Contribution Conditions for Short-Term Benefits

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill – in the House of Commons at 6:45 pm on 13th January 1988.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Margaret Beckett Margaret Beckett Shadow Minister (Social Security) 6:45 pm, 13th January 1988

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 27, at end insert— '(2A) For the purpose of determining entitlement to unemployment benefit, contributions credited in the last two years before the beginning of the relevant benefit year by virtue of the receipt of invalid care allowance shall be treated as if they had been paid.' Clause 5 tightens the conditions entitling someone to draw unemployment benefit should he be unfortunate enough to lose his unemployment. In that context, the amendment draws attention to the position of carers. Most hon. Members will know that in recent months the Government have given themselves their usual generous meed of self-praise for their generosity in accepting the ruling of the European Court and extending the entitlement of invalid care allowance. Opposition Members welcome that. We are only sorry that the Government did not feel able to do it earlier than they were compelled to. Let us give credit where credit is due: the Government gave entitlement to the invalid care allowance.

The Minister will be aware, and hon. Members may have become aware in recent months, that for many who are entitled to invalid care allowance there is little financial difference if the person for whom they are caring is already drawing a dependant's addition to an invalidity benefit on their behalf. Groups such as the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants have emphasised that it is still beneficial for married women who have become entitled to invalid care allowances, to which they were not entitled in the past, to claim that allowance because it gives them an entitlement to credits towards their national insurance contributions and a further entitlement to benefits as of right. It is partly a matter of independence, and therefore it is to be commended on those grounds, even to those who did not derive any financial benefit from the award of the invalid care allowance, although some did derive financial benefit.

At the time the addition was made, when the Government were telling us how good they were being, I doubt whether many people realised that within a short period the Government would tighten the conditions for contributions that would entitle people to unemployment and sickness benefits in a way that would particularly hit carers. The national council has drawn attention to its concern about this and has pointed out that when a dependent person dies carers are in a particularly vulnerable state. It is exactly at that time that they are likely most to need their entitlement to unemployment or sickness benefit, when they are struggling to cope with what is bound to be a substantial readjustment to their lives, because invalid care allowances are paid only to people who are fully committed to caring. The association says: such a move would be entirely opposed to the Government's expressed commitment to recognising the needs of informal carers and to supporting them. We see it as a most retrograde step. The example has been given of someone who might have looked after an elderly and severely disabled relative, perhaps for 10 years, and by the time the relative dies the carer is in her middle years, in her forties or fifties, and is not likely to find it easy to get a job straight away, even if she wished to do so. Under the Bill such a person will be refused the right of unemployment benefit because she will not have been able to work over the past few years and will have not paid, rather than been credited with, contributions.

This is unfortunate because, quite apart from contradicting many of the things that the Government have said about carers and their commitment to them, it contradicts the origin of the award of invalid care allowance. The "Law of Social Security", the 1982 edition, refers to the way in which invalid care allowance should be paid, and to its origin. It points out that a household in which someone who is severely disabled needs attention may suffer financial hardship, not only because of the needs of the invalid, but because of the sacrifices made by other members of the household to look after the invalid. A study carried out by Sainsbury in 1970 showed that two thirds of disabled people needing care received it from a relative, and this very often interfered with the relative's earning capacity.

Apart from the fact that it is socially just to compensate people who are prepared to take that step, it makes a good deal of economic sense. If a person is able to live in the community, cared for by a relative, the state saves a substantial amount of money. If such a person needs hospital care, or must go into a home, the cost to the community is considerable. It was estimated that 11,500 people were in receipt of supplementary benefit mainly because they had left employment to care for an elderly or disabled relative.

The issue about which the Government were so pleased with themselves—the award of invalid care allowance to married women — confirms that, although we might deplore the discrimination involved in the assumption, it was intended for people who had given up paid work to become unpaid carers. The crude assumption made in excluding married women from the benefit, which was introduced basically for reasons of economy, was that married women tended not to be in the employment market. I hope that all hon. Members will deplore such reasoning today, but it confirms that the basis of the invalid care allowance is to compensate or assist people who have given up paid work to do something of great value to society and to those for whom they care.

