Nursing Homes Levy

Orders of the Day — Health Services Bill – in the House of Commons at 5:45 pm on 15th May 1980.

Alert me about debates like this

"Any person carrying on the business of a nursing home registered under the provisions of the Nursing Homes Act 1975 as amended by Section 15 of this Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as " an employer") and employing full time ten persons or their equivalent required by statute to be professionally qualified shall pay to the Secretary of State an annual levy in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) The amount of the levy referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall be determined by the Secretary of State from time to time but shall not be less than four per centum of the cost to an employer of employing persons to carry out his business.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to apply to proceeds of the levy referred to in subsection (1) of this section to defraying the costs incurred by the health authorities in training professionally qualified people in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(4) An employer may claim exemption from the levy referred to in subsection (1) of this section provided he can show that he provides sufficient training of a standard approved by the Secretary of State or a recognised professional body to meet his own requirements of professionally qualified persons.

(5) It shall be an offence for an employer not exempt under subsection (4) of this section not to make payments of the levy referred to under subsection (1) of this section and such non-payment will be grounds for removing the name of an employer from the register under the Nursing Homes Act of 1975.".—[Mr. Moyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of Mr Roland Moyle Mr Roland Moyle , Lewisham East

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

One reason for moving this clause is that by this Bill the Government are abolishing the Health Services Board. The board, as well as having the function of phasing pay beds out of the Health Service, has the function of protecting it from the encroaching effects of the private sector, which, it seems to us, will be encouraged in its growth and development by the Government as part of their policy.

6.30 pm

The National Health Service provides care for the overwhelming mass of our population. Therefore, it must be carefully protected from the encroachments of the private sector. The private sector has two advantages in competing with the National Health Service. First, it has no overall responsibilities for the health care of the population. It can carefully select those aspects of human suffering which can be made commercially viable and can then proceed to exploit them. This means that there are many responsibilities to which it need pay no attention in the area of health care. The private sector has no substantial responsibility for training.

The NHS, in fact and by comparison, is a vast training college. All the health authorities in England, Wales and Scotland carry out vast programmes of training. They bear the full cost and time of training, apart from sections of medical education that are supported by the University Grants Committee. However, even in the case of medical education a heavy proportion of the training of doctors is borne by the public sector, the NHS.

When the NHS has carried out its training remit, the private sector has been in the habit of poaching the trained personnel—the doctors, the nurses, the supporting professions, the ancillary workers, craftsmen and others—away from the NHS and applying them to employment in the private sector.

That problem affects all public bodies with large private sectors acting as satellites to them, or acting in competition with or working in parallel with them. For the past 15 years the broad solution has been the industrial training board solution, whereby a training board is set up to cover the entire industry concerned, both public and private, so that it can supervise the training for the whole industry and receive costs for defraying its expenses from everybody in the industry, whether public or private.

Such an industrial training board as we propose setting up in this context would seem to commit the Opposition to the permanent extension and existence of the private sector of medicine. If an industrial training board were set up it would immediately start recruiting staff and organising training in the public and private sectors of health throughout the country. If ever we wished to abolish it, there would be the question of redundancy. It is our hope that we shall be in a position to abolish these arrangements upon the Labour Party's return to power.

An industrial training board would be a quango within the meaning of the term applied by Government supporters. We decided that we would spare the Secretary of State the annoyance and anxiety of setting up a quango to cover the training of personnel in the public and private sectors of health. We urge him, under the new clause, to be his own quango, in fact.

We suggest that anybody with a nursing home that is registered, with responsibility for the equivalent of 10 professionally qualified people in his employ, should pay a levy to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State should use that levy to defray the costs of training in health authorities. If a private nursing home could show that it was carrying out its fair share of the training it need not pay the levy. If, on the other hand, it did not pay the levy, and was not carrying out its fair proportion of training, it would be struck from the register of nursing homes. That is the solution that we put forward.

There is only one other point that requires explanation from me. We have set the levy on nursing homes at what we concede to be the high level of 4 per cent., compared with the minimum of the 1 per cent. levy that exists under the Employment and Training Act 1973. This is the reason for the 4 per cent. levy; medical education is the most expensive form of education. That justifies the substantial nature of the levy.

