'Regulations made for the purposes of section 7 above shall not require:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause deals with one of the most objectionable, unfair and discriminatory aspects of the contribution proposals. As I am sure the House is aware, the Bill proposes that the resources of the spouse, both as to income and capital, will be aggregrated with that of the applicant for legal aid when an assessment is made for the purpose of deciding what the weekly contributions should be.
As 85 per cent, of those coming before the criminal courts other than for motoring offences are men, those proposals will hit women particularly harshly. The rationale of the proposal is that since the criminal legal aid scheme is to be administered in the same way as the civil legal aid scheme where the spouse's income is aggregated, it is reasonable that criminal legal aid should be similarly aggregated. That is a wrong argument.
In civil legal aid the spouse and the family benefit, or should benefit, from any damages that the husband or wife may receive as a result of court proceedings or settlement. In addition, if there is any conflict of interest between the husband and wife in civil proceedings—say, in the divorce case—the aggregation of resources does not apply.
However, with criminal legal aid the circumstances are different.
I am following the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument with regard to civil legal aid and the aggregation there. However, there is aggregation in criminal legal aid at present. A spouse's means are taken into account. That measure was passed by a Labour Government in 1967.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the contributions are so small in that case that they do not materi-ally affect the spouse. The effect of this will be very different.
First, it is wrong in principle, as most people would agree, that an innocent spouse should pay for the misdeeds or criminal activities of the husband or wife as the case may be. He or she may be completely ignorant of the partner's crime, because the criminal activities may have been deliberately concealed.
Therefore, it is wrong that the innocent party should pay for the crimes of his or her partner. Indeed, for the wife it may be the last straw. There may already have been enough strain on the marriage as a result of the partner's criminal activities to entitle her to say that enough is enough and to welcome the fact that he goes to prison as the best thing for him. However, it may be a different matter for the husband.
I can understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument as far as it goes. However, I fail to understand his apparent assumption that anybody charged with a criminal offence is guilty of it. Perhaps he will explain.
Of course, I do not assume that. I am talking about a case where a wife is heartily sick and tired of dealing with somebody who has perhaps committed many criminal offences and who may have reason to believe that this is just another in a long sad story.
Women and families will suffer further hardship as contributions will be made from income from the time that the legal aid order is made. Therefore, the family's income will be depleted for several weeks or months. As the House knows, it frequently takes about a year for a case to come to trial. The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) was right to point out that it may result in an acquittal. In that case, the money will be refunded. However, during that lengthy period, the difficulties and tensions that are bound to arise when someone in the household is charged with a criminal offence will be increased as a result of the added financial difficulties.
In response to my query in Committee, the Solicitor-General said that he did not envisage a legal aid certificate being revoked if the wife refused to pay the contributions. He said that he did not foresee that happening if an amendment that he had in mind was accepted to make the revocation of the legal aid certificate dependent on the wilful refusal to pay. I am glad to see that the Solicitor-general has tabled an amendment along those lines, although it does not deal with what will happen if the wife refuses to pay. I know what will happen—because the Solicitor-General has told us—if the accused wilfully refuses to pay. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman must tell us whether the legal aid certificate will be revoked if the wife refuses to pay. If he says that the court would not revoke a certificate in those circumstances, because there has been no wilful refusal to pay, it makes nonsense of the whole provision. The family versed in criminal law will escape its responsibilities easily, knowing that there is no need for the spouse to pay because the court will not revoke the accused's certificate.
One of the worst aspects of the proposals is that a whole range of benefits that the spouse receives will be taken into account when assessing the contribution. One of those benefits is child benefit. It seems morally wrong that payments that are meant to benefit the family and the child should go towards the defence of the accused. The new clause sets out many other non-contributory benefits which should not be taken into account when assessing the spouse's resources. In addition to child benefit, it names
non-contributory invalidity pension, mobility allowance, attendance allowance, industrial death benefit, child allowance, invalidity care allowance or educational maintenance allowance.
