HC Deb 08 March 1994 vol 239 cc234-49

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 15, line 36, at end insert— (1A) The power conferred by subsection (1) above is not exercisable in respect of any matter for which provision may be made under section 4 (power to provide for transition to incapacity benefit) or section (Power to provide for the transition to the new test of incapacity for work) (power to provide for the transition to new test of incapacity for work).";

No. 16, in page 15, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Scott.]

Mr. Bradley

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 16, line 7, at end insert— (2A) Where a person is entitled to a disability premium by virtue only of satisfying the test of incapacity for work—

  1. (a) those so entitled on the day of commencement shall be entitled to a transitional award of income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit, as appropriate on the same basis as awards of incapacity benefit under section 4 of this Act;
  2. (b) after commencement, he shall be entitled to such a premium from the date of claim, provided that he can produce medical evidence of incapacity for work during the previous 364 days.".
This is the final amendment on Report, and I hope that the way in which the Minister dealt with the previous amendment will flow through to this amendment as it deals with an aspect of transition arrangements which the Government have not dealt with fully to date. I feel confident that the Minister will be able to support it. The amendment seeks to enable people receiving the disability premium to have the same transitional protection as those on incapacity benefit and to allow for immediate entitlement to premiums through backdating.

Some people now claim a disability premium with one of the means-tested benefits without receiving one of the qualifying benefits such as disability living allowance. In such cases, people may be entitled to the premium, provided that they can show that they are incapable of work. The incapacity test is the same as is now used with the invalidity benefit.

The Bill introduces a new test of incapacity to work to be applied across all relevant incapacity benefits. That, of course, will include disability premium. The amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure, first, that there is transitional protection for people on the disability premium at the time of change and, secondly, that an immediate entitlement to the premium is possible, provided that medical evidence is submitted.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that, according to the 1992 figure, the benefits of 424,600 income support recipients include the disability premium, but no mention has been made of transitional protection for claimants of the disability premium.

Many people qualify for the disability premium through a qualifying benefit, or if they are registered blind, but those most likely to be affected by the introduciton of incapacity benefit are those who qualify only on grounds of the incapacity condition and who have submitted medical certificates to the Benefits Agency. They include people who are unable to qualify for national insurance benefits or who cannot qualify for severe disablement allowance, perhaps because they are not 80 per cent. disabled. Access to the premium via the incapacity condition is therefore particularly important for women.

The amendment seeks to clarify what arrangements are being made to protect, at the time of change, people who receive the disability premium by way of the incapacity condition. We also seek clarification about the full year's wait for benefit. Currently, the disability premium is payable after 28 weeks of incapacity for work. With the introduction of incapacity benefit, which in effect extends the definition of short-term incapacity to 364 days, the qualifying period for the disability premium has likewise been extended to a year. Using the 1994–95 figures, someone under the age of 60 faces a loss of £19.45 per week, which amounts to a loss of £466.80 during the period from 28 weeks to 52 weeks. It is estimated that the change will save £20 million in 1995–96 and £25 million in 1996–97. Those figures were given in column 598 of Hansard on 14 February 1994.

At the moment, certificates from a general practitioner have to be presented as evidence, which can include the backdated medical certificate—Med 5—to prove incapacity to work in a previous period. That could happen when claimants are not aware of their entitlement. Will the Minister clarify whether, as no premium will in future be payable for 52 weeks, there will be provision for backdating, by a Med 5 certificate, for 52 weeks?

At what point will people applying for the disability premium have to undergo the new functional test? Will they have to undergo it immediately? Will they then have to wait a full year before they receive benefit? Will the test be at the 28th week? Will claimants then have to wait a year for payment?

At what intervals is it anticipated that someone will have to be tested or re-tested? Have the Government any estimate of how often the condition of claimants who pass the medical test and who are in receipt of incapacity benefit will be subject to reassessment or be requested to fill in a new questionnaire? Have the Government given general consideration to the review of incapacity cases?

Evidence from citizens advice bureaux already shows that many claimants are not identified by the Benefits Agency at 28 weeks and lose out on the disability premium. How would the Benefits Agency ensure that people on income support were identified and put in the queue for any medical assessment after the first 28 weeks?

