§ '.—The Secretary of State shall, within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, introduce under his powers in section 1 of the Building Act 1984 such extension to the Building Regulations 1991 as he considers reasonable to ensure that in the construction of new dwellings provision is made for disabled people to gain unimpeded access to and use of the dwelling and its facilities, in line with the purposes outlined in section 23(1) above.'.—[Mr. Thurnham.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Thurnham
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
123 I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has long been associated with this excellent cause, having held a conference in 1989 on lifetime homes. He has strongly advocated the cause since then. I congratulate the Government on issuing a consultation paper a year ago, which gave the impression that the Government wished to act promptly.
The consultation paper was excellent and called on house builders and designersto examine the consequences of the proposals for their current designs.The Government seem to have been held up since then, because it is more than 12 months since the consultation process finished. I guess that the cause of the delay is the opposition by the House Builders Federation; I shall deal briefly with the federation's case.
The House Builders Federation was misguided in thinking that the proposals were unnecessary and too costly. To have said that they were unnecessary goes against all the representations that I have received. I am pleased to see the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in his place. One of his predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), spoke on the issue in 1992. He said that he was strongly in favour of the proposals and that they should go ahead without delay. He continued:we should ensure that all new houses are built so that they are properly accessible to disabled people. That would be a minimum cost compared with the cost of adaptation at some later stage."—[Official Report, 31 January 1992: Vol. 202, c. 1254]The Select Committee on the Environment reported in February. The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency will recall his time on the Select Committee and his general support at that time for similar proposals at an earlier stage. I hope, therefore, that the Government will fully consider those points and the representations from Age Concern, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and 30 other organisations that represent not just disabled people—such bodies as the National Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing, which are in favour of the regulations, which will allow access to new homes for disabled people. It is only sensible.
The House Builders Federation said that the proposals were too costly. Again, it was misguided. In saying that they were unnecessary, it was also misguided. It was looking perhaps to the past rather than to the future. In the next 50 years, there will be twice as many 75-year-olds as there are now. It is important that the houses that we build today are built for the future, and not according to some dim and distant past, when wheelchairs did not exist.
The House Builders Federation was mistaken to say that the proposals were too costly. The Government's figures suggest approximately £200 per house. If we take the figure of 140,000 new private homes being built every year, the cost would be £28 million a year, compared with the £350 million a year that is being spent to adapt old houses. If we take the federation's figure of £2,000 to £3,000 to cover the costs of part M of the regulations—which is far too high—even that would come out at no more than £300 million or £400 million a year.
124 I compare that with the cost of land, because that is the greatest burden on house builders in providing houses at low cost, not the extension of part M of the regulations. The latest figures for the cost of land show that, in the second half of 1994, on average, building land cost £400,000 per hectare. If we take an average of 23 units per hectare, the cost of land per plot is £17,350. If the cost of part M of the building regulations puts up the cost of building a house, without any change in the price at which those houses can be sold, the residual value of the land will take the brunt of the expenditure, which will not, in any case, be that great. If we take even the high average figures of the House Builders Federation, it is only one seventh of the amount spent on land every year.
The federation's figures suggest that it would cost only £300 million or £400 million per annum to cover the cost of part M of the building regulations, but house builders are spending £2.5 billion a year on buying land, so I ask the Government where their priorities lie. In holding up part M of the building regulations, all they are doing is bolstering the price of land. It would not affect the cost of constructing a house, other than the fact that the extra cost would come from the cost of land, because it is the builders who bid up the price of land, based on the price at which they can sell a house.
§ Mr. Alan Howarth (Stratford-on-Avon)
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has tabled the new clause. Does he agree that it is fine for house builders to assess the cost to them, but it is for the Government to assess the costs and benefits to society as a whole? The costs of adaptations, of people having to move home and of hospitalisation must be weighed in the balance when we consider this policy's merits. Does he agree that it is more than high time that the Government carried through what they have already encouragingly proposed?