The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that those benefits are not taken into account when an assessment is made. Many women will be affected by the proposals. The Government sought to play down the effect that the proposals will have on spouses and the effect that aggregation will have on the amount of the contribution. The Lord Chancellor claimed that a two-child family would pay only £3 a week—assuming that only the father works and earns an average wage. There is an obvious flaw in those figures. Only 5 per cent. of working men have dependent wives. The earnings of most married women, as the legal action group bulletin points out, even from part-time work would greatly increase the contribution payable. The same family with the wife earning the average £47·50 gross a week would have to pay £12 a week. That is a substantial contribution.
In Committee we drew the Solicitor-General's attention to the fact that the contribution proposals relating to capital would mean that those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement would have to pay out of capital. The Solicitor-General said that he would put forward an amendment to deal with those on supplementary benefit and he has. We feel that it is wrong that those on very low incomes such as those receiving family income supplement should have to make a capital contribution. In those circumstances, we feel that the new clause should appeal to the House. It is wrong that the wife, who is an utterly innocent party, should have to contribute substantially from her own resources. That might lead to greater strain on an already strained marriage. I ask that the new clause be supported.
The hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) has acknowledged that civil legal aid is aggregated and that a spouse's means are taken into account. He says that it is wrong for that to be done for criminal legal aid. When I intervened and pointed out to him that it is already done in criminal legal aid, he said that those means are a small factor in the assessment of a contribution, but he did not deny that aggregation takes place.
I find that hard to comprehend. I know that it would be wrong for the sins of the fathers to be visited on the sons and that the hon. and learned Member for Accrington was not in the House in 1967, but it was the Labour Government, in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, who enshrined the principle that a spouse's means were to be aggregated for criminal legal aid. I shall wait with interest to hear what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has to say. The hon. and learned Member for Accrington has made some good points that need to be answered.
I wish to make two points. The first is that the savings threshold of £1,310 is considerably less than the present threshold for supplementary benefit of £2,000, which is shortly to be increased to £2,500. As there is no maximum for a capital contribution towards legal aid, the savings of a spouse in excess of £1,310 could be demanded by the court as an initial contribution to the costs of the defence of the defendant spouse. If the breadwinner were convicted and sent to prison, the other spouse would have little alternative but to apply for supplementary benefit. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will deal with that when he replies.
If a spouse refuses to pay a contribution, there is nothing in the Bill—certainly there will be nothing in the regulations that are likely to emanate from the Bill—to compel that spouse to do so. There is no threat of revocation. That was made clear in Committee on 28 June by my hon. and learned Friend when, in response to an amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Accrington, he said:
I am advised that the court could not revoke in such circum-stances. That is assuming that the provisions for revocation are tightened up, as I keep promising they will be. In those circumstances, nobody could show that the accused had been guilty of wilful default."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D: 28 June 1982, c. 71.]
I know that later my hon. and learned Friend will introduce a new clause dealing with a defendant's wilful default. However, many hon. Members will be concerned that there is nothing to compel a spouse to make a contribution through threat of revocation. The paradox is that many other hon. Members on both sides of the House will say "But there is nothing in the Bill which says categorically that a defendant's legal aid order will not be revoked if a spouse fails to make that contribution." I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will seek to overcome the paradox.
There will be opposition from hon. Members who believe that a spouse should be forced to make a contribution through, perhaps, the threat of revocation, and there will be others—I hope the majority—who will say that it is wrong that if a spouse refuses to make a contribution there is nothing in the Bill which states categorically that the defendant will not have his legal aid removed.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) has said that this is a consumer's Bill and not a lawyers' Bill. However, I hope that the House will excuse me, the first non-lawyer, for daring to intervene in what has been a lawyers' debate so far.
I think that we all accept what the Solicitor-General said in reply to the debate on new clause 1, when he argued that it should be the principle that those who can afford to pay should pay. My right hon. and hon. Friends accept that. The argument arises when a decision is made on where the level should be drawn to separate those who we think can afford to pay and those who we think cannot.