In Committee, the Under-Secretary said: Of course it is recognised that people have left paid employment to care for a relative or friend. That is why they receive invalid care allowance in the first place. It is an income maintenance benefit that is paid specifically and precisely because it is recognised that people are giving up employment to perform this valuable task."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 December 1987; c. 412.] In order to qualify for invalid care allowance the person must not only spend at least 35 hours a week as a carer, but must not be gainfully employed. There is a tough earnings rule to supplement that. One can earn only 12 a week while receiving invalid care allowance, and that limit has been unchanged since 1982. It is clear that invalid care allowance is designed for people who give up paid work to undertake the unpaid but very demanding task of caring for someone who is severely disabled. They are not allowed even to continue in part-time employment to maintain their toehold in the employment market. By definition, they are full-time carers.

The Government are now saying, in particular to women — because as carers women are the greatest number affected by the clause—who may have worked full time throughout their adult lives, first in paid employment and then in unpaid employment as carers, that they cannot claim unemployment benefit because their contributions record shows that they are not really in the labour market. That is insulting and is totally unrelated to the position. Not only is a carer working, but, by the Minister's definition, a carer who is claiming invalid care allowance is working full time in the role of caring. It is hard to think of another occupation in which one must work full time to qualify for unemployment benefit.

The proposed amendment is not a concession to carers. It is simply an act of justice and logic. I compare the position of two carers, one who is part time and paid, and the other who is full time and receiving only invalid care allowance. They could be doing identical work, apart from the hours involved, but if their work as carers comes to an end and they have to look for other work, the paid carer, who is not working full time in the occupation, may be able to claim unemployment benefit. The unpaid carer, whose contribution to society and the person for whom she is caring is substantially more, may not be entitled, if the Bill goes through, to unemployment or sickness benefit. We are addressing ourselves particularly to unemployment benefit in the amendment, because we believe that that is the more unjust of the two deprivations, precisely because of the relationship between invalid care allowance and paid work.

We asked the Minister about the numbers who would be affected. As I recall, he suggested that about 20,000 people now lose invalid care allowance entitlement each year, and approximately 11,000 of them might be able to claim unemployment benefit. That suggests that vast sums of money are not involved. However, a very important principle is involved and it is a principle which, in other circumstances, the Government have upheld.

7 pm

Photo of Ms Audrey Wise Ms Audrey Wise , Preston

I want briefly to reinforce the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on the fact that these people—mainly women—are actually working and making a contribution to the economy.

In Committee on 3 December 1987 the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security referred to caring as a "valuable task" at column 412. The House should focus on the word "valuable". The task performed by the carer is valuable for the person being cared for, but it is also a direct contribution to the economy. The carer is contributing to the economy just as much as someone in paid employment because, if she did not undertake caring, the person for whom she was caring would become a cost to the state.

It has been calculated, quite conservatively, that the value to the economy of the carers amounts to about £6 billion per annum. That is the contribution that carers are making to all of us and to the taxpayer. However, they are now to be deprived of a very small benefit entitlement—not a concession, an entitlement—that the Opposition never felt would be a matter for party division.

It is deplorable, foolish and short-sighted of the Government to take this attitude. Carers perform a valuable service and they are paying a heavy cost. When they are able to re-enter the labour market, usually when they are bereaved and not at their best, they at present have a small cushion because they can claim unemployment benefit. They often find it difficult to obtain work precisely because they have been out of the paid employment market for a number of years. They have not been divorced from the economy; they simply have not been receiving wages for the work that they have carried out. They have suffered while their peers possibly have received promotion, added to their experience and so provided themselves with fresh skills to attract potential employers if they need to change jobs. The carer has fallen behind in that competition.

