Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.

Donate to our crowdfunder

Orders of the Day — Clause 17

– in the House of Commons at 8:15 pm on 19th May 1986.

Alert me about debates like this

RETIREMENT PENSIONS

Photo of Margaret Beckett Margaret Beckett Shadow Minister (Social Security)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 19, line 12, leave out clause 17.

Photo of Mr Ernest Armstrong Mr Ernest Armstrong , North West Durham

With this, we may take amendment No. 58, in page 20, line 14, after 'cases', insert 'which shall include unemployed people'.

Photo of Margaret Beckett Margaret Beckett Shadow Minister (Social Security)

If we had to pick out the most obnoxious aspect of the clause—and, given the time constraints, we can pick out only one aspect—we would say that the most disadvantageous proposal is the change not merely away from the calculation of pensions on the basis of the 20 best years of earnings but right away from that to the calculation of pensions on the basis of earnings over a person's whole working life.

I have never fully understood, nor do I recall having heard an argument on the matter from the Government, why if, as they argue—we do not accept their argument—one of the reasons why SERPS is so expensive is the 20-years provision, they did not merely increase it to a degree without going as far as the increase proposed in clause 17.

The intention in making SERPS dependent on the best 20 years of earnings was a redistributive intention, aimed at benefiting people who, on the whole, did not enjoy a good pension entitlement. For example, the earnings of manual workers tend to reduce as they get older and it was suggested that they should be allowed to have a pension that was more related to the peak years of their earnings than would be the case under the scheme such as that proposed by the Government. Another example are women who take years out of the employment market and get a better pension by using the earnings of their best 20 years rather than the earnings over their whole working life.

We are very worried about the implications of the Government's proposals and we are convinced that they will lead to far more pensioners being dependent on what we must learn to call income support. The Government have said in a parliamentary answer that about 1 million pensioners will still be dependent on supplementary benefits at the end of the century. We firmly believe that the number in that equivalent position — below the poverty line with their pension entitlement — will be significantly higher than 1 million after the Bill becomes law. We are encouraged in that supposition by the fact that the Government say that it is too difficult to answer all the questions that we have tabled on the subject, no matter how we have phrased them.

A person who starts work after the Bill becomes law and is never unemployed or sick will find that the pension to which he would have been entitled before this measure became an Act will be halved. Indeed, that person's pension entitlement will be so reduced from what it would otherwise have been that, even on the Government's own figures, it is likely to be substantially less than even the basic state pension alone is worth today. We have substantial ammunition for our contention that the Government are returning pensioners to the poverty from which the scheme was designed in 1975 to rescue them — an intention which Conservatives supported at the time, but from which the Government have resiled.

People who have many years of unemployment will see their pensions reduced even more than the halving that is implicit in the Bill. Figures show the impact of the Government's proposals on someone who is unemployed for the comparatively short time of three years or six years. Obviously, those are much longer periods than any of us would find acceptable, but when we see the thousands of young people who have never had a job since they left school, one has to wonder how realistic it is to assume that they will be unemployed for as short a period as three years or six years over their whole working lives.

Let us examine the case of a man who was 27 in November 1985 and who earns £120 a week for 23 years and £80 a week for another 23 years—perhaps because he is a manual worker and his earning capacity declines as he gets older—and has three years unemployment at some point in his working life. His additional pension will be reduced from £51·70 to £21·70. In other words, a young man now in the labour market who is unemployed for two or three years, could work for 46 years and still lose 58 per cent. of the additional pension to which he would otherwise be entitled. I am sure that that proposition would be greeted with amazement, shock and dismay by any of our constituents.

If that man spent six years unemployed, he would receive only £19·70 — a loss of 62 per cent. of the pension to which he would otherwise be entitled. Those are significant sums and they demonstrate the impact of unemployment on a person's pension entitlement.

Let us now examine the case of a woman who was 27 in 1985 and earns £80 a week for 24 years and £40 a week for 12 years and who, for eight years—for whatever reason—has no earnings. Her additional pension will drop from £17·70 to £9·70—a loss of 45 per cent. If she spent another six years unemployed her expected £15·70 would become £7·70—a loss of 51 per cent. We are talking about substantially reduced pensions which will be further dramatically reduced by the problems of unemployment which are so prevalent.