I contend that the civil legal aid regulations are drawn far too tightly. The Solicitor-General has said that he has consulted various legal organisations. Has he consulted the consumer organisations? Did he consult, for example, the citizens advice bureaux, which have to deal with many inquiries? When I talked to those who represent the bureaux I found that they did not like the new regulations.
To introduce the aggregation that is set out in the new clause in criminal proceedings is a dubious proposition. I know that we have aggregation now but it is proposed to change the system that is used to compute resources. It is a dangerous proposition. For example, let us take one of the benefits mentioned in subsection (b) of the new clause—the educational maintenance allowance. It is wrong that in any computation one should count the educational maintenance allowance, which is paid for a specific purpose. If that is counted and if it means that the family income will be reduced, part of the purpose of the educational maintenance allowance will be lost. The child for whom it is payable will not receive the benefit because the family will have to pay a greater contribution for legal aid.
One point with regard to civil computation, but which also applies to this matter, worries me. It is about the vague thing called notional capital. In the assessment of capital resources, as I understand it—the Solicitor-General will correct me if I am wrong—when one counts capital, it is not just the amount of money that one has in the bank, but notional capital that counts.
I had a case in which a woman wanted to apply for legal aid for a civil action. She had no resources of her own and no money in the bank. However, her father had left her a share in a house. He had three daughters. The house was divided between the three daughters. However, none of the daughters could sell her share of the house because the mother had to remain in the house while she was alive. She was still alive, so there was no way in which the daughter's share of the house could be realised. However, that was counted as notional capital—one-third of the estimated capital value of the house, which she could not sell. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor and received an unhelpful reply saying that there were places in London where notional capital could be sold and realised, which that lady could do if she wanted.
The hon. Gentleman is right.
Will that idea of notional capital apply in the assessment for criminal legal aid in the same way as for civil legal aid? It is important that in the debate some of us who are not lawyers should take part. As Members of Parliament we get the sticky end when our constituents come to us and say "These are all the resources that I have. I have an attendance allowance and a mobility allowance, yet I have to pay for legal aid out of my income. My children are suffering." I am unhappy about that. I hope that the House will accept the new clause.
Despite the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), I cannot echo his arguments. I have four reasons for saying so.
First, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can be heard to say that aggregation is objectionable in principle. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the resources of the spouse, and for that matter the resources of the parent when the applicant is a minor, are already aggregated. That flows from the Legal Aid Act, 1974, which was a reflection of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, for which the Labour Party was responsible. Therefore, what was right then cannot be wrong now in principle.
Secondly, if the new clause is implemented, it is certain to have revenue implications. When one is dealing with resources, one is concerned with priorities. The new clause does not represent a proper assessment of priorities.
My third objection is that the new clause is one-sided. The law already provides that when asses sing contributions regard must be had to the cost to the applicant of maintaining a spouse or dependent children. I do not see why, in principle, regard should be had to the cost of maintaining a spouse while ignoring the resources that that spouse brings into the family home.
Finally, the House knows that in cases of supplementary benefit regard is paid to the capital and income of a spouse living with the claimant. I see no reason why, in dealing with legal aid, we should apply a test that is more generous than that applied to supplementary benefit.
For those reasons, I hope that the new clause will fail.
The question of principle has been fully dealt with. It is pretty late in the day for the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) to talk about aggregation being wrong in principle when it is common form in criminal legal aid and civil legal aid. The spouse will be no worse off under these proposals than he or she is under the present system. As I shall show, he or she will be better off.
