| Amos, Alan | Banks, Robert (Harrogate) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Batiste, Spencer |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Beggs, Roy |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas | Bellingham, Henry |
| Ashby, David | Bendall, Vivian |
| Atkinson, David | Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) |
| Benyon, W. | Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW) |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Gregory, Conal |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E') |
| Boswell, Tim | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Grist, Ian |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Ground, Patrick |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n) | Hague, William |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Hannam, John |
| Brazier, Julian | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Harris, David |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Hayes, Jerry |
| Burns, Simon | Hayward, Robert |
| Burt, Alistair | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Holt, Richard |
| Carrington, Matthew | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Carttiss, Michael | Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) |
| Cash, William | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) |
| Chope, Christopher | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Churchill, Mr | Hunt, Rt Hon David |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) |
| Clark, Rt Hon Sir William | Hunter, Andrew |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Irvine, Michael |
| Colvin, Michael | Irving, Sir Charles |
| Conway, Derek | Jack, Michael |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Janman, Tim |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Jessel, Toby |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Cormack, Patrick | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Couchman, James | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Key, Robert |
| Curry, David | Kilfedder, James |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Day, Stephen | Knapman, Roger |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Dicks, Terry | Knowles, Michael |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lang, Rt Hon Ian |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Dover, Den | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Dunn, Bob | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lord, Michael |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard |
| Evennett, David | Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas |
| Farr, Sir John | McCrindle, Sir Robert |
| Favell, Tony | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Maclean, David |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Fookes, Dame Janet | McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick |
| Forman, Nigel | Malins, Humfrey |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Mans, Keith |
| Forth, Eric | Marland, Paul |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman | Marlow, Tony |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) |
| Franks, Cecil | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Freeman, Roger | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| French, Douglas | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Fry, Peter | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Gale, Roger | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Gardiner, Sir George | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Gill, Christopher | Mitchell, Sir David |
| Glyn, Dr Sir Alan | Moate, Roger |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Morris, M (N'hampton S) |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Gorst, John | Moss, Malcolm |
| Nelson, Anthony | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Squire, Robin |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) | Steen, Anthony |
| Norris, Steve | Stern, Michael |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Stevens, Lewis |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Page, Richard | Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Paice, James | Stokes, Sir John |
| Patnick, Irvine | Sumberg, David |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Summerson, Hugo |
| Pawsey, James | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Portillo, Michael | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Price, Sir David | Thorne, Neil |
| Rattan, Keith | Thurnham, Peter |
| Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy | Trimble, David |
| Rathbone, Tim | Trippier, David |
| Renton, Rt Hon Tim | Trotter, Neville |
| Rhodes James, Sir Robert | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Riddick, Graham | Viggers, Peter |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Ritkind, Rt Hon Malcolm | Walden, George |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Ross, William (Londonderry E) | Ward, John |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Rost, Peter | Watts, John |
| Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela | Wells, Bowen |
| Ryder, Rt Hon Richard | Wheeler, Sir John |
| Sainsbury, Hon Tim | Whitney, Ray |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Wilkinson, John |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | Wilshire, David |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Wood, Timothy |
| Shersby, Michael | Yeo, Tim |
| Sims, Roger | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) | |
| Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Speed, Keith | Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope. |
| Speller, Tony |
§ Question accordingly negatived.