In addition to the implications for people who are unemployed. women who work part-time are likely to lose substantially under the Bill. Women who work part-time, but have earnings above the lower earnings limit, will not be able to benefit from the home responsibility premium, and will not be covered by being out of the work force altogether, but will have the years in which they have part-time earnings taken into account—adding to their years in the work force, but incorporating lower earnings because they are working only part-time. Proportionately, they will lose substantially. The disabled are also likely to be losers. When we raised this point in Committee, the Minister said that half the women now in part-time work earned less than the lower earnings limit. He was good enough to say that that might not be a good thing. That may sound as though it is not too bad, but he failed to point out that although half of the women in part-time work would not be affected because their earnings were so low, 2·25 million women in part-time work would still be affected, and would see their pension entitlement reduced.

Photo of Mr John Major Mr John Major , Huntingdon 8:30 pm, 19th May 1986

Many of those women would be in receipt of child benefit and would be receiving, therefore, home responsibilities protection. That should be borne in mind.

Photo of Margaret Beckett Margaret Beckett Shadow Minister (Social Security)

That may be so, but it is not clear how many women will be affected. The figure of 2·25 million is so substantial that obviously many women will be losers. At present, 40 per cent. of elderly women live at, or below, the supplementary benefit level. Millions more pensioners will be living at or below the poverty line as a result of the Bill, and as a result, in particular. of these provisions. Moreover, a significant number of them will be women. Instead of seeking to improve the clause, we have sought to delete it, as it contains proposals that are unbelievably damaging to the pension entitlement and standard of living of future pensioners.

The Government's proposals seem to tie in well with the Government's other actions, with their intention to keep wages low, and with their attacks on the trade unions. Apparently, they want to return to the days when ordinary working people spent much of their lives in fear of unemployment, sickness, a lack of decent housing or not being able to educate their children properly. This provision returns us to the days when people lived in fear. They will start wondering how long they will live, how they will eke out their savings and how they will manage in their retirement. There is no doubt in our minds that the Bill returns us to the days of poverty pensioners.

Photo of Mr James Lester Mr James Lester , Broxtowe

I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in her opposition to the clause. As we know, the Bill changes the calculation of the additional payment under SERPS from the best 20 years to a lifetime's average earnings. The present scheme only requires contributions over 20 years for a full additional pension, but now contributions will be required over a lifetime. Therefore, those who, for any reason, spend years out of the work force could be disadvantaged. Indeed, in many parts of the country, such as the east and west midlands, unemployment is endemic. The new provision is therefore of considerable concern. Anyone who left the work force could be disadvantaged if he retired after 1998.

The Government have acknowledged that some categories should be protected. For example, they say that they will protect the position of married women and lone parents, and that special arrangements will be made for those who take time away from work to bring up children. I am glad to say that similar protection will be given to disabled people and to those who are not earning money because they are looking after them. That is fine, but I have tabled my amendment because unemployed people will not be afforded the same protection.

I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend the Minister of State. In Committee, he said: Therefore while I do not in any way suggest that there may not be a problem in relation to this group in the early part of the next century, I think that it is a problem which can sensibly be examined in relation to the unemployment problems that exist at that time and is not one which we need to settle at this time."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 25 February 1986, c. 439.] I take exception to that. Obviously, we are trying to look a long way ahead. But my hon. Friend the Minister admitted that the Government sometimes had to make forward commitments, not least in respect of social security and pensions. He said that of necessity they had to be considered in the long term. I hope to persuade my hon. Friend to give a public commitment that the unemployed will have their situation taken into account when the time comes.

The House should not accept that people are unemployed through their own deficiencies. The majority of those who are unemployed have been made redundant. Consequently, I cannot see why those retiring should be additionally disadvantaged because they happen to come from an area of high unemployment. It is quite unacceptable to me that the 4,028 unemployed people in Broxstowe should be treated differently from those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), where far fewer people are unemployed. Why should people be additionally disadvantaged in retirement because they work in Cornwall, where the highest rates of unemployment were found in March to be 28·4 per cent. in Newquay, as against 5·6 per cent. in Crawley?

Under the Bill, standard national insurance contributions are credited towards the basic state pension. Unemployed people can receive those credits. Thus, the Bill does not exclude them in the sense that the credits will not be allowed. The difference is in the earnings-related element. I should be delighted if the Government would correct my understanding that they intend to exclude the credits at a later regulatory stage. At this stage, I should like a commitment from my hon. Friend the Minister that he will not exclude unemployed people in terms of a special calculation for the period that they are unemployed.

