I beg to move amendment No. 16, in line 37, after '55', insert
'and in subsection (1) after "55" there shall be inserted the words "and has retired from regular employment".'.
With this, we shall take amendment No. 17, in page 6, line 39, at end insert—
'(c) in subsection (1), after "55" there shall be inserted the words "other than a person who has retired from the police service, the fire service, or any other prescribed occupation at the normal retirement age for that occupation".'.
The amendments raise the issue of the deprivation that will be suffered by those who begin to draw occupational pension at the age of 55 as a result of the offset of that occupational pension against their entitlement to unemployment benefit.
Clearly, all those who take early retirement—whether voluntarily or under a degree of pressure — will be affected. One of the amendments deals with the general group of people who may be in a position to draw occupational pensions and may, indeed, be forced into that position. The second deals with specific groups in the public service the police and fire services. Many such people may be liable, as part of contractual understandings and conditions of employment, to retire at 55.
Hon. Members will no doubt recall that a similar provision now exists for the offsetting of occupational pensions over the value of £35 a week against unemployment benefit entitlement for those over 60. They may also be aware that, whether we agree with it or not, that provision is part of a slightly different package of benefit provisions. Those over 60, as matters now stand, can if need be draw the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. They do not have to sign on as being available for work: they are not subject to the same degree of pressure in that regard as younger people.
Whatever we think of that provision, there has been some recognition that the Government were arguing that if someone was drawing part or all of his occupational pension he was acknowledging that he had retired. They have taken some steps towards recognising the logic of their decision by treating that person in the same way, in some respects, as others who have retired and are beyond the age of compulsory retirement. However, those compensating arguments do not apply if the offset of occupational pension against unemployment benefit is to apply from the age of 55, as is proposed in the Bill.
The provision is in many ways inconsistent with action that the Government have taken in the past. The Minister may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) reminded us in Committee that those forced into, or voluntarily taking, early retirement or redundancy were, by specific guidance and decisions from the Government, ruled not to have made themselves voluntarily unemployed, so that they were not penalised for taking an action that might be helpful to society as a whole — for example, where large-scale redundancies were threatened — although they would suffer the penalty of abatement of their pension against unemployment benefit. That provision also will not apply to those who are placed in such a position at 55.
That seems to imply that the Government have been saying to those over 60 who are in such a position that they are in effect retired. Now, in the Bill, the Government are telling people over 55 that if they are out of the employment market, and if, because of the level of their income, they begin to draw their occupational pension, they, too, are in effect retired.
In debating various aspects of the Bill, we have seen that the DHSS and the Department of Employment do not seem to be wholly in touch with each other. I suppose that it is just possible that it has not been in the forefront of the consciousness of Ministers at the DHSS that the Employment Gazette for May 1987 showed that, in 1986, although 53·4 per cent. of men aged 60 to 64 were economically active, 80·3 per cent. of men aged 55 to 59 were economically active. That presumably means not only that the vast majority of those aged 55 to 59 are fortunate enough to be economically active, but that it is much less likely that men of those years would regard themselves as retired.
As has been argued this evening in a different context, a variety of tests are available to the Government if they feel that someone is drawing benefit and is not really available for work, or seeking it. Not only are those tests available in law, but both the tests and their interpretation have been significantly tightened in recent years. It is not the case that there is no recourse open to the Government to deal with an individual who is judged with good cause to have been retired from the age of 55. However, the Government are saying that everyone over 55 who begins to draw occupational pension has retired.
People who find themselves in that position already face a financial penalty. There is the faint possibility—I believe that the Minister referred to it in Committee—that some people in fairly senior positions are fortunate enough to work for companies that are prepared to make special provision for them if they retire at 55. They may have been pushed out in the wake of some takeover, for instance. Such companies may be prepared to ensure that, although such employees take their pensions early, they do not suffer a financial penalty for so doing.
However, the vast majority of those who find themselves in that position at the age of 55 will receive no compensation from their employers for having to take an actuarially reduced pension. They are already facing a penalty, and, at 55, they are facing a greater loss than someone who is in the same position at 60. Adding insult to the injury of having to lose out on pension entitlement, the Government have decided that, because those people are drawing pension, they must not be entitled to unemployment benefit.
Many people in employment who find themselves in such circumstances will be pushed out of the labour market by the present economic climate. Their local community, and perhaps even their trade union representatives, may have encouraged them to take redundancy or early retirement if their employer requires a large number of redundancies, rather than putting younger men or women in that position. The case was cited to us of members of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants in the Devonport dockyard who may find themselves forced out of the labour market in the comparatively near future.