§ Mr. Thurnham
It is far too high a price to pay not to act. On the Government's figures, to act would cost merely £30 million a year, whereas it costs £350 million a year to adapt existing houses, so it is madness not to act. There is huge popular support to act.
It is mistaken of the House Builders Federation to resist the proposal. It does so because it thinks that it will add to the costs of building a house, without paying regard to the amount by which it bids up the price of land. The price of land would fall, therefore, to cover the costs of making modern houses properly accessible to disabled people. The Government should not take the side of landowners against disabled people.
§ Mr. Vaz
I will not detain the House for long, but I must pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for tabling the new clause. Had they not done so, I can assure the House that the Opposition would have.
The new clause is modest and has enormous popular support. Many organisations have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House to urge them to accept the proposals. We shall vote with the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East and for Mid-Kent in support of the new clause.
§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)
I have three short comments. First, the new clause is by no means directed 125 purely at the convenience of disabled people. I have been to a host of different housing estates and asked people whether they find steps up to the front door, narrow entrances and the absence of a lavatory on the ground floor helpful. They all say that those are unhelpful, whether it is because they have a small child and a buggy, a shopping trolley, an elderly relative staying with them, or whatever. Undoubtedly, those are disadvantages for people of all ages. Let us consider having to take a 17-year-old who has damaged his hip playing rugger and who is in plaster from hip to ankle up the often steep stairs of a house every time he needs to go to the lavatory. It is absurd that modern houses are still designed in the same way as they were many years ago.
Secondly, a substantial part of the alleged costs of the changes stems from the fact that we are talking about non-standard equipment. Were it normal to make doors a few centimetres wider, which is all that is required to allow wheelchair access, to place windows at such a height that people lying in bed could see out of them, rather than a few feet above the floor for no valid reason, and to put electric sockets on the wall where anyone, however unfit, can reach them, instead of where they are at the moment, where only toddlers, who are told to keep away from them, can reach them easily, we would discover—as has been proved in the rather limping Rowntree developments in Hull and York—how useful those changes are to the ordinary able-bodied family as well as to disabled people, and they are relatively inexpensive.
Finally, builders are anxious because they say that young couples, in particular, do not want to be reminded that one day they might not be fully fit, but I can tell them that experience shows that, on estates where they have done away with steps up to the front door—to take the most important example—people do not even notice if it is a standard entry.
Builders are saying that they do not want the change because they do not want to be the first to do it, as they might be at a competitive disadvantage. The essential reason for including the provision in the regulations is that everyone will be starting from a level playing field— good phrase in this context.
Two of my constituents are in wheelchairs. They live in the only bungalow on an estate that was built less than 10 years ago; it is the only dwelling on the estate to which they can gain access. Should they wish to talk to neighbours other than in the street, the neighbours have to come to them and they have to carry the cost of the coffee, tea and all the rest of it—and they are the poorest couple on the estate.
These regulations should be introduced and I welcome this opportunity to tell my hon. Friend the Minister, who is carrying out a consultation exercise, that that is what the public want.
§ Sir John Hannam (Exeter)
I endorse the objectives of the new clause. Having been engaged for about 15 years in the parliamentary campaign to get access provision for disabled people and having seen the Government make substantial progress in 1985 with the introduction of part M regulations for public and commercial buildings, I am anxious that residential accommodation should also be made fully accessible.
The Government's consultation paper in January 1995 provoked a massive response from more than 1,000 organisations and individuals. It is now more than a year 126 since the consultation period ended in April 1995. I can understand my hon. Friend the Minister's desire to consider carefully the ramifications of such changes to building regulations. They always have far greater effects than one imagines when one sets out on that path.
If we do not pass the new clause today, we need to be reassured by my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government are not only merely sitting on their hands on this important issue. Bringing all homes into line with those built by many housing associations would create more flexible and more accessible housing for the next 100 years. This is not a question of doing something on a temporary basis, because what we do now will last for a very long time and will result in considerable savings in public expenditure and public funds in coming years.