We are trying to flag up the anomalies that we believe are in the system. I recognise that the Government have already indicated that they recognise that there will be anomalies. In this case, while some people will have to wait a full year before receiving the premium, those who qualify because they receive severe disablement allowance will get the premium from the 28th week. Are there any plans to iron out anomalies in the new incapacity benefit?

The Government have already conceded that they will have carefully to consider transitional arrangements in their framing of the regulations. They have admitted that they may not get them right first time and may have to amend the regulations. Having considered the complexities of transitional arrangements, I have some sympathy with the Government.

It is important, however, that the amendment identifies a particular issue, and I hope that the Government will respond to it. I see that they may well do so soon and I shall speak slowly to ensure that we get some response. It is an important issue and may be typical of the range of potential difficulties on transitional arrangements because of the complexities of the current system, the interrelation of benefits and the additions to those benefits that apply to disabled people.

Having made those rather brief and technical remarks on the amendment, I should welcome the Minister's comments on the amendment and perhaps some more general comments on the time scale and the way in which he hopes to handle the transitional arrangements.

Mr. Scott

As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has acknowledged, this is a complex matter. I understand that the amendment seeks to protect access to the disability premium for the long-term sick.

I should assure the House that it is very much the Government's intention that there should be consistency of treatment in the application of the new and transitional incapacity arrangements.

Existing cases will be protected at the point of change. For sickness and invalidity benefit recipients, protection will take the form of transitional awards of the new incapacity benefit. I do not believe that such a mechanism is necessary or desirable for the income-related benefits. We are not changing the amounts of the income-related benefits in general or the disability premium in particular. The benefits will remain the same; there will still be a disability premium. We shall simply be amending the rules for the premium to reflect the new incapacity provisions.

We are talking about those who qualify for the disability premium on incapacity grounds alone. The long-term rate of incapacity benefit will replace invalidity benefit as a passport to the premium. It will include those with transitional awards of long-term incapacity benefit.

The new medical test will apply to existing disability premium cases on the same basis for existing contributory benefit cases. It is a test that applies across the benefits system wherever incapacity is an issue.

The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to the reassessment of reviews of people who undertake the medical test. It will depend in essence upon the advice given by a departmental doctor to adjudication officers on the period in which the effects of the disability are likely to persist unchanged. For some people it may be for life; for others for a relatively short period. It would depend very much on the assessment of the impact of their particular condition on them, and it would be for adjudication officers to decide when any such case might be called forward for review for a reassessment of their entitlement.

Exemptions from the medical test for income-related benefits will broadly be on the same basis as that applicable to incapacity benefit cases. Those aged 58 or over at the point of change, the terminally ill, those suffering from a list of specified conditions or those receiving the highest rate of the care component of disability living allowance will not be required to undergo the new medical test. Those who have the premium because they have been incapable of work for 28 weeks will be treated as satisfying the new test and will continue to qualify for the premium while they are incapable. If an adjudication officer decides that they are capable of work, the premium will be withdrawn, as now, unless payable on other grounds.

9.30 pm

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a period of incapacity occurring immediately before a claim for income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit will, as now, count towards the qualifying period for the premium. Such a claim would, of course, be considered in the light of the rules applying at the time. For a claim to be made after the introduction of the new arrangements, the new test will apply. Our aim is to protect existing benefit recipients from a drop in benefit at the time when the new arrangements are introduced. That clearly does not apply where a claim starts after the date of change. There is no reason to give the same protection to them as for existing cases.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the possibility of backdating. If backdating evidence is provided, immediate entitlement will still be possible. The new all-work test, however, will still be possible. The new all-work test, however, will need to be satisfied at the start of the income support claim. The Benefits Agency medical service judgment will be needed to judge that the person was incapable of all work for the previous six months. That is in addition to the GP's evidence for the six months before that. Pending that evidence, the premium will be paid from the outset of the claim.

I hope that I have covered most of the points of this particularly complex issue. I do not think that our intentions vary widely from those of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bradley

I welcome the Minister's comprehensive explanation. This is an extremely technical matter, and it is incumbent on all of us on the Opposition Benches to look carefully at his explanation to ensure that it covers all the different angles of the complex nature of income-related benefits and their interrelationship with disability premiums and other premiums that may be applicable to them. It would be sensible for us to look carefully at them and to see how they relate to the other transitional arrangements that will be introduced at later stages.