A young man of 26 or so, forced to take retirement, might receive only about 10 months' worth of compensation, and would therefore be in no position to keep his wife and family in reasonable circumstances, or with anything like the income that they had previously enjoyed. The IPCS, like many others in its circumstances — including employers — is encouraging its older members to take retirement. Although they will suffer some penalty in the form of actuarial reduction of benefit, they will be in rather better circumstances than the younger people involved.
The IPCS and various others who have written to us have pointed out that, because of the actuarial reduction in itself, and also because not many pension schemes are as good as those of the police and fire services—I shall deal with public service schemes in a moment·people may begin to draw occupational pensions not because they consider that they have retired or wish to have retired, but because their income would otherwise be so low that they would suffer substantial difficulties. They take the gamble of the actuarial reduction, and go for the short-term help of drawing occupational pension rather earlier. It seems entirely wrong that people in those circumstances should lose their right to unemployment benefit, for which they may have contributed for 40 years. The Government are proposing to remove that right suddenly.
The Minister may have an answer to my next question tonight—he did not in Committee. Do the Government intend to compel these people to be covered by the restart scheme and to take part in interviews during which they are questioned about their availability for work? The Department of Employment is as concerned about such people as the DHSS.
The specific case concerns the police and fire services. The vast majority of people in those services are expected to retire by 55. The Minister said in Committee that people know that when they enter those occupations. That is true, but it is equally true that, when they take up their job, they know that they pay heavy pension contributions into their occupational pension scheme while making national insurance contributions like the rest of us. In return for those contributions, they know that they will receive entitlement to an occupational pension from the age of 55, because that is the age at which society has decided they ought to consider retiring because of the nature of their occupation. It is in society's interests that they take early retirement. Such people will also have the expectation that they will be entitled to unemployment benefit should they need it when they have left their initial employment.
It is ridiculous for the Minister to suggest that people in the police and fire services know the conditions of their contract. Their contract is not yet being breached. They remain forced to retire at 55 and entitled to draw pensions for which they have contributed heavily during their working lives. The contract with the state, however, is being breached in that their contributions towards unemployment benefit will no longer entitle them to that benefit should they begin to draw more than £35 in occupational pension. Moreover, that sum has not been increased for many years, so it represents a much smaller pension than when the provision was introduced. Furthermore, the provision was introduced for people aged 60 or more.
We have found it hard to understand why the Government have picked on the age of 55. The Minister was able to assist us in Committee. He gave us the reason with admirable clarity. He said:
it was an arbitrary line to take a step in the direction of concentrating help that was available.
Perhaps even more interesting, he said:
I acknowledge that it has not gone the whole way". — [Official Report Standing Committee E; 8 December 1987, c. 456.]
I am not sure what that means. I suspect that it means that the Government thought that they might get away with choosing the age of 55. They may even have considered that at no age should people be entitled to draw unemployment benefit should they unfortunately have to draw against their occupational pension. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he has in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 55 has been chosen arbitrarily. It is none the better for that.
It was made plain to the Committee that policemen or fire fighters who accept their contract of employment, pay their contributions and retire, draw on their occupational pension and are fortunate enough now to be in work, but who lose their job after January 1989, may well lose their entitlement to unemployment benefit although they have continued to contribute to the national insurance scheme to pay for that entitlement.
There is no doubt that, if the Bill becomes law, people who retire from the police or fire services and become unemployed, usually involuntarily, will not be entitled to unemployment benefit for which they have paid, although they will be required, should they get employment, to make contributions which will not entitle them to a further penny of benefit. That is plainly ridiculous and unjust.
Although the Minister has leaned heavily on pension circumstances and the generosity of the scheme, I must remind him that the heavy contributions that have been made to pay for occupational pension benefits have been taken into account, as have the advantages of early retirement, in salary negotiations and negotiations on conditions.
I should like to demonstrate how strangely the Government are behaving. They tell us consistently—it is the Prime Minister's favourite exhortation — that people should save and take responsibility for themselves in retirement. We are told that we should not rely on the state. People who have gone into occupational pension schemes have done exactly what the Prime Minister has instructed, but such provision for retirement in early years is offset against unemployment benefit entitlement. If, however, people have not chosen, or have been forced into, an occupational pension scheme but have income from investments, they may well receive £35 a week or substantially more. That sum will be quite irrelevant to entitlement to unemployment benefit as long as national insurance contributions have been paid. Only investment by way of an occupational pension scheme, which is compulsory for people in the fire and police services, leads to this denial of rights.