If the Government do not make that change, many people may be disadvantaged. Figures have been extrapolated for the number of those who may be unemployed for more than a year. They are based on the Department of Employment Gazette 1986. For 1996, the figure is 757,924; for the year 2006, the figure is 786,260; and for the year 2016, the figure is 1,160,667. Thus we are talking about substantial numbers. Unless the Government give a commitment to take into account a period of unemployment, just as married women and the disabled are taken into account, the unemployed may be materially disadvantaged.

Among those unemployed people whose pension rights will be reduced may be older men and women in their fifties who have little chance of further employment before retirement. Some men who accept voluntary or forced retirement at 60 will be able to claim the lower rate pensioner premium in income support until they qualify for the basic state pension at 65. Their entitlement to the full basic pension will not be affected by years without work, but as each year goes by they will know that the expected additional pension will decrease. That is in sharp contrast to many people in occupational, contracted-out pensions who will receive a full pension after 40 years and the qualifying conditions for the basic rate pension will ensure that, for those whose working life is 41 years or more, the full pension can be received after a working life minus five years.

The Prime Minister said at Perth that unemployment was an issue and a dragon to be slain. The Government have done many things to ease unemployment through training schemes and community programmes, but that will count as little if the Bill discriminates against the unemployed in relation to the state earnings-related pension. I request that the Minister responds positively to the amendment because not only is it in the interests of my party but, more materially, in the interests of the unemployed.

Photo of Mr Archy Kirkwood Mr Archy Kirkwood , Roxburgh and Berwickshire

I listened carefully to the heartfelt plea by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and I sympathise with his argument. I am sure that he will agree that the proposition is an inevitable consequence of any earnings-related scheme being attached to pension provision. That was one of the reasons why in 1975 when the original Bill was put together my former friends took the view that the earnings-related component was wrong because of the anomalies and costs. Eleven years later some of the chickens have come to roost because demographic changes have caused arguments about costs and anomalies. We have taken that view since 1965, and the alliance has thought the same in the last five years.

I attempted to able amendments in Committee to persuade the Government to consider making the earnings-related element of the scheme proposed in clause 17 more redistributive and to work out a formula that would mitigate the earnings-related component. My argument was that if one was a director of ICI one could gain more from the state earnings-related pension scheme than a shop-floor worker could. Not surprisingly, the Government rejected that proposition, so we must face clause 17. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) suggested that we should throw out clause 17. I sympathise with much of what she said, but I do not think that we should throw out the whole of clause 17. That would be throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The Government are wrong to suggest the propositions in clause 17 against the background of the existing state pension level. The schemes in the Bill do nothing to alleviate the lot of basic state pensioners. Their lot will not be improved so long as we insist upon indexing their benefits only to the increase in prices, because they will fall behind earnings and outpace inflation over the next 15 or 20 years until SERPS comes into effect. Any proposal from any Administration should change the pension provision only after they had provided a basic state pension upon which people can live sensibly. The basic state pension does not allow that.

We came forward with a plan to utilise the contracted-out rebate which could have financed substantial increases in the basic state pension. That did not find favour with the Government and our idea was rejected.

8.45 pm

The Social Democratic and Liberal parties are aware of the importance of having consensus about the way forward. If anything derived from the 1975 proposals, it was that they were agreed—with the exception of one dissenting voice — and that there was a reasonable prospect of the pensions industry settling down and prospering.

That consensus is broken. We have fallen over backwards to achieve that consensus. I say to the Government that, even at this late stage, there must be some arrangement whereby the major political divisions can be bridged. I continue to be interested in talking about that possibility. Against that faint hope, I fear that we are faced with the deep blue sea, because if the amendment is pressed to a Division I regret that I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to abstain and vote neither for the abolition of clause 17 nor for the Government's new clause.

Photo of Mr John Major Mr John Major , Huntingdon

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) gave a qualified welcome to some of our provisions, so I shall refrain from making any remarks about the firm smack of decision in the alliance upon a clause which is a central part of the Bill's pensions provisions. Without any mockery, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I am grateful to him for his qualified acceptance of reality. I commend his speech for the future, because I am sure that it will sit well with his being a prominent member of the Liberal party for some years to come.