I am sure that when the Bill leaves this House and is considered in the other place, their Lordships also will be concerned to ensure that protection at the point of change is forthcoming on a whole range of complicated individual cases. It would be sensible at this stage to look carefully at this and similar complex matters. In that light, and with your permission, Madam Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

9.33 pm
Mr. Scott

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I have no intention of making a lengthy speech at this late hour. I believe that we have had a good and constructive Committee stage, and today we have had a good and constructive Report. I am sure that further proceedings on the Bill will be characterised in the same way.

Opposition Members and, indeed, some of my hon. Friends, have pressed me today on a number of commitments that I gave in Committee to consider a number of specific issues, such as linking rules, treatment of the terminally ill and broadening the definition of training, and we had specific mention today of the importance of voluntary work. I warned the Committee that a number of these matters were complex, and would necessarily take some time to explore.

I share the disappointment of hon. Members who have taken a particular interest in the Bill that it has not been possible to complete that consideration in time for today's proceedings, but I repeat my commitment to continue to consider the issues carefully and constructively. Let me also remind the House that, if amendments are required, there will be a suitable opportunity for them to be moved in another place; the House of Commons would then have an opportunity to consider the issues again.

The Bill fundamentally reforms benefits paid to those who are incapacitated for work. First, it introduces a new, more objective medical test. As the House knows, the Government are committed to a test that focuses only on medical factors in determining entitlement to a benefit paid on the grounds of medical incapacity. We consider that logical, right and proper.

Opposition Members have complained that they have been unable to debate the detail of the test; I think they are aware, however, that the detail is subject to wide-ranging, on-going consultation and evaluation, and in due course will be set out in regulations. What we have been able to do—I pay tribute to the constructive approach adopted by both sides, in Committee and today—is consider the principles underlying the new test. The genuinely sick will satisfy the requirements of the test.

The second element of the reform is consideration of the appropriate level of provision. In Committee and again today, we have debated each component of the benefit. I know that Opposition Members hold different views about the appropriate level, but I believe—and the Government believe—that, with the passage of time, some elements of invalidity benefit, such as additional pension or dependency increases for adults when there are no children to care for, have become anomalous. On the question of additional pension, there is at least some agreement between the Government and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

We have also introduced a new definition of long-term incapacity—52 weeks, which I consider a more appropriate measure and a reasonable definition. It is important to emphasise at this stage, lest there be any misunderstanding outside the House, that the Government have fully protected existing recipients of invalidity benefit: there will be no cash losers at the point of change.

Mr. Flynn

Does not the Minister agree that, although the Bill has been sold as an attempt to rid the system of abuse, it reduces in three ways the amount that people will receive in future—people who, as the Government admit, are incapable of work?

Mr. Scott

I have just said that there will be no cash losers at the point of change. That is very important. A number of speeches made in Committee may well have misled people outside the House into believing that they will lose money at that point, which is why I wanted to emphasise on Third Reading that they would not.

We remain committed to a contributory income replacement benefit paid on the ground of sickness. I believe that our reforms will help to make benefits for those who are incapacitated for work affordable and sustainable into the next century. I also believe that the Opposition's approach to the Bill manifests their lack of will to achieve that aim.

Without the Bill, expenditure would continue to grow without being clearly focused on the long-term sick. I remind the House that, in 1979, expenditure on invalidity benefit was £2.4 billion; in 1993, it was £6.1 billion. It is forecast to rise to £8 billion by 1997. Governments across Europe, in North America and in Australasia are all considering or implementing reforms in this regard.

I believe that any responsible Government would have to take steps to deal with the rapid and sustained growth in expenditure and the number of recipients, and the fact that the benefit is no longer focused solely on those who are sick. I commend the Bill to the House.

9.39 pm
Mr. Wallace

I shall be brief. The Minister said that there will be savings for the Treasury, and the Opposition parties understand that that is the whole purpose of the Bill. He said that there will be no cash loss during the period of change for those currently in receipt of invalidity benefit but, as I understand it, those who are not today incapacitated for work but who are so incapacitated after 1995 will be worse off as a result of the introduction of the new benefit than they would otherwise have been.