However, in the face of that, the Government are seeking now, when they tell us daily that the economy is in splendid shape, to tell carers, "Never mind the fact that you have made this valuable contribution and are a valuable part of our social fabric. We will strip you of this entitlement." When we asked Committee what a carer should do if that happened, the Minister said that if a carer were entitled, he or she could claim income support. The Government are driving carers back to a means-tested benefit, thus taking away from them money and, as many carers would believe, their dignity as people who have made a solid economic contribution to the country.

I have given up hoping that the Government will step back from these deplorable steps, but I hope that we will receive the maximum possible support for the amendment. The amendment provides no improvement for people; it simply seeks to maintain the status quo against those who wish to deprive carers of the potential entitlement of claiming unemployment benefit when they are again able to seek work, if that day ever comes. I commend the amendment to the House and hope that hon. Members will vote for it.

Photo of Mr Michael Portillo Mr Michael Portillo , Enfield, Southgate

I want to begin by addressing a point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) at the end of her remarks. The hon. Lady made a point about the dignity, or indignity, of claiming benefits, and she made the same point in Committee. I do not know why she appears to be pushing the idea that it is not dignified to claim benefits to which one is entitled. I thought that that was a proposition that she occasionally accused Conservative Members of peddling. Of course, it is not true to say that we peddle that proposition. For her to say that there is any stigma or indignity for people without other resources to claim state benefits to which they are entitled is an extraordinary assertion.

Photo of Ms Audrey Wise Ms Audrey Wise , Preston

The indignity lies in the fact that there is an encroachment on the privacy of the person concerned. There is no indignity in making the claim, but people who claim supplementary benefit — or income support, as it will be—feel in a different position vis-a-vis the state. They are compelled to show their total financial position, and they see that as an indignity. They want a benefit that operates as if they had continued to make contributions. That is a simple matter.

Photo of Mr Michael Portillo Mr Michael Portillo , Enfield, Southgate

Very well; we agree that there is no indignity as such in applying for those benefits. We also agree that people who cease to qualify for invalid care allowance will be entitled to income support if they have no other means. That enables me to reject any suggestion that the Government do not recognise the position of carers. We recognise their position three times over. First, we recognise their position, because ICA is available during the time that people are caring and it is an income support benefit. Secondly, we recognise their position because during the time that they receive ICA they continue to receive credits for the long-term benefits. That should not be underestimated because it gives credits towards entitlement for retirement pension, widow's pension, sickness benefit and invalidity benefit. I remind the House that retirement pension can be awarded on the basis of a single year's paid contribution, and the rest of the entitlement can be made up of credits. Thirdly, we recognise their position because if someone coming off ICA finds himself or herself unable to claim unemployment benefit and without resources, income support is available.

I will consider the amendment now and explain to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that the amendment goes much further than she intended because it would enable all those who have received ICA to draw unemployment benefit without having paid any national insurance contributions at any time. I suspect that the hon. Lady wanted to revert to the present position with regard to ICA. Certainly the amendment would run contrary to our intentions.

We have argued that unemployment benefit is intended to provide a measure of compensation for people who normally work for an employer when they experience short periods of unemployment. I have thought carefully about the clause and this provision. I do not believe that one can say that someone who has been caring for a relative or another person for a number of years is in a position analogous to someone who has recently been in employment and dependent upon the income from that employment for maintenance.

The position is different. Our new contribution conditions are intended to reinforce the link between paid employment and payment of national insurance contributions. In doing so, we intend to establish equity in the treatment of all potential claimants. I raised that problem in Committee with the hon. Members for Derby, South and for Preston. Matters of equity arise if, in the case of ICA, we say that credits should count as paid contributions.