I recognise the strong feelings aroused by the changes in the state earnings-related pension scheme. It was reflected, although in a lower key than we might have expected a few months ago, in some of the speeches this evening. Our original proposition was for greater changes. Our current propositions are substantially different from those which originally saw the light of day in the Green Paper. [Interruption] I shall not be tempted by interruptions, because of the limited time available.

The speech by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was a sustained plea for the status quo, irrespective of the probable effects, of the costs and of the difficulties, all of which have been exposed in debates over recent months. If we were to adopt amendment No. 57, to delete clause 17, the Bill would leave in place all the costly and over-generous features of SERPS which make it a commitment to the future which no responsible Government of any party could leave untouched. We would, in practice, be leaving open a blank cheque for future national insurance contributors. The very real threat that concerns us deeply is that of a future Government needing to break faith with future generations of pensioners if today's promises cannot be met. That is not a tolerable, let alone an attractive, proposition. I shall return, in good time, to some of the detailed points made by the hon. Lady.

The amendment clearly illustrates the carefree "wait and see" approach of the Opposition compared with what we regard as our realistic and responsible approach.

Photo of Margaret Beckett Margaret Beckett Shadow Minister (Social Security)

It is appropriate at this point to remind the hon. Gentleman that, because the Government have broken the link between pensions and prices, if they do nothing to SERPS and accept our amendment, the basic pension and the state earnings-related pension will steadily decline in value until they go back to the level of the basic pension now. The Government have already ruined the pension scheme. They are now compounding the felony.

Photo of Mr John Major Mr John Major , Huntingdon

We are not ruining it. We are placing it in a position in which it can be sustained so that pensioners may have security in future, not the possiblity of promises that may or may not be met by a future Government. It is all too easy to be irresponsible and say, "Wait and see," or, worse still, claim, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has done occasionally, that there is not and there never will be a problem. I am bound to say that I regard that as a Scarlett O'Hara option. I shall explain precisely what that means. Whenever Scarlett O'Hara faced difficulties, she said, "I will think about that tomorrow." That is the Opposition's point of view. Whenever there is a difficulty, they say that they will think about it tomorrow. They will not plan for it today. It is wholly irresponsible to take such a view.

It is not an easy option to make changes in SERPS. It is not, as the hon. Lady sought to demonstrate in recent months, necessarily a popular option to make changes in SERPS. We made the changes after careful and prolonged study, because we concluded, in the interests of a Long-term, sustainable pension scheme that future generations could make, that we must take action now. None of us, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, is under any illusion whatever that we would have had a much more comfortable time had we decided to adopt the "wait and see" approach that is so attractive to the Opposition.

The fact is that pensions are long-term commitments, and the time for action and decision is now. People must be given time and opportunity to make additional or alternative provision for their retirement. The way in which SERPS works means that every year of delay leaves people clocking up expensive rights which must be honoured in future.

It is relevant—I shall not dwell on the point for too long — that, if the amendment were to succeed and SERPS were left unchanged, the Government Actuary's modest assumptions show that costs would take off quite dramatically next century. By 2033, SERPS would be costing £25·5 billion compared with £200 million today. To put that another way, the combined cost of basic pension and SERPS pension as at today's prices would rise from £16 billion now to £49 billion by 2033. The Opposition have from time to time said that they are not perturbed by the potential impact of that increase on national insurance contributions. The Opposition may regard that as a defensible proposition, but we are in no doubt that the working population and employers may see it entirely differently.

Other factors are involved in the changing cost scenario. The vast increase in expenditure would come at a time when there would be over 3·5 million more pensioners. Yet the number of workers supporting them is expected, on demographic figures, to remain approximately the same. The "pay-as-you-go" principle—that is undeniable from whatever point of view one has — means that there is no way of making advance provision to pay for SERPS promises. Advance funding is not a realistic option for a state-run scheme. By 2033, instead of there being 2·3 contributors to every pensioner, as there are today, there are expected to be only 1·6 contributors to every pensioner. That adds up to a substantial problem.

I should also make it clear — perhaps not least because the Opposition decline to be swayed by cost arguments — that it is not just an argument about affordability. They must accept, even more crucially, that it is one about priorities. Even if SERPS were to continue unchecked and unchanged, with the cost implications I have outlined, there would be another practical effect. The practical effect would be that the pre-emption of such a huge amount for pensions would severely constrain future spending options of future Governments at a time when the pressure from the elderly for other services, such as health, social services and housing, is bound to increase, apart from the increasing demands of science and demography.