As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said in his intervention on the Minister, we are talking about people whom, even under the new strict test, the Government accept are incapacitated for work.

It is interesting to note that, although it is an undeniable fact that the number of people currently receiving invalidity benefit has increased threefold since 1975, work done by the Policy Studies Institute has shown that, among men of working age, the number starting a period of invalidity benefit has fallen from 465,000 in 1977–78 to just under 200,000 a year in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

One of the explanations for the overall increase is the number of people who continue on invalidity benefit longer than they would have done in earlier times. Of course, one of the big differences between 1975 and 1994 is the unemployment rate.

We now fear that, under what the Minister called a "medical" test, which is more like a mechanistic test, more people will be deemed capable of work but will nevertheless not be able to find it. I believe that we shall be condemning the most vulnerable members of our community to suffer as a result; and, as has been said, this measure will bring people to our constituency surgeries in 1995 and beyond.

We shall do our best for them, but we shall at least be able to say that we warned the Government what would happen; I hope that Conservative Members who vote for Third Reading tonight will be able to look their constituents in the eye with an easy conscience when the time comes.

9.42 pm
Mr. Flynn

There are three methods by which the Government are introducing massive cuts—and they are cuts, because the Bill is about saving £1.5 billion.

The first method is the change in the second six months, the reduction of benefit from the 29th to the 52nd week. It will affect people who have passed the Government's incapacity test. They will lose up to £1,000 in that time during the second six months.

The second method involves the abolition of the earnings-related additional benefit. It is not a handout, but an insured benefit, for which people paid from 1978 to 1991. They are entitled to it. If an insurance company announced that it was not going to pay out its premiums, it would be in court on a charge of fraud. The Government are perpetrating a deceit.

The third method is the introduction of the new test. Having listened to the debate in Committee and here today, I do not see how it could possibly work, as it is wholly impractical. It is impossible for a set test to ascertain whether a person—a bricklayer, barrister or brain surgeon —is incapacitated for work. Such a system cannot possibly work.

9.43 pm
Mr. Bradley

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friends for the constructive way in which they have dealt with the Bill and advanced their views in Committee. Clearly, we have been disappointed throughout the various stages that the Government chose not to allow that constructive debate through their own Back Benchers in Committee—although, as always, the Minister of State and Under-Secretary of State treated constructively the issues that the Opposition raised in Committee.

It is important to note that, in Committee, the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues gave assurances that they would introduce by way of regulations some of the key issues, only some of which we have had the opportunity to debate this evening. I flag issues such as fast-tracking on to long-term benefit, the linking rules and, crucially, training.

We have not had an opportunity to debate training, and the way in which that will impinge on people's benefits. Again, the Minister gave assurances at earlier stages of the Bill that he would carefully consider that, as well as the definitions of "own occupation", all-work tests, "therapeutic earnings" and the other issues that we have managed to raise. It is important that we make it absolutely clear that we will be pursuing those matters carefully when the regulations are made on those points. We shall not forget the concessions that the Government made in Committee, and we shall ensure that they are brought forward.

As the Bill leaves the House, I am absolutely certain that a vigorous and detailed examination of it will occur in another place. I look forward to dealing with a considerable number of amendments that may be tabled to reinforce our opposition to the Bill. I warn the Government that our opposition to the Bill does not end this evening. As we have highlighted, it will be a boomerang, like the Child Support Agency, which will come back to thwack the Minister on the head in about 12 months' time, when the real implications of the legislation are seen by the public.

I am sure that the Minister will support the sentiment that, as consideration comes to an end, it is important to pay tribute, as we did in Committee, to the voluntary organisations which represent disabled people in the country. On a day-to-day basis, they represent the interests of disabled people so thoroughly and effectively, and when a major piece of legislation such as this comes before Parliament, it is apparent how effective and important they are in providing all hon. Members with detailed information so that we may effectively debate crucial parts of that Bill.

I pay tribute to organisations such as the Disability Alliance, the Disablement Income Group, the Spastics Society, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Arthritis Care, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, the all-party alliance, the all-party disabled group and many others too numerous to mention. They have worked extremely hard on our behalf over the past few months to ensure that Parliament has been able to debate the measure as effectively as possible.