The Government have themselves proposed to extend building regulations to improve access for disabled people to domestic dwellings. Therefore, all we are really talking about is the timing of the changes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can today provide us with the necessary assurance that, with the powers that he already has in his possession, the new clause will not be required, and that he will soon be able to make the progress that we want on this very important matter for disabled people.
§ Mr. Chris Davies
I support the new clause. I remind the House that there are more than 6 million registered disabled people in this country, 4 million of whom have mobility problems. It is now a demographic fact that the number of elderly people in society is likely to grow as a proportion of the total population, and, inevitably, the number of people with mobility problems will also grow.
The current situation is that we cannot afford to make the necessary adaptations to the homes of people with mobility problems. But if we do nothing now and if we do not alter the regulations, we shall never be able to afford to make the necessary changes. I argue that the price for doing nothing is simply too high.
§ Mr. Robert B. Jones
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his kind comments about the consultation paper, "Ending Discrimination Against Disabled People", because, as he knows, I was responsible for it during my previous existence as Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
While in that role, I also had several opportunities to visit lifetime homes in different areas—such as in south London and, most particularly, those built by the Rowntree Trust near York. I pay tribute to those organisations for the impressive work that they have done. I know that the people who live in those homes are extremely happy and very impressed with the design of their homes.
The consultation paper, if anything, has been too successful—at least to the extent that it has provoked an enormous number of responses. Many of those have been contradictory, as I am sure hon. Members will understand, but the interest is certainly there.
The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East seeks to impose a duty on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to extend the scope of building regulations regardless of the outcome of the consultation required under the Building Act 1984. It also seeks to impose an arbitrary time limit and to establish an 127 entirely inappropriate link between building regulations and the purposes of disabled facilities grants. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clause.
The Building Act 1984 requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and other representative organisations with an interest in the matter before making such changes, and that is already being done. The new clause seeks to impose change by decree, regardless of the outcome of that consultation. I think that there would be every chance of judicial review if it were done by decree.
In the White Paper, the Government undertook to consult widely on proposals to extend building regulations to help disabled people with access to or in domestic dwellings. That undertaking has been honoured. However, as I said, the consultation that has been conducted reveals conflicting views on how best to implement any changes. There are also practical and costing issues that need to be addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) highlighted those issues, but he rightly said that he wants something that will last for many years—as do I. Therefore, we must get it right. For those reasons, it would be entirely inappropriate to require the making of regulations within the arbitrary time limit proposed.
The new clause goes far further than the proposals envisaged by the White Paper and the consultation. It fails to recognise that a clear distinction should be drawn between the minimum acceptable requirements required in regulations to assist disabled people in remaining in their own homes and in visiting friends and relatives, and the quite separate concept of a grant regime that is designed to enable a person with a particular disability to make specific adaptations to enable him to live in a particular dwelling.
I can appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East is anxious to see the matter of extending part M to dwellings settled, and he is certainly not alone in that. But the approach proposed in his new clause is neither helpful nor relevant to the Bill, and I ask him to withdraw it.
My hon. Friend suggested that extending part M to dwellings will save expenditure on disability facilities grants, but that suggestion does not stand up to examination. Certainly, the £350 million that he mentioned is not correct—the figure is nearer £90 million. Part M would apply only to new dwellings, which add only some 1 per cent. per annum to the total housing stock. The greater problem by far is adaptations to existing dwellings, and DFGs will continue to be needed for those. The DFGs are also used for adaptations and appliances beyond the type of structural features that can be dealt with through building regulations, so DFGs will still be required for those. Of course, in the fulness of time, there will be some benefit on some types of DFG expenditure, but it will be small, very long term and, for the foreseeable future, imperceptible.
I have already explained that this is not a straightforward issue. We have received more than 1,000 128 responses to the consultation. Opinions differ on both the form of the proposals and the costs. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that some builders argued along one line, other builders advance a different argument—some of them certainly would not accept the argument that he advanced. The proposals affect every future new home, not just disabled people, and raise fundamental issues about future home design and the role of regulations in influencing those designs. Those are not matters that can be judged to a tight timetable. I can say no more than that we shall look at the matter and deal with it as expeditiously as circumstances allow. That is a practical response to a practical series of problems.