The Green Paper made a convincing case for the total abolition of SERPS. We took account of the substantial body of opinion which favoured modifying rather than abolishing the scheme. In the White Paper, we concluded that our aims could be met by modifications rather than by abolition, provided it went hand in hand with realistic encouragement to extend occupational and personal pension coverage. The proposals embodied in clauses 9, 17 and 18 will reduce the emerging costs of SERPS by half in 2033, bringing it down to about £12·5 billion. The commitment for future contributors will be set at a more acceptable level. We are cutting out—the hon. Member for Derby, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe touched on this — some of the more extravagant features of the scheme while still providing a worthwhile second pension.

The proposals in clause 17 should cut more than £10 billion from the emerging cost of SERPS by 2033. Over half of that comes from the most extravagant and badly targeted feature of the scheme—the 20 best years rule. That was invented with worthy enough motives. It was intended to protect mothers and other people with years out of the work force. Its main effect would come from topping up the pensions of people in good occupational pension schemes, where the guaranteed minimum was always intended to be continued on lifetime average earnings. Most people who favoured modifying SERPS took the view that the 20 best years rule was overgenerous.

The hon. Lady asked whether we had considered increasing the 20 best years rule to an undisclosed future number of years—perhaps 30 years. We did consider extending the number of years, but to do so would simply reimpose—although perhaps not so badly—the poor targeting of the 20 best years. The beneficial results would apply without discrimination to everybody in SERPS so that, like the 20 best years, much of the cost would go on topping up good occupational schemes and there would also be all the anomalies which there would be with the 20 best years rule.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, who introduced amendment No. 58, spoke, as he always does, with considerable understanding of and compassion for the position of our fellow citizens who are unemployed. Before I turn to that aspect of his remarks, I thank my hon. Friend for his support for many of the forms of protection that are available for people in SERPS, although I understand his concern and the thrust of his speech that the unemployed are not included.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's desire to see unemployed people specifically covered by the special protection provided by clause 17(3) for people who would have benefited from the 20 best years rule. He is obviously worried that unemployed people may be worse off if they retire after 1998. As we made clear in Committee, the abolition of the best 20 years rule will not begin to have any effect on people's state pensions until the end of the century, by which time many of today's long-term unemployed will have retired.

We do not at present propose to extend to unemployed people the special protection that we intend to provide for people who spend time out of the work force because of disablement or for some other reason. Those contingencies tend to be much longer term and cover a larger proportion of the working life than periods of unemployment. It is right that we should make clear now our intention to protect people in those circumstances.

As for what my hon. Friend said about unemployment, bearing in mind the difficulties with predicting unemployment levels and patterns accurately, we feel that it is better to wait until nearer the time when the SERPS changes begin to take effect, when we, or our successors in government, will have a clearer measure of the extent of the problem if there should prove to be one.

I can reassure my hon. Friend that any regulations needed to extend the protection may be made at any time until 1999. As we explained in Committee, we have ensured that the power in clause 17 is sufficiently wide to enable protection to be extended to any group of people deemed to be deserving of special treatment without the need for new primary legislation. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that enabling power.

If protection is extended to unemployed people, the Department's records are held in such a way as to make it possible to identify anybody who is entitled to contribution credits for unemployment since 1978. I hope that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring.

The hon. Member for Derby, South spoke of part-time—

It being Nine o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [15 April] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 331.