The quality of the debate has been down to them, and we should put our tribute on record. I know that hon. Members have received invaluable information from voluntary groups which represent disabled people in their constituencies, which have been able to pinpoint how it will affect constituents specifically. That case work will come back to haunt the Government when the Bill becomes law in April 1995.

What is absolutely clear, and what has formed the backcloth to the deliberations, is that the Bill has been introduced not because the Government believe that they have to consider carefully and to rationalise benefit to disabled people, but because they have been told clearly and brutally by the Treasury that they have to make cuts in their departmental budget, and they have seen disabled people as a soft target.

They have used the invalidity benefit scheme without proper analysis or proper understanding of the needs of disabled people who are currently in receipt of invalidity benefit. They did not have a complete understanding of the nature of someone going on to invalidity benefit, or of the disjointed nature of those people's opportunities to return to the employment market.

There has been no recognition by the Government that, in the current climate of 3 million to 4 million unemployed people, having a medical test which enables a functional assessment of whether people can cope, not only with their current career, but with a sudden exposure to the all-work test, will mean that any job which may become available —I stress may—will, somehow, become available. In reality, with mass unemployment, that hope will not come to fruition for disabled people.

People will be denied incapacity benefit; and not only will they have to go on to the unemployment register but, as analysis of the legislation over the coming years will show, it is most likely that they will become the long-term unemployed of the future. There will not be opportunities for them in the employment market, despite any attempts that the Government may make on access schemes for returning to work.

When employers are looking for flexibility, and want to drive down wages because of the additional costs and burdens arising from the shift of sick pay on to their budgets, they will not want to employ people with disabilities.

Mr. Wicks

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would take a comprehensive Government programme across Departments to ensure that people with disabilities, many of whom will fail the new medical test, receive training for work in the current difficult economic circumstances? Does he further agree that there has been no sign whatever of the Government's taking a comprehensive approach to that important problem?

Mr. Bradley

I fully support what my hon. Friend says. The Government ask the Opposition what we would do. We are conducting a review within a comprehensive framework. One cannot consider benefits in isolation: one must consider training and employment as a whole, and the economy in general. That is what the Labour party is undertaking, and we shall make our proposals for the benefits system, including benefits for disabled people, in due course when the overall review is completed.

Our purpose now is to oppose what the Government are introducing—to oppose not only the medical tests, which are nonsense in the context of the real world of employment, but the cuts in benefits. We have emphasised, and the Minister has honestly admitted, that the Bill is about more than ensuring that the new incapacity benefit goes only to people who pass the medical test. As the Minister has readily confessed, it is also about reducing the amount of money available for people on the new benefit.

Conservative Members must be absolutely clear what they will be voting for. They will be voting to introduce a new benefit for people with disabilities that will be paid at a lower rate than that received by people currently in receipt, and genuinely in need, of invalidity benefit.

When their constituents ask them why they are receiving less money than someone else who has genuinely been assessed as entitled to the previous invalidity benefit, Conservative Members must not say that they did not know that that would happen. It has been made perfectly clear that, having got through the hoop of the medical test, people will still receive the new incapacity benefit at a lower rate, and there will be other significant changes.

We have touched on the subject of additional pensions. We can argue about their role within the overall contributory benefits system, but we must stress that the new benefit will include no age allowance for women claimants between 45 and 55—or up to 60 for men. There will also be a lower level of benefit between the 28th and the 52nd week of the claim, and there will be no dependant's allowance for people under 60 without children.

It must be clear to Conservative Members that they are voting for that cut in benefits. They must also be clear that they are voting for medical tests that neither hon. Members nor you, Madam Speaker, have yet had the opportunity to see. We do not know how the medical tests will work in practice. When he opened the debate, the Minister said that it was unfortunate that we were having to debate the legislation before the consultation on the medical tests had been completed.

It was in the Government's hands how they timetabled the legislation. Surely it would have been more sensible to complete the consultation on the medical test, and allow all hon. Members to review it and give their views in the normal way. The Government could then have brought forward the final decisions on the medical test, so that the test could have been debated in the light of the other changes that they wish to make on incapacity benefit.