It is interesting that the civil aviation training board at one time imposed a 3½ per cent. levy on payrolls on the grounds that it was training airline pilots, which was an expensive form of training. The training of nurses, and especially of doctors, is even more expensive and justifies the levy at the level we set.

On the other hand, if the Minister can give us the details of the breakdown of training costs and can show us that the levy should be somewhat less than 4 per cent., we shall not stand by the 4 per cent. as a reason for opposing his advice to the House.

The Government should accept that the private sector of medicine and health care should not poach trained people from the Health Service without making a full contribution to the costs of their training.

On 25 March, in Committee, the Minister of State said that a substantial amount of training was being carried on by the private sector, in any case. From his enthusiastic description of the training carried out the Opposition do not fear that the private sector has anything to worry about in being called upon to pay a high levy to the Secretary of State for training purposes.

Photo of Sir Raymond Gower Sir Raymond Gower , Barry

Has it occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the ensuing strange results would be that nursing homes in the United Kingdom would have to pay this levy, although those in Jersey, Guernsey, Ireland, the Isle of Man, Canada, the United States and other countries could all benefit from this kind of trained personnel without any payment?

Photo of Mr Roland Moyle Mr Roland Moyle , Lewisham East

I have no doubt that that argument could be advanced against every industrial training board in this country. That has not stopped us from acting. Nor would it stop us from acting in this area.

In Committee the Minister of State said that the private sector was carrying on substantial training. Our view is that it need have no fear of the levy that is imposed under the new clause. In the view of the Government it is carrying out such excellent training that very few private establishments would be called upon to pay the 4 per cent. On the other hand, if they are not carrying out their training obligations, there is no reason on earth why they should not contribute to the levy and help to defray the costs of training doctors, nurses and other Health Service professionals.

Photo of Mr Reg Race Mr Reg Race , Haringey Wood Green

The principal justification—for me the only justification—for having a levy on the private sector is to make sure that it pays the full economic cost for the trained personnel that it uses, who overwhelmingly come from the National Health Service. The Minister of State revealed in Committee that two small private hospitals did some training.

Photo of Mr Reg Race Mr Reg Race , Haringey Wood Green

Those were the only ones that he could produce then, but I bow to his superior wisdom now. Even if there are five, the number of staff that they train cannot be substantial. We want to ensure that at the very least the private sector pays the full economic price of training its staff.

The private sector does not pay the economic price for many other services rendered to it by the NHS. For example, in Committee we had a debate about the provision of blood to the private sector hospital services. No charge is made at present. It may be that we would not wish to charge for that item, but many of us believe that charges for other services provided by the NHS, such as ambulances and laboratory services for individual private patients, are not being properly collected and that the private sector is getting away with substantial amounts of money that it should be paying to the NHS for services now provided under the National Health Service Act.

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton , Macclesfield

The hon. Gentleman is developing a very interesting argument, but is he not aware that people who take advantage of the private sector of medicine are paying twice, as they contribute through various insurances and taxation to the running costs of the NHS? Therefore, why should the private sector pay again for services for which those who are taking advantage of it have already paid?

Photo of Mr Reg Race Mr Reg Race , Haringey Wood Green

The charges are laid down by statute at present; the charges for ambulance services and laboratory services are laid down by the House. While we still have a private sector I do not believe that there is any justification for removing them. I am anxious to ensure that individual private patients and the private sector as a whole pay properly, through the existing charges, for the services provided.

As for paying twice, it is clear that people want to do that in order to gain an advantage over others. Those people are not entitled to jump the queue in the way that they wish by exercising the right to go to a private hospital or a pay bed in an NHS hospital.

Photo of Mr Frank Haynes Mr Frank Haynes , Ashfield

In my area a well-known footballer who cost £1 million jumped the queue into a bed and beat an 85-year-old lady in desperate need of hip operations. I am convinced that that is the kind of point that my hon. Friend is trying to make.

Photo of Mr Reg Race Mr Reg Race , Haringey Wood Green

We all—at any rate on the Labour Benches, if not on the Conservative Benches—deplore people jumping the queue, going ahead of others whose medical needs may be at least equal to theirs, if not greater.