Division No. 184][9.00 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Anderson, DonaldDeakins, Eric
Archer, Rt Hon PeterDewar, Donald
Ashby, DavidDixon, Donald
Ashton, JoeDormand, Jack
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Douglas, Dick
Bagier, Gordon A. T.Dubs, Alfred
Barnett, GuyDuffy, A. E. P.
Barron, KevinDunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Beckett, Mrs MargaretEadie, Alex
Bell, StuartEastham, Ken
Benn, Rt Hon TonyEdwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Bermingham, GeraldFatchett, Derek
Bidwell, SydneyFaulds, Andrew
Blair, AnthonyFields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Boothroyd, Miss BettyFisher, Mark
Boyes, RolandFlannery, Martin
Bray, Dr JeremyFoot, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)Forrester, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Foster, Derek
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)Foulkes, George
Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Buchan, NormanGarrett, W. E.
Caborn, RichardGeorge, Bruce
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Campbell, IanGodman, Dr Norman
Campbell-Savours, DaleGolding, John
Canavan, DennisGould, Bryan
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Gourlay, Harry
Clarke, ThomasHamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Clay, RobertHardy, Peter
Clelland, David GordonHeffer, Eric S.
Clwyd, Mrs AnnHogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Cohen, HarryHome Robertson, John
Coleman, DonaldHoyle, Douglas
Conlan, BernardHughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Corbett, RobinHughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Corbyn, JeremyJanner, Hon Greville
Craigen, J. M.John, Brynmor
Crowther, StanKilroy-Silk, Robert
Cunliffe, LawrenceLambie, David
Cunningham, Dr JohnLeadbitter, Ted
Dalyell, TarnLeighton, Ronald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Litherland, RobertRoberts, Allan (Bootle)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Lofthouse, GeoffreyRobertson, George
McCartney, HughRobinson, G. (Coventry NW)
McDonald, Dr OonaghRooker, J. W.
McGuire, MichaelRoss, Ernest (Dundee W)
McKay. Allen (Penistone)Rowlands, Ted
McKelvey, WilliamSedgemore, Brian
MacKenzie, Rt Hon GregorSheldon, Rt Hon R.
McNamara, KevinShore, Rt Hon Peter
McTaggart, RobertShort, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
McWilliam, JohnShort, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Maddén, MaxSilkin, Rt Hon J.
Marek, Dr JohnSkinner, Dennis
Marshall, David (Shettleston)Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Martin, MichaelSoley, Clive
Mason, Rt Hon RoySpearing, Nigel
Maxton, JohnStott, Roger
Meacher, MichaelStrang, Gavin
Michie, WilliamStraw, Jack
Mikardo, IanThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Millan, Rt Hon BruceThomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Oakes, Rt Hon GordonTinn, James
O'Neill, MartinTorney, Tom
Orme, Rt Hon StanleyWardell, Gareth (Gower)
Park, GeorgeWareing, Robert
Parry, RobertWelsh, Michael
Patchett, TerryWhite, James
Pavitt, LaurieWigley, Dafydd
Pendry, TomWilliams, Rt Hon A.
Pike, PeterWilson, Gordon
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)Winnick, David
Prescott, JohnWoodall, Alec
Radice, GilesYoung, David (Bolton SE)
Randall, Stuart
Raynsford, NickTellers for the Ayes:
Redmond, MartinMr. Frank Haynes and Mr. James Hamilton.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Richardson, Ms Jo
NOES
Aitken, JonathanBudgen, Nick
Alexander, RichardBurt, Alistair
Alison, Rt Hon MichaelButcher, John
Amess, DavidButler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Ancram, MichaelButterfill, John
Arnold, TomCarlisle, John (Luton N)
Ashby, DavidCarlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Carttiss, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)Cash, William
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Baldry, TonyChannon, Rt Hon Paul
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Chapman, Sydney
Batiste, SpencerChope, Christopher
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyChurchill, W. S.
Bendall, VivianClark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Benyon, WilliamClark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Best, KeithClegg, Sir Walter
Bevan, David GilroyCockeram, Eric
Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnColvin, Michael
Blackburn, JohnCoombs, Simon
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterCope, John
Body, Sir RichardCormack, Patrick
Bonsor, Sir NicholasCorrie, John
Bottomley, PeterCouchman, James
Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaCranborne, Viscount
Bowden, Gerald (Duiwich)Crouch, David
Boyson, Dr RhodesCurrie, Mrs Edwina
Brandon-Bravo, MartinDickens, Geoffrey
Brinton, TimDicks, Terry
Brittan, Rt Hon LeonDorrell, Stephen
Brooke, Hon PeterDover, Den
Browne, Johndu Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Bruinvels, PeterDurant, Tony
Bryan, Sir PaulDykes, Hugh
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Buck, Sir AntonyEggar, Tim
Emery, Sir PeterKershaw, Sir Anthony
Evennett, DavidKey, Robert
Eyre, Sir ReginaldKing, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Fairbairn, NicholasKnight, Greg (Derby N)
Fallon, MichaelKnight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Farr, Sir JohnKnowles, Michael
Favell, AnthonyKnox, David
Fenner, Mrs PeggyLamont, Norman
Finsberg, Sir GeoffreyLang, Ian
Fletcher, AlexanderLatham, Michael
Fookes, Miss JanetLawler, Geoffrey
Forman, NigelLawrence, Ivan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)Lee, John (Pendle)