I wish to add to my comments in Committee, because I have been anxious to understand the practical consequences of the clause. I wish to put to the House and, in particular, to the hon. Members for Derby, South and for Preston, some practical examples of what the clause means. In each case, I have considered somebody who might give up work in November 1988 to go and care for somebody. After a period, that person may cease to care—in the sad event, for example, of the death of the person for whom they have been caring—and seek to return to employment. In each case, I am assuming that the person has a full record of contributions until November 1988. If that person wished to return to employment in 1989 and were seeking a job, there would be no difficulty in his claiming unemployment benefit, because the contribution record depends on the tax years 1986–87 and 1987–88, both of which are prior to the start of the ICA award.

If the person was away caring for two years from November 1988, he would cease to draw ICA from November 1990 and seek to claim unemployment benefit. Again, the claim would depend on the tax years 1987–88 and 1988–89. Unemployment benefit would be payable because the person was working for the whole of 1987–88 and would have paid the necessary contributions in that year and would have ICA credit after that period.

If a person gave up work in November 1988 and was caring for three years, he or she would cease to draw ICA in November 1991 and try to claim unemployment benefit. The claim would depend on the contribution record in 1988–89 and 1989–90. In that case, the person would have been working between April 1988 and November 1988 and so would have paid contributions on 25 times the lower earnings level during that period. Again, the claim to unemployment benefit would succeed, based on those 25 contributions at the lower earnings level and on the ICA credits for the balance of the year and in 1989–90.

As I do not wish to mislead anybody, I admit that, if I took my example for another year, the claim to unemployment benefit would fail. However, I have shown that it is still possible for someone out of employment and caring for a period of up to three years to qualify for unemployment benefit. The average length of award of ICA is between 18 and 28 months, depending on the period that we consider. It varies a little from time to time. The average, therefore tends to be quite a short period. Of course, some people care for very long periods, but, equally, if the average is between 18 and 28 months, many people receive ICA for only a very short period.

Long-term carers will not be able to claim unemployment benefit if they exceed the period in the examples that I have quoted, but those people have not depended recently on income from employment. They have drawn ICA for a considerable period, but they are not neglected, and, if they have to be supported by the state, income support is available to them.

I hope that I have helped to put the measure into perspective and explained why I have concluded that, reluctantly, I cannot accept the amendment or even a different version which would single out ICA claimants so that credits would be treated as if they were paid contributions.

Photo of Margaret Beckett Margaret Beckett Shadow Minister (Social Security) 7:15 pm, 13th January 1988

I wish to respond briefly to two points raised by the Minister. First, he believes that the Bill will reinforce the link between paid work and unemployment benefit. He does not wish to single out those who receive ICA in respect of their treatment regarding credits, but, as he has acknowledged, ICA is a replacement for paid work. He has introduced a new definition into the approach to ICA—that it is not a replacement for paid work, but a replacement for paid work which has recently been left. Presumably, therefore, there is a period during which it is considered that ICA is a replacement for paid work but, after that, it becomes an end in itself.

Secondly, the Minister sought to press the case that it does not matter that the Government are doing this, because only very few people will lose and the vast majority of carers are entitled to ICA only for an average of 18 months to 28 months. His examples supported his argument, although he conceded that they would not have supported him so favourably if he had chosen a different year. He argues that very few people will be affected and that most people will not find themselves in a different position. If that is so, there is no harm in protecting those few people who, in many cases, left paid work before the Minister redefined ICA as a replacement for paid work. He admitted that the cost to the Government of improving this disadvantageous clause would be extremely slight. He has therefore encouraged me to press our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 254.