The representations that the Health Services Board received during its existence from the 1976 Act onwards make clear what was the principal problem that it discussed when it talked about whether it would give authorisation for hospitals to exceed the legal limit on the number of beds under the Act. That problem was whether those hospitals that requested authorisation would remove from the NHS substantial numbers of trained workers. One authorisation was rejected on the grounds that it would have removed a substantial number of NHS workers from NHS hospitals in the Sunningdale area of Surrey.

If the clause has anything to commend it, it is that it would prevent the private sector doing that. The onus would be on the private sector to provide money for increasing the numbers of trained staff working in the Health Service generally.

Photo of Dr Gerard Vaughan Dr Gerard Vaughan , Reading South 6:45 pm, 15th May 1980

We are not at all opposed to the idea behind the clause, that of possibly having a levy. We have been discussing the matter with the private sector. There are problems, and I do not wish to commit us to such a proposition, but I want the House to know that we do not have a closed mind on the subject. I was asked about some of the training figures. I do not have them all available, but I have the current figures for the training of doctors and dentists, which now costs over £50,000 per student. Comparable figures are as follows: professions supplementary to medicine, £7,500; student nurses, £11,500; pupil nurses, £7,500; and administrative trainees, £9,000. That shows that large sums of money are invested by the State when the NHS trains members of staff.

Photo of Mr Laurie Pavitt Mr Laurie Pavitt , Brent South

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of establishments recognised for nurse training by the Royal College of Nursing?

Photo of Dr Gerard Vaughan Dr Gerard Vaughan , Reading South

I cannot do so offhand, but I shall be glad to let the hon. Gentleman have that information if he gets in touch with me.

There is also in the NHS a shortage of certain kinds of trained staff. For example, we have recently been looking particularly at staff available for, for example, renal dialysis units and body scanners. All in all, there is a strong argument that the private sector should play a part in training—and it wants to. The Government have been in regular touch with it. We have a liaison group with representatives of certain parts of the private sector, under the chairmanship of Sir Richard Bayliss. I pay tribute to his work in bringing together private sector groups and views so that we can have discussions.

So far the discussions have concentrated almost exclusively on nurse training, but there is no reason why we should not go wider, and we should welcome that. I shall suggest that to the private sector.

Straightforward nurse training is not the only aspect that we are examining. We have been discussing, for example, sponsorship of existing places in nurse training schools and in independent hospitals. Alternatively, students from independent hospitals might be seconded or sponsored to attend existing NHS training schools. We have also been looking at the possibilities of financial contributions given directly to support existing training facilities—again, in both the NHS and the private sector.

We are short of time in this debate, so I shall not go further now. But I can say that there is a whole area that we are exploring.

Finally, we are examining the possibilities in the universities, a number of which offer nursing degree courses. It has been put to us that sponsoring just one lecturer could lead to an annual increase of five or six nurses with degree qualifications in our annual intake.

Those are some of the options that we are exploring. They are quite exciting. I quote them only as examples of what may be possible. As I have said, we are also considering the possibility of a voluntary levy, but I am not very enthusiastic about that. That is why I ask the House to reject the clause.

First, the discussions are progressing extremely well. Inevitably, if we had such a clause it would undermine the progress that we are making.

Secondly, I am not sure that the sponsors of the clause have thought through what would happen. The levy would be imposed on all private nursing homes and hospitals employing more than 10 professional staff. It would be completely non-selective. Have Opposition Members appreciated the implications? Would there be no exceptions? As it stands the clause would embrace such premises as homes looking after the terminally ill and would include voluntary and religious homes where many patients are admitted without charge. It would include hundreds of small nursing homes catering exclusively for long-stay, elderly patients. I am sure that this is not the intention of the sponsors of the clause.

Nor can it be argued that the staff in these homes, even if they were trained in the National Health Service, are not doing jobs that are vital not only to the patients in the homes but also indirectly to the National Health Service. The services in these homes are supplementary to the National Health Service. If this private provision did not exist, the National Health Service would have to provide about 30,000 extra long-stay patient beds.