It was in the Government's hands to bring forward the medical test in that manner, rather than steamroller the Bill through in unseemly haste, without any real understanding of its implications, and having to rely on regulation after regulation being tabled in the coming months and years to ensure that in some way they can skew the new benefit to meet their financial targets. That will be the purpose of the medical test.

The Government claim to have a proud record on increases in the money available for disabled people. That may have been true at one time, but the sorry story is that, over the past few months, the Government have set about dismantling the support for disabled people and the benefits generally available through the welfare state.

Mr. Scott

indicated dissent.

Mr. Bradley

The Minister shakes his head. He proudly introduced—we supported him on this—the independent living fund. Because of the financial success of the fund, because of the number of claimants who are benefiting from it, and because of the number of people who are able to live more independently in their own homes as a result of a cash contribution from the fund, what did the Government do? The Treasury said that the fund was successful, but it was costing money, so the Government would have to cut it. That was the first stage in the process of dismantling benefits for disabled people. This Bill is the next stage.

I know that the Minister sits there with a heavy hear having to listen to this debate. I believe that he would have liked to fight the Treasury, but he was overruled because of the Government's economic incompetence and the promises they made at the last general election—they believed that they would be able to fool the electorate into believing this—that the economy was sound and public finances were sound.

We knew that that was not the case, and now we must suffer the consequences of their decisions. But we are not the ones who will suffer—the people with disabilities will suffer. The most vulnerable people in our society will suffer from the Government's incompetence.

It must be clear to all hon. Members that, when they vote to implement the legislation, they are voting to cut the amount of money that will be available for disabled people in their constituencies. Hon. Members should not believe that work will be found for disabled people. They know from the cases they deal with, and from the high levels of unemployment throughout the country, that job opportunities for people with disabilities are at the very least tenuous.

Throughout the proceedings on this Bill, we continued vigorously to oppose what the Government are doing. We were determined to tell the British people that the defence of benefits, the defence of the needs of the most vulnerable and the defence of disability benefits is in the hands of the Labour party.

People cannot trust the Government. The dismantling of disability benefit will continue.[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary will be the first to start screaming when his constituents in Bury, North come to him about this matter. He will be the one on local television and in the local media saying, "It wasn't me. I didn't know what I was doing. I apologise to my constituents." However, they know who the guilty people are. We will continue to oppose the Bill, root and branch, and ensure that the defence of disabled people remains in the safe hands of the Labour party.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided:Ayes 302, Noes 276