Hon. Members are forgetting that, of course, it would be wrong to take account of spouses' resources if they were separated or if the case arose from an alleged assault by one on the other or similar circumstances. They would be excluded by the regulations. But when spouses are living together, in general, as the House knows, resources are aggregated. This can be seen as the corollary of the allowances made in computing disposable income. If it were to be abolished, the allowance for a spouse—which on present plans is likely to be about £27 a week—would also have to be removed. The allowances for children, which are likely to range from about £12 to £28 a week, would have to be reduced. Housing costs would have to be apportioned. All those allowances, or disregards as they are called in the profession, rest on the assumption—which I should have thought is a normal and reasonable assumption—that for many purposes a married couple's resources and commit-ments are shared. Disaggregation of income would not only be more unfavourable for many families; it would also be extremely difficult to operate. I have given some reasons why.
The House must remember that we are discussing pay-ments that are to be made from income, not separate contributions that are ordered against one spouse or the other. We are discussing a contribution that must be assessed on the joint income of both the husband and the wife.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) was right to say that, irrespective of whether we achieve our objective of ensuring that those who cannot afford to pay do not and that those who can afford to pay do, much depends on where we draw the line. I have always accepted that obligation on behalf of the Government. It is fundamental. It must be remembered, however, that the regulations have not yet been drawn up. Some reference was made to why the Consumer Association greatly disliked the regulations. They have not yet been drawn up. Now is the time to express views about what should or should not be included in them. It is a little previous to say that they are wrong.
There has been the widest consultation. More than once, I have personally invited in Committee all those who have opinions about the matter to express them. I also circulated to the Committee a forecast of the figures that the Government have in mind so that others may comment upon them.
It is a matter of opinion as to where the line should be drawn. It is to be observed that those who say that this will wreak hardship give as an example a Member of Parliament with a wife in a part-time job and two children, the Member of Parliament earning the normal salary and the wife earning £2,500. That is a not insubstantial joint income. The contribution is assessed at £22 a week. Those who criticise that must remember that someone must pay. The choice lies between Joe Soap the taxpayer and the person who finds himself in those difficulties. The public—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members do not share our view of a household as a joint effort by people who share their resources.
When all the representations have been made and taken into account and the figures finally decided, it will be for the public to judge. We must always bear in mind that someone will have to pay—either the taxpayer or the person concerned. Surely no one can fault the principle that the person concerned should pay what he can afford. That will be the purpose of the regulations.
The second part of the new clause suggests that a great many specified benefits should be disregarded. Of course, some of them must be regarded. The regulations will provide for what is and is not to be disregarded. Some will be disregarded just as they are in civil legal aid. I appreciate the argument that it would be wrong for benefits designed to meet specific additional needs to be taken into account. That is a matter for the regulations and I assure the House that we shall carefully consider which benefits fall into that category.
I give a word of warning, however. In civil legal aid, child benefit is taken into account, but the allowances for children are 50 per cent. higher than the corresponding allowances for supplementary benefit. If child benefit were not taken into account the allowances for children would naturally have to be lower, so it is not as simple as some Members suggest. It may, of course, be preferable to adopt that approach and to disregard the benefit and to lower the allowance in respect of each child. We shall also consider that carefully. I hope that that gives a useful indication, however brief, of the Government's thinking on that part of the matter.
To summarise, aggregation of spouses' resources and commitments is a long-standing feature of both criminal and civil legal aid. It is right in principle and if the principle were abandoned the results would be both anomalous and administratively difficult. The question of which benefits should be disregarded is, I suggest, more appropriate for the regulations.
I hope that the House will reject the new clause.
While the hon. Lady is still on the question of principle, perhaps she will allow me to correct an error that I made earlier. I fear that I did the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) an injustice when I said that he was not responsible for the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which introduced the concept of aggregation. I understand that not only was he in the House at that time, but that he served on the Committee that dealt with that legislation.
Perhaps I should not have been so gracious as to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to argue about the principle. I am worried about how the legislation will work in practice. It is no use hon. Members saying that because it is a matter of principle everything that flows from it is bound to work in accord with what we imagine the principle to be. That is not so.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) raised the valid point that, as in many such matters, the consumer groups—those at the receiving end of much of this legislatiorr—are rarely consulted. Had they been consulted, there would have been plenty of comeback. Approaches made to me in my capacity as spokesperson on women's rights show that many such groups, particularly the citizens advice bureaux, are apprehensive about how the proposals will operate in practice.