The cost to the National Health Service of training staff in these homes is far smaller than the cost of providing for those patients. About 4,000 of these private beds are also used by National Health Service authorities on a contractual basis to provide a service for National Health Service patients. Would they have to pay? Would that not simply drive up the cost to the National Health Service? Without pursuing the argument further, in view of the time, I would indicate that we are sympathetic to the idea of a levy. We are looking into it. Discussions are taking place. I ask the House not to pursue the clause tonight.

Photo of Mr Roland Moyle Mr Roland Moyle , Lewisham East

We have had a brief debate on this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) answered the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) accurately in saying that people are getting extra advantages for their extra expenditure and that there is, therefore, every reason why they should pay twice.

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton , Macclesfield

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point, made pertinently by my hon. Friend from the Government Front Bench, about the cost to the National Health Service of catering for the terminally ill and the elderly in some of these homes if the homes—many of them providing free places—were to go out of existence because of the additional levy?

Photo of Mr Roland Moyle Mr Roland Moyle , Lewisham East

My object in speaking twice was to comment on the Minister's contribution, as I think those hon. Members who have been in the House for some years would probably have divined. The Opposition are somewhat encouraged to learn that the Minister is having discussions with the private sector on this subject. We are interested to learn some of the options for organising training that he is discussing with the private sector. But the real reason for considering the whole subject is not the organisation of training but the sheer cost of training. All our worst fears are borne out by the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave.

We are surprised that although it costs £50,000 a year to train a doctor, the Government are apparently not talking to the private sector of health care about how that cost is to be met. The hon. Gentleman said that the discussions were primarily about nursing. That feeds our worst fears. It was interesting to learn that even a member of the professions supplementary to medicine, if one can use that shorthand term, costs about £7,500 a year to train. These are substantial figures. The private sector, apparently to be encouraged by the Government and, therefore, destined to grow, unless action is taken, will get the benefit of huge sums of money expended on the training of large numbers of people in the Health Service.

About 75 per cent. of the £8,000 million cost this year of running the National Health Service is borne as a result of employment costs—wages, salaries, training and matters of that sort. The answer to the point made by the Minister, which was reinforced by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, is that what the National Health Service loses on the swings, it will gain on the roundabouts. There is obviously a vast outflow of money from the National Health Service to the private sector of medicine under the existing system. This allows the private sector to compete more effectively with the Health Service.

Apart from general fairness, one of the reasons why we want the levy and why we are determined to press it on the Government is to encourage their somewhat feeble response and push them towards a solution of this problem that both sides of the House seem to want. I urge hon. Members to accept the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 281.