Forth, EricLennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fowler, Rt Hon NormanLester, Jim
Fox, MarcusLewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Franks, CecilLightbown, David
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)Lilley, Peter
Freeman, RogerLloyd, Ian (Havant)
Fry, PeterLloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Galley, RoyLord, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)Lyell, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, TristanMcCrindle, Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir IanMcCurley, Mrs Anna
Glyn, Dr AlanMacfarlane, Neil
Goodhart, Sir PhilipMacGregor, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, AlastairMacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Gorst, JohnMaclean, David John
Gow, IanMcLoughlin, Patrick
Gower, Sir RaymondMcNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Grant, Sir AnthonyMcNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Gregory, ConalMcQuarrie, Albert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)Madel, David
Grist, IanMajor, John
Grylls, MichaelMalins, Humfrey
Gummer, Rt Hon John SMalone, Gerald
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)Maples, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)Marland, Paul
Hampson, Dr KeithMarlow, Antony
Hanley, JeremyMarshall, Michael (Arundel)
Hannam, JohnMates, Michael
Hargreaves, KennethMaude, Hon Francis
Harris, DavidMawhinney, Dr Brian
Harvey, RobertMaxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Havers, Rt Hon Sir MichaelMayhew, Sir Patrick
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)Mellor, David
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)Merchant, Piers
Hawksley, WarrenMiller, Hal (B'grove)
Hayes, J.Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon BarneyMiscampbell, Norman
Heathcoat-Amory, DavidMitchell, David (Hants NW)
Heddle, JohnMoate, Roger
Hickmet, RichardMonro, Sir Hector
Hicks, RobertMontgomery, Sir Fergus
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Hill, JamesMorrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Hind, KennethMorrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Hirst, MichaelMoynihan, Hon C.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Murphy, Christopher
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)Neale, Gerrard
Holt, RichardNeedham, Richard
Hordern, Sir PeterNelson, Anthony
Howard, MichaelNeubert, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)Newton, Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)Nicholls, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)Normanton, Tom
Hubbard-Miles, PeterOnslow, Cranley
Hunt, David (Wirral W)Oppenheim, Phillip
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Hunter, AndrewOsborn, Sir John
Hurd, Rt Hon DouglasOttaway, Richard
Jackson, RobertPage, Sir John (Harrow W)
Jessel, TobyPage, Richard (Herts SW)
Johnson Smith, Sir GeoffreyParkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)Pattie, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon MichaelPawsey, James
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElainePercival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Pollock, AlexanderStokes, John
Porter, BarryStradling Thomas, Sir John
Portillo, MichaelSumberg, David
Powell, William (Corby)Taylor, John (Solihull)
Powley, JohnTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Prentice, Rt Hon RegTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Price, Sir DavidTemple-Morris, Peter
Proctor, K. HarveyThomas, Rt Hon Peter
Pym, Rt Hon FrancisThompson, Donald (Calder V)
Raffan, KeithThompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Raison, Rt Hon TimothyThorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Rathbone, TimThurnham, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rhys Williams, Sir BrandonTownsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Ridley, Rt Hon NicholasTracey, Richard
Rippon, Rt Hon GeoffreyTrippier, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)Trotter, Neville
Rossi, Sir HughTwinn, Dr Ian
Rost, Petervan Straubenzee, Sir W.
Rowe, AndrewVaughan, Sir Gerard
Rumbold, Mrs AngelaViggers, Peter
Ryder, RichardWaddington, David
Sackville, Hon ThomasWakeham, Rt Hon John
Sainsbury, Hon TimothyWaldegrave, Hon William
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Sayeed, JonathanWaller, Gary
Scott, NicholasWalters, Dennis
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)Ward, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Shelton, William (Streatham)Warren, Kenneth
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)Watson, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)Watts, John
Shields, Mrs ElizabethWells, Bowen (Hertford)
Silvester, FredWells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Sims, RogerWheeler, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)Whitfield, John
Soames, Hon NicholasWhitney, Raymond
Speed, KeithWiggin, Jerry
Speller, TonyWilkinson, John
Spencer, DerekWinterton, Mrs Ann
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)Winterton, Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)Wolfson, Mark
Squire, RobinWood, Timothy
Stanbrook, IvorWoodcock, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon JohnYeo, Tim
Steen, AnthonyYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Stern, MichaelYounger, Rt Hon George
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)Tellers for the Noes:
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Question accordingly negatived.