Whatever the logic of the principle that those who can afford to pay should be made to do so, it is feared that many people, especially women, will be adversely affected. Nobody has so far dealt with the effect on women of the Government's proposal.
We have heard much about the terrible financial effect on female spouses, but not much about the effect on male spouses. Many women are charged with shoplifting. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the income or capital of the male spouse should be taken into account when assessing the contribution to legal aid in those cases?
I am not making a special plea for women. I take the same view on spouses whether male or female. Whatever the reasons, and we do not know them, it is mostly men who commit the crimes of the type that we are discussing. Therefore, in introducing a regulation, or a law, which states that the income of spouses must be aggregated for legal aid it logically follows that women are much more likely to be disadvantaged than men. I am saying not that men should pay, but that women should not. However, in applying the principle in this clause women will suffer much more than men. Only 15 per cent. of the crimes concerned are committed by women.
A fear expressed by citizens advice bureaux is that many families are already in severe financial difficulties. Whether the person charged is eventually found guilty or innocent, the method of recouping the money that has been paid out will plunge them into even further difficulties. One of the worst aspects is, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) said, that a person may be innocent and wholly ignorant of the crime that has been committed by the spouse, but will nevertheless be called upon to pay.
Another unacceptable aspect is that child benefit will be included in assessing a person's ability to pay. One of the big changes we made in the payment of child benefit was that it would be paid to the mother, as of right, for her children. The House now appears to be going back on that principle by saying that child benefits will be taken into account in the assessment. I do not see how that can be dealt with in the regulations.
A variation is to take place in that the final assessment will be payable weekly from the time that the legal aid order is made and in advance of the trial. If a defendent is acquitted, what method, if any, will be applied to return the money? Will the money be completely lost?
I am sure that the hon. Lady will want to know immediately that the Bill provides for repayment on acquittal. A court may order the repayment of all sums that have been paid. If the usual practice is followed, where costs follow the event, such an order will be made and all the money paid back.
I do not dispute that an order can or will be made for the money to be paid back. However, at what stage will it be paid back? A family that has already been forced into grave financial difficulties—my hon. Friends have already shown that that will happen—will have to wait some time for the money to be paid back. That complication arises from money being paid in advance.
There is a further aspect that will cause difficulties. Some women's organisations have pointed out that under the Bill income will be assessed jointly and the amount to be paid then drawn. If one of the partners says "I have no intention of paying for your defence. I am disconcerted about what you have done. I do not want to know.", who is legally responsibly for that element of the contribution? It is possible that some spouses will refuse to be assessed. They are anxious to know what will happen. Will the remaining spouse be liable for the whole amount, or will some means be found of charging the spouse who has not paid?
It is said that it is obvious that the person in whose name a legal aid order is made is responsible for paying the contribution. However, if that contribution has been assessed jointly on the income of both spouses, and if one says "I will have nothing to do with this. I refuse to pay", what will happen to the person seeking his defence via a legal aid certificate and unable to pay the full contribution? Many people are worried about that.
Incidentally, there is no explanation about what is meant by "a spouse". We may well find that, as well as some legal spouses, some common law spouses may be able to evade the responsibility that the Bill seeks to impose. Will a common law man and wife be regarded as spouses for the purposes of the Bill, or will it apply only to people who are legally married? So far as I am aware, no arrangement has been made to cope with common law spouses.
In many of our debates, the question of a woman's income and her work is often completely overlooked. When I first became interested in this subject, and questioned the amount of money that a family would have to contribute, the Lord Chancellor's Department claimed that a two-child family would pay approximately £3 a week. However, that assumed that only the father was working.
I believe that about 5 per cent. of working men have dependent wives and children and that the remaining families are to some extent supported by working wives. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor's Department's estimate should be much higher. As the average family today often consists of both a working wife and working husband, that fact must be taken into account when trying to play down the contribution that a person is expected to make.