Division No. 309]AYES[6.56 pm
Abse, LeoBeith, A. J.Campbell, Ian
Adams, AllenBennett, Andrew (Stockport N)Canavan, Dennis
Allaun, FrankBooth, Rt Hon AlbertCant, R. B.
Anderson, DonaldBottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)Carmichael, Nell
Archer, Rt Hon PeterBradley, TomCarter-Jones, Lewis
Armstrong, Rt Hon ErnestBray, Or JeremyCartwright, John
Ashley, Rt Hon JackBrown, Hugh D. (Provan)Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Ashton, JoeBrown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)Cohen, Stanley
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Buchan, NormanConlan, Bernard
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)Cowans, Harry
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)Janner, Hon GrevilleRadice, Giles
Crowther, J. S.Jay, Rt Hon DouglasRichardson, Jo
Cryer, BobJohn, BrynmorRoberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cunliffe, LawrenceJohnson, James (Hull West)Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)Johnson, Walter (Derby South)Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)Johnston, Russell (Inverness)Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Dalyell, TamJones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)Robertson, George
Davidson, ArthurJones, Barry (East Flint)Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)Jones, Dan (Burnley)Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldRooker, J. W.
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)Kerr, RussellRoper, John
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)Kilfedder, James A.Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Deakins, EricKilroy-Silk, RobertRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Kinnock, NeilRowlands, Ted
Dempsey, JamesLambie, DavidRyman, John
Dewar, DonaldLamborn, HarrySandelson, Neville
Dixon, DonaldLamond, JamesSever, John
Dobson, FrankLeadbitter, TedSheerman, Barry
Dormand, JackLeighton, RonaldSheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Douglas, DickLestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Douglas-Mann, BruceLewis, Arthur (Newham North West)Short, Mrs Renée
Dubs, AlfredLewis, Ron (Carlisle)Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Duffy, A. E. P.Litherland, RobertSilkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)Silverman, Julius
Dunnett, JackMcCartney, HughSkinner, Dennis
Dunwoody, Mrs. GwynethMcDonald, Dr OonaghSmith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Eastham, KenMcElhone, FrankSnape, Peter
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)McGuire, Michael (Ince)Soley, Clive
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)McKay, Allen (Penistone)Spearing, Nigel
English, MichaelMcKelvey, WilliamSpriggs, Leslie
Ennals, Rt Hon DavidMacKenzie, Rt Hon GregorStallard, A. W.
Ewing, HarryMaclennan, RobertSteel, Rt Hon David
Faulds, AndrewMcNamara, KevinStoddart, David
Field, FrankMcWilliam, JohnStrang, Gavin
Flannery, MartinMagee, BryanSummerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)Marks, KennethThomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelMarshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Forrester, JohnMarshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Foster DerekMarshall, Jim (Leicester South)Tilley, John
Foulkes, GeorgeMason, Rt Hon RoyTinn, James
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)Maxton, JohnTorney, Tom
Freeson, Rt Hon ReginaldMellish, Rt Hon RobertUrwin, Rt Hon Tom
Freud, ClementMikardo, Ian
Garrett, John (Norwich S)Millan, Rt Hon BruceVarley, Rt Hon Eric G.
George, BruceMiller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnMitchell, Austin (Grimsby)Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Ginsburg, DavidMitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)Weetch, Ken
Wellbeloved, James
Golding, JohnMorris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)Welsh, Michael
Gourlay, HarryMorris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)
Graham, TedMorris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Grant. John (Islington C)Morton, GeorgeWhitehead, Phillip
Grimond, Rt Hon J.Moyle, Rt Hon RolandWhitlock, William
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)Newens, Stanley
Hardy, PeterOakes, Rt Hon GordonWilley, Rt Hon Frederick
Harrison, Rt Hon WalterOgden, EricWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame JudithO'Halloran, MichaelWilliams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Haynes, FrankO'Neill, MartinWilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)Orme, Rt Hon StanleyWilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)Owen, Rt Hon Dr DavidWilson, William (Coventry SE)
Home Robertson, JohnPalmer, ArthurWinnick, David
Homewood, WilliamPark, GeorgeWoodall, Alec
Hooley, FrankParker, JohnWoolmer, Kenneth
Horam, JohnParry, RobertWrigglesworth, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)Pavitt, LaurieWright, Sheila
Howells, GeraintPendry, Tom
Hudson, Davies, Gwilym EdnyfedPenhaligon, DavidTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hughes, Mark (Durham)Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John Evans
Hughes. Roy (Newport)Race, Reg
Adley, RobertBendall, VivienBright, Graham
Aitken, JonathanBennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Brinton, Tim
Alexander, RichardBenyon, Thomas (Abingdon)Brittan, Leon
Alison, MichaelBenyon, W. (Buckingham)Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Amery, Rt Hon JulianBerry, Hon AnthonyBrown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Ancram, MichaelBest, KeithBrowne, John (Winchester)
Arnold, TomBevan, David GilroyBruce-Gardyne, John
Aspinwall, JackBiggs-Davison, JohnBryan, Sir Paul
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)Blackburn, JohnBuchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)Blaker, PeterBuck, Antony