Division No. 156] [10 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Dover, Den
Aitken, Jonathan Duncan, Alan
Alexander, Richard Duncan-Smith, Iain
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Dunn, Bob
Amess, David Durant, Sir Anthony
Ancram, Michael Dykes, Hugh
Arbuthnot, James Eggar, Tim
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Elletson, Harold
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Aspinwall, Jack Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Atkins, Robert Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) Evennett, David
Baldry, Tony Faber, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Fabricant, Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Fenner, Dame Peggy
Bates, Michael Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Batiste, Spencer Fishburn, Dudley
Bellingham, Henry Forman, Nigel
Bendall, Vivian Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Beresford, Sir Paul Forth, Eric
Biffen, Rt Hon John Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Blackburn, Dr John G. Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Body, Sir Richard Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Booth, Hartley Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Boswell, Tim French, Douglas
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Fry, Sir Peter
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia Gale, Roger
Bowden, Andrew Gallie, Phil
Bowis, John Gardiner, Sir George
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Brandreth, Gyles Garnier, Edward
Brazier, Julian Gill, Christopher
Bright, Graham Gillan, Cheryl
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes) Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Browning, Mrs. Angela Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Gorst, John
Budgen, Nicholas Grant, Sir A.(Cambs SW)
Burns, Simon Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Burt, Alistair Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Butcher, John Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Butler, Peter Hague, William
Carlisle, John (Luton North) Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Carrington, Matthew Hampson, Dr Keith
Carttiss, Michael Hanley, Jeremy
Cash, William Hannam, Sir John
Churchill, Mr Hargreaves, Andrew
Clappison, James Harris, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Haselhurst, Alan
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) Hawkins, Nick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Hawksley, Warren
Coe, Sebastian Hayes, Jerry
Colvin, Michael Heald, Oliver
Congdon, David Hendry, Charles
Conway, Derek Hicks, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Horam, John
Cormack, Patrick Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) Hughes Robert G.(Harrow W)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford) Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Davis, David (Boothferry) Hunter, Andrew
Day, Stephen Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Deva, Nirj Joseph Jenkin, Bernard
Devlin, Tim Jessel, Toby
Dickens, Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dorrell, Stephen Jones, Gwillym (Cardiff N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Jones, Robert B.(W Hertfdshr)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Key, Robert Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Kilfedder, Sir James Sackville, Tom
King, Rt Hon Tom Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Knapman, Roger Shaw, David (Dover)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knight, Greg (Derby N) Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knox, Sir David Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine) Shersby, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Sims, Roger
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lang, Rt Hon Ian Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Legg, Barry Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Leigh, Edward Soames, Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Speed, Sir Keith
Lidington, David Spencer, Sir Derek
Lightbown, David Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lord, Michael Spink, Dr Robert
Luff, Peter Spring, Richard
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Maclean, David Steen, Anthony
McLoughlin, Patrick Stephen, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick Stern, Michael
Madel, Sir David Stewart, Allan
Maitland, Lady Olga Streeter, Gary
Malone, Gerald Sumberg, David
Mans, Keith Sweeney, Walter
Marland, Paul Sykes, John
Marlow, Tony Tapsell, Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) Taylor, John M.(Solihull)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mates, Michael Temple-Morris, Peter
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian Thomason, Roy
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mellor, Rt Hon David Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Merchant, Piers Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Mills, Iain Thurnham, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)
Moate, Sir Roger Tracey, Richard
Monro, Sir Hector Tredinnick, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Trend, Michael
Moss, Malcolm Trotter, Neville
Needham, Richard Twinn, Dr Ian
Nelson, Anthony Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Neubert, Sir Michael Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Walden, George
Nicholls, Patrick Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Waller, Gary
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Ward, John
Norris, Steve Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley Waterson, Nigel
Oppenheim, Phillip Watts, John
Ottaway, Richard Wells, Bowen
Page, Richard Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Paice, James Whitney, Ray
Patnick, Irvine Whittingdale, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Widdecombe, Ann
Pawsey, James Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Wilkinson, John
Pickles, Eric Willetts, David
Porter, David (Waveney) Wilshire, David
Rathbone, Tim Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Redwood, Rt Hon John Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim Wolfson, Mark
Richards, Rod Wood, Timothy
Riddick, Graham Yeo, Tim
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Robathan, Andrew
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Tellers for the Ayes:
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Andrew MacKay.
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Dowd, Jim
Adams, Mrs Irene Dunnachie, Jimmy
Ainger, Nick Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Eagle, Ms Angela
Allen, Graham Eastham, Ken
Alton, David Enright, Derek
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Etherington, Bill
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) Evans, John (St Helens N)
Armstrong, Hilary Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Fatchett, Derek
Ashton, Joe Faulds, Andrew
Austin-Walker, John Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Fisher, Mark
Bames, Harry Flynn, Paul