The argument is that people ought to pay if they can afford to do so and that it should not be left to the taxpayer. However, many people who will be affected will already be in receipt of benefits or will be forced to claim benefits when the financial contribution order to the legal aid certificate is made. They may well have to claim other benefits to survive. We have already been told of the difference between the £1,300 savings threshold for legal aid and the £2,030 which makes a person ineligible for supplementary benefit.
When legal aid certificates are made many people will have to seek benefits in order to live. What then has been the saving to the taxpayer? There wll be no saving because the taxpayer, from another pocket, will have to subsidise and keep them because their income has been reduced by the way the legal aid certificate money has been calculated. I understand the principle, and no one would argue with the principle that people who can afford to pay should be made to do so. The difficulty occurs when we apply the principle to large numbers of people who cannot afford to pay. Then there is no saving to the taxpayer because they go to the other resources of the State to get back the money that they have paid out.
We believe that this will not work in practice and will have a detrimental effect particularly on women, but we would apply the principle of our objection to spouses across the board.
|Division No. 292]||[9.40 pm|
|Abse, Leo||Cryer, Bob|
|Adams, Allen||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Allaun, Frank||Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)|
|Anderson, Donald||Dalyell, Tam|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Davidson, Arthur|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)|
|Ashton, Joe||Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)|
|Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)||Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)|
|Bagier, Gordon A.T.||Deakins, Eric|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)|
|Beith, A. J.||Dewar, Donald|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Dixon, Donald|
|Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)||Dobson, Frank|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dormand, Jack|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Douglas, Dick|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)||Dubs, Alfred|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)||Eadie, Alex|
|Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)||Eastham, Ken|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)|
|Buchan, Norman||Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||English, Michael|
|Cant, R. B.||Ennals, Rt Hon David|
|Carmichael, Neil||Evans, John (Newton)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Ewing, Harry|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Faulds, Andrew|
|Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge, A'rie||Field, Frank|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)||Flannery, Martin|
|Cohen, Stanley||Ford, Ben|
|Coleman, Donald||Forrester, John|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Foster, Derek|
|Conlan, Bernard||Foulkes, George|
|Cook, Robin F.||Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N w'd)|
|Cowans, Harry||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Craigen, J. M. (G'gcw, M'hill)||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)|
|George, Bruce||Palmer, Arthur|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Park, George|
|Gourlay, Harry||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Graham, Ted||Pendry, Tom|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Prescott, John|
|Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Hardy, Peter||Race, Reg|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Radice, Giles|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)|
|Haynes, Frank||Richardson, Jo|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Home Robertson, John||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Homewood, William||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Hooley, Frank||Robinson, P. (Belfast E)|
|Howell, Rt Hon D.||Rooker, J. W.|
|Howells, Geraint||Roper, John|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Huckfield, Les||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Ryman, John|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Janner, Hon Greville||Sever, John|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Sheerman, Barry|
|John, Brynmor||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)|
|Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Silverman, Julius|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Skinner, Dennis|
|Kerr, Russell||Snape, Peter|
|Kinnock, Neil||Soley, Clive|
|Lamond, James||Spearing, Nigel|
|Leighton, Ronald||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Stallard, A. W.|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Stoddart, David|
|Litherland, Robert||Stott, Roger|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Strang, Gavin|
|Lyon, Alexander (York)||Straw, Jack|
|McCartney, Hugh||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|McElhone, Frank||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|McKelvey, William||Tilley, John|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Tinn, James|
|McWilliam, John||Torney, Tom|
|Marks, Kenneth||Urwin, Rt Hon Tom|
|Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)|
|Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)||Weetch, Ken|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Wellbeloved, James|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Welsh, Michael|
|Meacher, Michael||White, Frank R.|
|Mikardo, Ian||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)|
|Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)||Winnick, David|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Woodall, Alec|
|Morton, George||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Moyle, Rt Hon Roland||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Wright, Sheila|