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)Body, RichardBudgen, Nick
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)Boscawen, Hon RobertBulmer, Esmond
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich Weal)Burden, F. A.
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyBowden, AndrewButcher, John
Butler, Hon AdamHowell, Ralph (North Norfolk)Proctor, K. Harvey
Cadbury, JocelynHunt, John (Ravensbourne)Rathbone, Tim
Carlisle, John (Luton West)Hurd, Hon DouglasRe[...], Peter (Dover and Deal)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)Rees-Davies, W. R.
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)Jenkln, Rt Hon PatrickRenton, Tim
Chalker, Mrs. LindaJessel, TobyRhodes James, Robert
Channon, PaulJohnson Smith, GeoffreyRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Chapman, SydneyJopling, Rt Hon MichaelRidley, Hon Nicholas
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)Kaberry, Sir DonaldRifkind, Malcolm
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRoberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Kershaw, AnthonyRoberts, Wyn (Conway)
Clegg, Sir WalterKnight, Mrs JillRossi, Hugh
Cockeram, EricKnox, DavidRost, Peter
Colvin, MichaelLamont, NormanRoyle, Sir Anthony
Cope, JohnLang, IanSainsbury, Hon Timothy
Cormack, PatrickLatham, MichaelScott, Nicholas
Corrie, JohnLawrence, IvanShaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Costain, A. P.Lawson, NigelShelton, William (Streatham)
Crouch, DavidLee, JohnShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)Le Marchant, SpencerShepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br hills)
Dickens, GeoffreyLennox-Boyd, Hon MarkShersby, Michael
Dorrell, StephenLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Skeet, T. H. H.
Dover, DenshoreLloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Speed, Keith
Durant, TonyLoveridge, JohnSpeller, Tony
Dykes, HughLyell, NicholasSpence, John
Eden, Rt Hon Sir JohnMcCrindle, RobertSpicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)Macfarlane, NeilSproat, lain
Elliott, Sir WilliamMacGregor, JohnSquire, Robin
Emery, PeterMacKay, John (Argyll)Stainton, Keith
Eyre, ReginaldMacmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)Stanbrook, Ivor
Fairbairn, NicholasMcNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)Stanley, John
Fairgrieve, RussellMcNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)Steen, Anthony
Faith, Mrs SheilaMcQuarrie, AlbertStevens, Martin
Farr, JohnMadel, DavidStewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Fell, AnthonyMajor, JohnStewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Fenner, Mrs PeggyMarland, PaulStokes, John
Fisher, Sir NigelMarlow, TonyStradling Thomas, J.
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)Mates, Michael
Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesMathe, CarolTapsell, Peter
Fookes, Miss JanetMaude Rt Hon AngusTaylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Forman NigelMawby, RayTaylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Fowler, Rt Hon NormanMawhinney, Dr BrianTebbit, Norman
Fox, MarcusMaxwell-Hyslop. RobinTemple-Morris, Peter
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)Mayhew, PatrickThompson, Donald
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)Mellor, DavidThorne, Neil (llford South)
Fry, PeterMiller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.Mills, lain (Meriden)Thornton, Malcolm
Gardiner, George (Reigate)Mills, Peter (West Devon)Townend, John (Bridlington)
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)Miscampbell, NormanTownsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Garel-Jones. TristanMitchell, David (Basingstoke)Trippier, David
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir IanMoate, Rogervan Straubenzee, W. R.
Glyn, Dr AlanMolyneaux JamesVaughan, Dr Gerard
Goodhew, VictorMonro, HectorViggers, Peter
Goodlad, AlastairMoore, JohnWakeham, John
Gow, IanMorris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)Waldegrave, Hon William
Gower, Sir RaymondMorrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)
Gray, HamishMorrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Greenway, HarryMudd, DavidWalker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Grieve, PercyMurphy, ChristopherWalker, Gary
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)Myles, DavidWalters, Dennis
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)Needham, RichardWard, John
Grist, IanNelson, AnthonyWarren, Kenneth
Grylls, MichaelNeubert, MichaelWatson, John
Gummer, John SelwynNewton, TonyWells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)Normanton, TomWheeler, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Onslow, CranleyWhitelaw, Rt Hon William
Hampson, Dr KeithOppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Hannam, JohnOsborn, JohnWhitney, Raymond
Haselhurst, AlanPage, John (Harrow, West)Wickenden, Keith
Hawkins, PaulPage, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)Wiggin, Jerry
Hawksley, WarrenParkinson, CecilWilkinson, John
Heddle, JohnParris, MatthewWilliams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Henderson, BarryPatten, Christopher (Bath)Winterton, Nicholas
Hicks, RobertPattie, GeoffreyWolfson, Mark
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.Pawsey, JamesYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Hill, JamesPeyton, Rt Hon JohnYounger, Rt Hon George
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)Pollock, Alexander
Holland, Philip (Carlton)Porter, [...]TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hooson, TomPowell, R Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Hordern, PeterPrice, David (Eastleigh)Mr. David Waddington and Mr. Peter Brooke
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Newton.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.