The Minister did not make any case for this decision in Committee. He merely said that it was a means of saving more money. Off the top of my head, I recall that it was £65 million in a full year. That sum will be saved at the expense of 27,000 to 30,000 people who will lose out on their full or partial entitlement to unemployment benefit. That is quite unjustifiable, and it is why we thought it right to give the House an opportunity to reject part of these provisions.
As a matter of courtesy and honour, which the House would expect of me, I must declare that, for the past eight years, I have been privileged to represent the 90,000 members of the National Association of Retired Police Officers as parliamentary adviser.
Amendment No. 17 attracts my attention and support. We should consider the effect of clause 6 on one section of the community—retired police officers. We encourage suitably qualified people to take up a career in the police service. They give dedicated service to the public and then, at the age of 55, in certain cases, depending upon rank, by regulation they are made redundant. It is not their wish; it is the wish of Parliament by regulation that they cease their occupation.
How does that affect constituencies? After giving years of dedicated service as police officers these people find themselves made redundant at 55. I know that "made redundant" is an emotive expression, but they are pensioned off and have no further useful service to give in the constabulary. I can say with confidence that there is a retired police officer in every constituency in England and Wales, so, when we debate this clause, each and every one of us is debating something that affects our constituents.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was right to explain that these men and women pay a very heavy price for the pensions that they eventually hope to receive. In August 1982, when the House was in recess, by statutory instrument and without debate, their contributions were increased: the pension contribution of male police officers went up to 11 per cent., while that of female officers went up to 7 per cent. There was no debate and no consultation. Hon. Members can readily imagine that serving police officers at that time looked forward to receiving their pension but also felt that if there was little opportunity on retirement to obtain other work they had the safeguard of receiving benefit under the social security legislation. Many officers serving at that time retired in the full and certain hope that if they found difficulty the state, through the social security legislation, would be able to give benefit to them.
In addition, they had made a formal application to enhance their pensions, particularly in respect of another section of pensioners, police preserved-rate widows. That particular submission went before a committee of the police negotiating board and was fully negotiated, and an agreement was reached on 25 February 1986. The agreed settlement—it may surprise hon. Members, particularly in relation to pensions — was £1·41. I was shocked, staggered and disappointed beyond words when the Home Secretary refused to accept that negotiated settlement for pensioners. As a result of parliamentary questions, it transpired that it was the first occasion in history when a negotiated settlement on pensions had been overturned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
We now place a further burden on the men and women who have served us so well for many years in the police force. It is against that background that I find the amendment justified. It is full of knowledge and common sense. In a spirit of honesty, which I hope the House will always expect of me, I must say that I find great difficulty in going into the Government Lobby tonight on this amendment. I take no pleasure in this but I am placed in this position by the clause as it stands. That is why I am delighted to see amendment 17. However, it is with sadness that I take this stand.
But that is not enough. At this late stage of debate on the Bill I plead with the Minister, with all the sincerity that I can muster on behalf of more than 90,000 police pensioners, to pay heed to this amendment and the submissions of hon. Members and to say that he will review this matter with as much charity — no, not charity, because these people do not want charity, they want justice, and I happen to believe that their case is just. They retired, knowing what the rules were, and now, having retired, they find that the regulations will be changed by a decision of the House tonight—a decision which will affect every one of them. Worse than that, it will affect those police officers who are finding difficulty in getting employment. Therefore, I have a moral decision to take tonight: I must support retired police officers and others who also have public service occupational pensions. I ask yet again that the Minister will pay heed to this for the benefit of people who are really in need. I ask that he should he as considerate as I know he can be.
Both these amendments seek to exempt certain groups of people from the effect of the abatement provisions. The first amendment raises the general principle, and the second moves to specific groups, particularly police officers and firemen who retire at the normal retirement age for their occupation, and seeks to remove them from this provision.
I understand what is involved and, if I were in any danger of forgetting, it has been reinforced by the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), with his usual fairness and conviction, putting forward the case that we heard in Committee, particularly on behalf of police officers and the retired members of that profession with whose interests he is concerned. I know that there are strong opinions about this, and it has been borne in upon me in representations that I have had from the Police Federation, from hon. Members and most recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West. We are discussing here both the general point and that particular one, and I seek to address both of them.
On the general point, as we reminded ourselves in Committee, the idea of abatement of unemployment benefit against occupational pension is not new. It was first mooted by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in 1968. We knew that the then Labour Government produced regulations which would have provided for abatement from the age of 58, but were dissuaded from pursuing that course at the time. Early in their life, this Government provided for abatement from the age of 60. I well understand the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that there is a difference between 60 and 55, for the reasons that she set out in her speech.