Barron, Kevin Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Battle, John Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Bayley, Hugh Foster, Don (Bath)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret Foulkes, George
Beggs, Roy Fraser, John
Beith, Rt Hon A. J. Fyfe, Maria
Bell, Stuart Galbraith, Sam
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Galloway, George
Bennett, Andrew F. Gapes, Mike
Benton, Joe Garrett, John
Bermingham, Gerald Gerrard, Neil
Berry, Dr. Roger Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Betts, Clive Godman, Dr Norman A.
Blunkett, David Godsiff, Roger
Boateng, Paul Golding, Mrs Llin
Boyes, Roland Gordon, Mildred
Bradley, Keith Gould, Bryan
Bray, Dr Jeremy Graham, Thomas
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) Grant, Bernie(Tottenham)
Brown, N.(N'c'tle upon Tyne E) Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Burden, Richard Grocott, Bruce
Byers, Stephen Gunnell, John
Caborn Richard Hain, Peter
Callaghan, Jim Hall, Mike
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Hanson, David
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Hardy, Peter
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Harman, Ms Harriet
Canavan, Dennis Harvey, Nick
Cann, Jamie Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) Henderson, Doug
Chisholm, Malcolm Heppell, John
Clapham, Michael Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields) Hinchliffe, David
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Hoey, Kate
Clelland, David Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Home Robertson, John
Coffey, Ann Hood, Jimmy
Cohen, Harry Hoon, Geoffrey
Connarty, Michael Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Hoyle, Doug
Corbett, Robin Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Corbyn, Jeremy Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Corston, Ms Jean Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Cousins, Jim Hutton, John
Cox, Tom Ingram, Adam
Cryer, Bob Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Cummings, John Jackson, Helen (Shef'd, H)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Jamieson, David
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Janner, Greville
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Dafis, Cynog Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dalyell, Tarn Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Darling, Alistair Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Davidson, Ian Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) Jowell, Tessa
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Keen, Alan
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Denham, John Khabra, Piara S.
Dewar, Donald Kirkwood, Archy
Dixon, Don Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Dobson, Frank Lewis, Terry
Donohoe, Brian H. Litherland, Robert
Livingstone, Ken Patchett, Terry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Pendry, Tom
Llwyd, Elfyn Pickthall, Colin
Loyden, Eddie Pike, Peter L.
Lynne, Ms Liz Pope, Greg
McAllion, John Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
McAvoy, Thomas Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
McCartney, Ian Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Macdonald, Calum Prescott, John
McFall, John Primarolo, Dawn
McKelvey, William Purchase, Ken
Mackinlay, Andrew Radice, Giles
McLeish, Henry Randall, Stuart
McMaster, Gordon Raynsford, Nick
McNamara, Kevin Redmond, Martin
McWilliam, John Reid, Dr John
Madden, Max Rendel, David
Mahon, Alice Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Mandelson, Peter Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Marek, Dr John Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Rogers, Allan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) Rooker, Jeff
Martin, Michael J.(Springburn) Rooney, Terry
Martlew, Eric Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Maxton, John Rowlands, Ted
Meacher, Michael Ruddock, Joan
Meale, Alan Salmond, Alex
Michael, Alun Sedgemore, Brian
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) Sheerman, Barry
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute) Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Milburn, Alan Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Miller, Andrew Short, Clare
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) Simpson, Alan
Moonie, Dr Lewis Skinner, Dennis
Morgan, Rhodri Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Morley, Elliot Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Morris, Rt Hon A.(Wy'nshawe) Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon) Snape, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie Soley, Clive
Mudie, George Spearing, Nigel
Mullin, Chris Spellar, John
Murphy, Paul Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Steinberg, Gerry
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) Stevenson, George
O'Brien, William (Normanton) Stott, Roger
O'Hara, Edward Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Olner, William Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
O'Neill, Martin Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Turner, Dennis
Parry, Robert Tyler, Paul
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold Winnick, David
Wallace, James Wise, Audrey
Walley, Joan Worthington, Tony
Wardell, Gareth (Gower) Wray, Jimmy
Wareing, Robert N Wright, Dr Tony
Watson, Mike Young, David (Bolton SE)
Welsh, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm Tellers for the Noes:
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and Mr. Eric Illsley.
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to raise with you the question of lying. I understand that lying in the House is totally out of order, and any hon. Member who accused another hon. Member of lying would immediately be asked to withdraw the remark or to leave the House. Today, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that Ministers are sometimes entitled to lie to the House. Would you deprecate any lying, whether by a Minister or anyone else? If there were lying, would we be in a position to say so?

Madam Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will recall that whatever took place today did so in Committee. I have already made it clear today on another issue that this is an internal affair in that Committee. If anything has gone wrong in the Committee, it is for the Committee to report to the entire House, in which case I will deal with it; but it is for the Committee to deal with anything at this stage.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford)

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In the event that you were to investigate the point of order raised by the hon. Gentlemen, no doubt you would realise that the Chancellor of the Duchy, far from condoning the practice mentioned, said that the only circumstances in which he could envisage its being justified were when a Chancellor of the Exchequer was faced with difficulties in the market; and he quoted a number of Labour Chancellors.

Madam Speaker

Order. I am not prepared to allow discussion on this. I have made my ruling and explained the procedure to the House.