Division No. 133][7.16 pm
AYES
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Allen, GrahamArmstrong, Ms Hilary
Alton, DavidAshdown, Paddy
Anderson, DonaldAshley, Rt Hon Jack
Ashton, JoeHeffer, Eric S.
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Hinchliffe, David
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Barron, KevinHolland, Stuart
Battle, JohnHome Robertson, John
Beckett, MargaretHood, James
Beggs, RoyHowell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Bell, StuartHowells, Geraint
Benn, Rt Hon TonyHoyle, Doug
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Bermingham, GeraldHughes, Roy (Newport E)
Bidwell, SydneyHume, John
Blair, TonyIllsley, Eric
Blunkett, DavidIngram, Adam
Boateng, PaulJanner, Greville
Boyes, RolandJohn, Brynmor
Bradley, KeithJones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Buchan, NormanKirkwood, Archy
Buckley, GeorgeLambie, David
Caborn, RichardLamond, James
Callaghan, JimLeadbitter, Ted
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)Leighton, Ron
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.Lewis, Terry
Canavan, DennisLitherland, Robert
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)Livingstone, Ken
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)Livsey, Richard
Clay, BobLofthouse, Geoffrey
Clelland, DavidMcAllion, John
Clwyd, Mrs AnnMcAvoy, Tom
Cohen, HarryMcCartney, Ian
Coleman, DonaldMacdonald, Calum
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)McFall, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)McGrady, E. K.
Corbett, RobinMcKay, Allen (Penistone)
Corbyn, JeremyMcKelvey, William
Cousins, JimMcLeish, Henry
Cox, TomMcNamara, Kevin
Crowther, StanMcTaggart, Bob
Cryer, BobMcWilliam, John
Cummings, J.Madden, Max
Cunliffe, LawrenceMahon, Mrs Alice
Cunningham, Dr JohnMallon, Seamus
Dalyell, TamMarek, Dr John
Darling, AlastairMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Dewar, DonaldMartlew, Eric
Dixon, DonMaxton, John
Dobson, FrankMeacher, Michael
Douglas, DickMichael, Alun
Dunnachie, JamesMichie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs GwynethMichie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Fearn, RonaldMolyneaux, Rt Hon James
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)Morgan, Rhodri
Flannery, MartinMorley, Elliott
Flynn, PaulMorris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Fraser, JohnMowlam, Marjorie
Fyfe, Mrs MariaMullin, Chris
Galbraith, SamuelMurphy, Paul
Garrett, John (Norwich South)Nellist, Dave
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
George, BruceO'Brien, William
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnO'Neill, Martin
Godman, Dr Norman A.Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Gordon, Ms MildredPatchett, Terry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)Pendry, Tom
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)Pike, Peter
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Grocott, BrucePrescott, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyPrimarolo, Ms Dawn
Haynes, FrankQuin, Ms Joyce
Healey, Rt Hon DenisRadice, Giles
Randall, StuartTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Rees, Rt Hon MerlynTaylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Reid, JohnTaylor, Matthew (Truro)
Richardson, Ms JoThomas, Dafydd Elis
Robertson, GeorgeThompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Robinson, GeoffreyTurner, Dennis
Rogers, AllanVaz, Keith
Rooker, JeffWall, Pat
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)Wareing, Robert N.
Rowlands, TedWelsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Sheldon, Rt Hon RobertWigley, Dafydd
Shore, Rt Hon PeterWilliams, Rt Hon A. J.
Short, ClareWilliams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Skinner, DennisWinnick, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)Wise, Mrs Audrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)Worthington, Anthony
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)Wray, James
Snape, PeterYoung, David (Bolton SE)
Soley, Clive
Spearing, NigelTellers for the Ayes:
Steinberg, GeraldMr. Ken Eastham and
Stott, RogerMrs. Llin Golding.
Strang, Gavin
NOES
Allason, RupertDay, Stephen
Amess, DavidDicks, Terry
Amos, AlanDorrell, Stephen
Arbuthnot, JamesDouglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)Dykes, Hugh
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Atkins, RobertFallon, Michael
Atkinson, DavidFookes, Miss Janet
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)Forman, Nigel
Baldry, TonyForsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Fox, Sir Marcus
Batiste, SpencerGale, Roger
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyGarel-Jones, Tristan
Bendall, VivianGill, Christopher
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Benyon, W.Glyn, Dr Alan