§ Mr. Thurnham
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will deal with the matter as expeditiously as possible, but the Government have had plenty of time—more than 12 months—so there should be no further delay. I call on the House to support the words of the Environment Committee, when it called on the Government to implement the measures forthwith. I wish to press new clause 10 to a Division.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 270.131
|Division No. 178]||[9.31 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Clelland, David|
|Ainger, Nick||Clwyd, Mrs Ann|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Coffey, Ann|
|Allen, Graham||Cohen, Harry|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Connarty, Michael|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Cook, Robin (Livingston)|
|Ashton, Joe||Corston, Jean|
|Austin-Walker, John||Cousins, Jim|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Cummings, John|
|Barron, Kevin||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Battle, John||Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)|
|Bayley, Hugh||Dalyell, Tam|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret||Darling, Alistair|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Davidson, Ian|
|Bell, Stuart||Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Benton, Joe||Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Denham, John|
|Berry, Roger||Dewar, Donald|
|Betts, Clive||Dixon, Don|
|Blunkett, David||Dobson, Frank|
|Boateng, Paul||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Bradley, Keith||Dowd, Jim|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Eagle, Ms Angela|
|Byers, Stephen||Eastham, Ken|
|Caborn, Richard||Etherington, Bill|
|Callaghan, Jim||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Fatchett, Derek|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Faulds, Andrew|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Fisher, Mark|
|Campbell-Savours, D N||Flynn, Paul|
|Canavan, Dennis||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Cann, Jamie||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)||Foulkes, George|
|Chidgey, David||Fraser, John|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Fyfe, Maria|
|Church, Judith||Galloway, George|
|Clapham, Michael||Gapes, Mike|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||Garrett, John|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Gerrard, Neil|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Michael, Alun|
|Godman, Dr Norman A||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Godsiff, Roger||Milburn, Alan|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Miller, Andrew|
|Gordon, Mildred||Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)|
|Graham, Thomas||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Morley, Elliot|
|Grocott, Bruce||Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe|
|Gunnell, John||Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Hall, Mike||Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)|
|Hanson, David||Mowlam, Marjorie|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||Mudie, George|
|Heppell, John||Mullin, Chris|
|Hill, Keith (Streatham)||Murphy, Paul|
|Hinchliffe, David||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Hodge, Margaret||O'Brien, William (Normanton)|
|Hoey, Kate||O'Hara, Edward|
|Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)||Olner, Bill|
|Home Robertson, John||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Hood, Jimmy||Parry, Robert|
|Hoon, Geoffrey||Pearson, Ian|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)||Pendry, Tom|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley North)||Pickthall, Colin|
|Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)||Pike, Peter L|
|Hoyle, Doug||Pope, Greg|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Hutton, John||Purchase, Ken|
|Illsley, Eric||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Ingram, Adam||Randall, Stuart|
|Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)||Raynsford, Nick|
|Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)||Reid, Dr John|
|Jamieson, David||Rendel, David|
|Janner, Greville||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)||Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)|
|Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Jones, Dr. Lynne (B'ham S O)||Rogers, Allan|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)||Rooker, Jeff|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Jowell, Tessa||Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Rowlands, Ted|
|Keen, Alan||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Kennedy, Jane (L'pool' Br'dg'n)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Khabra, Piara S||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Short, Clare|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lewis, Terry||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)|
|Litherland, Robert||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Livingstone, Ken||Soley, Clive|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Spearing, Nigel|
|Loyden, Eddie||Spellar, John|
|Lynne, Ms Liz||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|McAllion, John||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Steinberg, Gerry|
|McCartney, Ian||Stevenson, George|
|Macdonald, Calum||Stott, Roger|
|McKelvey, William||Strang, Dr. Gavin|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|McLeish, Henry||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|McMaster, Gordon||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Thurnham, Peter|
|MacShane, Denis||Timms, Stephen|
|McWilliam, John||Tipping, Paddy|
|Madden, Max||Touhig, Don|
|Maddock, Diana||Trickett, Jon|
|Mahon, Alice||Turner, Dennis|
|Mandelson, Peter||Vaz, Keith|
|Marek, Dr John||Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Walley, Joan|
|Martin, Michael J (Springburn)||Wareing, Robert N|
|Meacher, Michael||Watson, Mike|
|Meale, Alan||Welsh, Andrew|
|Wicks, Malcolm||Wray, Jimmy|
|Wigley, Dafydd||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Winnick, David||Mr. Peter Hain and|