|Newens, Stanley||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Tellers for the Ayes|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Mr. Ioan Evans and|
|Paisley, Rev Ian||Mr. Allen McKay.|
|Alexander, Richard||Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)|
|Ancram, Michael||Banks, Robert|
|Arnold, Tom||Beaumont-Dark, Anthony|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Bendall, Vivian|
|Atkins, Robert(Preston N)||Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)||Benyon, Thomas (A'don)|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)|
|Best, Keith||Grist, Ian|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Grylls, Michael|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Hamilton, Hon A.|
|Blackburn, John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Blaker, Peter||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Body, Richard||Hannam, John|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hastings, Stephen|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Hawkins, Sir Paul|
|Brinton, Tim||Hawksley, Warren|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)||Heddle, John|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Henderson, Barry|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Hicks, Robert|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.||Hill, James|
|Budgen, Nick||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Holland, Philip (Carlton)|
|Butcher, John||Hooson, Tom|
|Cadbury, Jocelyn||Hordern, Peter|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Jessel, Toby|
|Cockeram, Eric||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Colvin, Michael||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Cope, John||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Cormack, Patrick||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Corrie, John||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Costain, Sir Albert||Kershaw, Sir Anthony|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Kimball, Sir Marcus|
|Critchley, Julian||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Crouch, David||Knight, Mrs Jill|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Knox, David|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Lamont, Norman|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Lang, Ian|
|Dover, Denshore||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Dunn, Robert (Dartford)||Latham, Michael|
|Durant, Tony||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Lee, John|
|Eggar, Tim||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Elliott, Sir William||Lester, Jim (Beeston)|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Fairgrieve, Sir Russell||Loveridge, John|
|Faith, Mrs Sheila||Luce, Richard|
|Farr, John||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Fell, Sir Anthony||McCrindle, Robert|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Macmillan, Rt Hon M.|
|Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles||McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Forman, Nigel||Madel, David|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Major, John|
|Fraser, Peter (South Angus)||Marland, Paul|
|Fry, Peter||Marlow, Antony|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Marten, Rt Hon Neil|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Mates, Michael|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Mawby, Ray|
|Goodhew, Sir Victor||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Gorst, John||Mayhew, Patrick|
|Gow, Ian||Mellor, David|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Gray, Hamish||Mills, lain (Meriden)|
|Greenway, Harry||Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)|
|Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Moate, Roger||Smith, Dudley|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Moore, John||Speed, Keith|
|Morgan, Geraint||Speller, Tony|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Spence, John|
|Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Mudd, David||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Murphy, Christopher||Sproat, Iain|
|Myles, David||Squire, Robin|
|Neale, Gerrard||Stainton, Keith|
|Needham, Richard||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Nelson, Anthony||Stanley, John|
|Neubert, Michael||Steen, Anthony|
|Newton, Tony||Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)|
|Normanton, Tom||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Nott, Rt Hon John||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Onslow, Cranley||Tapsell, Peter|
|Osborn, John||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Parris, Matthew||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Pawsey, James||Thompson, Donald|
|Percival, Sir Ian||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Porter, Barry||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)|
|Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)||Trippier, David|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Trotter, Neville|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Rathbone, Tim||Viggers, Peter|
|Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)||Waddington, David|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Wakeham, John|
|Renton, Tim||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Walker, B. (Perth)|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Ridley, Hon Nicholas||Waller, Gary|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Ward, John|
|Rifkind, Malcolm||Warren, Kenneth|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Watson, John|
|Rossi, Hugh||Wells, Bowen|
|Rost, Peter||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Royle, Sir Anthony||Wheeler, John|
|Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.||Whitney, Raymond|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Wickenden, Keith|
|Scott, Nicholas||Williams, D.(Montgomery)|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Shepherd, Richard||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Shersby, Michael||Mr. Anthony Berry and|
|Silvester, Fred||Mr. Carol Mather.|