Bevan, David GilroyGoodlad, Alastair
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnGoodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Blackburn, Dr John G.Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Body, Sir RichardGow, Ian
Boscawen, Hon RobertGower, Sir Raymond
Bottomley, PeterGrant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaGreenway, Harry (Eating N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Greenway, John (Rydale)
Bowis, JohnGregory, Conal
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir RhodesGriffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir BernardGrist, Ian
Brandon-Bravo, MartinGround, Patrick
Brazier, JulianHamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Brittan, Rt Hon LeonHannam, John
Brooke, Rt Hon PeterHargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Browne, John (Winchester)Harris, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)Hawkins, Christopher
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon AlickHayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Buck, Sir AntonyHeathcoat-Amory, David
Burns, SimonHeddle, John
Burt, AlistairHeseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, ChrisHicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Butterfill, JohnHicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Carrington, MatthewHogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Carttiss, MichaelHolt, Richard
Cash, WilliamHordern, Sir Peter
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs LyndaHoward, Michael
Chapman, SydneyHowarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Churchill, MrHowell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Couchman, JamesHurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Currie, Mrs EdwinaIrvine, Michael
Curry, DavidJack, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)Jackson, Robert
Janman, TimothyRaffan, Keith
Jessel, TobyRaison, Rt Hon Timothy
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Renton, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)Rhodes James, Robert
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRiddick, Graham
Key, RobertRidley, Rt Hon Nicholas
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Kirkhope, TimothyRoe, Mrs Marion
Knapman, RogerRost, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)Rowe, Andrew
Knowles, MichaelRumbold, Mrs Angela
Knox, DavidRyder, Richard
Lamont, Rt Hon NormanSackville, Hon Tom
Lang, IanSainsbury, Hon Tim
Latham, MichaelSayeed, Jonathan
Lawrence, IvanScott, Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)Shaw, David (Dover)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lennox-Boyd, Hon MarkShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Lilley, PeterSims, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lord, MichaelSoames, Hon Nicholas
Luce, Rt Hon RichardSpeed, Keith
Lyell, Sir NicholasSpicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Macfarlane, Sir NeilSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)Squire, Robin
Maclean, DavidSteen, Anthony
McLoughlin, PatrickStern, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)Stevens, Lewis
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Madel, DavidStewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Major, Rt Hon JohnSumberg, David
Malins, HumfreySummerson, Hugo
Maples, JohnTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Marland, PaulTaylor, John M (Solihull)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mawhinney, Dr BrianThornton, Malcolm
Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinThurnham, Peter
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir PatrickTracey, Richard
Mellor, DavidTredinnick, David
Meyer, Sir AnthonyTrippier, David
Miller, HalTrotter, Neville
Mills, IainTwinn, Dr Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)Viggers, Peter
Monro, Sir HectorWaddington, Rt Hon David
Montgomery, Sir FergusWakeham, Rt Hon John
Moore, Rt Hon JohnWaldegrave, Hon William
Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Moss, MalcolmWaller, Gary
Moynihan, Hon C.Ward, John
Mudd, DavidWardle, C. (Bexhill)
Neale, GerrardWarren, Kenneth
Nelson, AnthonyWatts, John
Neubert, MichaelWells, Bowen
Newton, Rt Hon TonyWheeler, John
Nicholls, PatrickWiddecombe, Miss Ann
Nicholson, David (Taunton)Wilkinson, John
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)Wilshire, David
Onslow, Rt Hon CranleyWinterton, Mrs Ann
Oppenheim, PhillipWinterton, Nicholas
Page, RichardWolfson, Mark
Paice, JamesWood, Timothy
Patnick, IrvineWoodcock, Mike
Patten, Chris (Bath)Yeo, Tim
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Porter, David (Waveney)Tellers for the Noes:
Portillo, MichaelMr. David Lightbown and
Powell, William (Corby)Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.