|Wise, Audrey||Mr. Jon Owen Jones.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan||Dover, Den|
|Alexander, Richard||Duncan, Alan|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Duncan Smith, Iain|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Dunn, Bob|
|Amess, David||Eggar, Rt Hon Tim|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Elletson, Harold|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Robert||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)|
|Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)||Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||Evans, Roger (Monmouth)|
|Baldry, Tony||Evennett, David|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Faber, David|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Fabricant, Michael|
|Bates, Michael||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Batiste, Spencer||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Fishburn, Dudley|
|Bendall, Vivian||Forth, Eric|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)|
|Body, Sir Richard||Freeman, Rt Hon Roger|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||French, Douglas|
|Booth, Hartley||Fry, Sir Peter|
|Boswell, Tim||Gale, Roger|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Gallie, Phil|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Bowis, John||Garnier, Edward|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes||Gill, Christopher|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Gillan, Cheryl|
|Brazier, Julian||Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair|
|Bright, Sir Graham||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)||Gorst, Sir John|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)|
|Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Burt, Alistair||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)|
|Butcher, John||Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn|
|Butler, Peter||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald|
|Butterfill, John||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Carrington, Matthew||Haselhurst, Sir Alan|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hawkins, Nick|
|Cash, William||Hawksley, Warren|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Hayes, Jerry|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney||Heald, Oliver|
|Churchill, Mr||Hendry, Charles|
|Clappison, James||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfond)||Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)|
|Coe, Sebastian||Horam, John|
|Congdon, David||Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Conway, Derek||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre Fofst)||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)|
|Couchman, James||Hunter, Andrew|
|Cran, James||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Jack, Michael|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamford)||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Day, Stephen||Jessel, Toby|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Devlin, Tm||Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Key, Robert||Robinson, Mark (Somerton)|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela|
|Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)||Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy|
|Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Kynoch, George (Kincardine)||Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)|
|Lang, Rt Hon Ian||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Lawrence, Sir Ivan||Shersby, Sir Michael|
|Legg, Barry||Sims, Sir Roger|
|Leigh, Edward||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)||Speed, Sir Keith|
|Lidington, David||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Lord, Michael||Spring, Richard|
|Luff, Peter||Sproat, Iain|
|Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|MacKay, Andrew||Steen, Anthony|
|Maclean, Rt Hon David||Stephen, Michael|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Stern, Michael|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Streeter, Gary|
|Madel, Sir David||Sumberg, David|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Sweeney, Walter|
|Malone, Gerald||Sykes, John|
|Mans, Keith||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Marland, Paul||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Marlow, Tony||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Mates, Michael||Thomason, Roy|
|Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Merchant, Piers||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Mills, Iain||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)||Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Moate, Sir Roger||Tracey, Richard|
|Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James||Tredinnick, David|
|Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector||Trend, Michael|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Trotter, Neville|
|Moss, Malcolm||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Needham, Rt Hon Richard||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Viggers, Peter|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Walden, George|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Norris, Steve||Waller, Gary|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Ward, John|
|Page, Richard||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Paice, James||Waterson, Nigel|
|Patnick, Sir Irvine||Watts, John|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Wells, Bowen|
|Pawsey, James||Whitney, Ray|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Whittingdale, John|
|Pickles, Eric||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Wilkinson, John|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Willetts, David|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wilshire, David|
|Rathbone, Tim||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Wolfson, Mark|
|Richards, Rod||Wood, Timothy|
|Riddick, Graham||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Robathan, Andrew||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn||Mr. Simon Burns and|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Mr. Roger Knapman.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.