In a sense, I do not rest my case on the principle that the hon. Lady enunciated. The principle that the House should bear in mind when it decides on the general matter is that the intention of unemployment benefit is to provide a measure of income replacement because of the unforeseen and unexpected contingency of unemployment for those normally reliant upon earnings from employment. We have to ask whether it should be a general principle that people who know that they will retire at a certain age, who have made provision for it, perhaps by enhanced contributions, and who have completed a career with an occupational pension available to them, should then have the opportunity to avail themselves of unemployment benefit that is within the national insurance scheme precisely for the purpose of providing protection against that unforeseeable and unexpected contingency of unemployment. That is the principle upon which I rest my belief that we are right to introduce abatement from age 55.
I acknowledge that the expectations of police officers and firemen will be changed by the introduction of the clause. That is why we have given plenty of notice of the proposal. Nobody will be affected before January 1989. Hopefully, it will be possible for people so to arrange their affairs as to minimise the effect of the change.
I return to the point that firemen, police officers and others in this position know from the outset that they will be required to retire at age 55. They know that they have been paying an enhanced contribution towards their pension to make that possible. They know that at that age they will have a generous pension. Particularly in the case of police officers, the training and experience that they have acquired in their profession will make them better fitted than many people of that age for other employment.
The pattern of the police service is that policemen tend to join the force at the age of 18 or 19. If they serve for the 30 years that would give them maximum pension entitlement of two thirds of their final salary, they would retire at age 48 or 49 and could still claim unemployment benefit for the year for which they would be entitled to it. Anyone who joined the police service up to the age of 24 and who served for 30 years would still be able to get the maximum pension entitlement, leave the service and draw unemployment benefit for 12 months.
My hon. Friend asked me to give fresh consideration to the matter. I have done so for a variety of reasons: because of the representations made by the Police Federation, because of points put to me in Committee, and because of my own background, being the son of a police officer and having spent quite a few years in Northern Ireland in close contact with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I promised in Committee that I would reflect further on the position of the police and of others in a similar situation, and I have done that.
I fully understand the case that is made. If those people have not actually been compelled to pay the contributions, it has been part of their conditions of service that they should pay contributions to a pension scheme during the whole of their service, and that they should pay national insurance contributions into the national insurance fund. Some may be compulsorily retired at age 55. Following the proposed change, their benefit will be liable for abatement. We are talking here about policemen and fire fighters. Such arguments could be put forward on behalf of other groups. The armed forces spring immediately to mind.
I said I would reconsider the point. I also made it plain in Committee that I saw real difficulties about making a special case for certain occupational groups. I know that it will disappoint my hon. Friend in particular, in view of the case that he put forward this evening, but I have to tell the House that, having weighed the arguments carefully, I do not believe that it would be wise to exempt policemen and firemen from the overall provisions of the scheme.
It might be worth my while pointing out to the House how the abatement scheme will work. Unemployment benefit is reduced by 10p for every 10p after which an occupational pension exceeds £35. That means that unemployment benefit will be extinguished only when a substantial pension is paid. In the case of a married man who receives the higher rate of unemployment benefit to take account of his wife, benefit will not be lost entirely until his occupational pension is £85·90 a week or more. A single man will continue to receive benefit unless his occupational pension is £66·50 a week or more.
I reiterate that the proposed change is to reduce the age at which the provision takes effect, from 60 to 55. I believe that it can be justified in part by the changing pattern of retirement. More and more people are retiring at 55. Indeed, some are retiring earlier. What is more, we are not only reflecting that pattern, but the move from 60 to 55 is in tune with the Government's determination to seek to concentrate the finite resources that are available —increased resources may become available — within the social security system more sharply on those areas where help is needed. I do not believe that those who can retire at age 55 with substantial occupational pensions would fit into that category.
On the general principle, I rest on the point that those who retire at age 55 are not confronted with the unforeseen impact of unemployment. To exempt particular occupational groups, however strong their case may be, would not be a wise decision for the House. I therefore advise the House to reject the amendment.
We would be happy to pick up the Minister's last point and to see no group affected by the provisions of the clause, but we feel that the Government's case is weaker in some respects than others. Obviously it is the job of an Opposition to probe the weaknesses. The Minister has made a couple of remarks which should be taken up and placed on record in the context of the debate.
The Minister referred to the generosity of the pensions. The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) commented on the level of contributions. It has been suggested to me, and we mentioned this in Committee, that in many cases a person will draw at best a half-rate pension plus a lump sum, which may mean that, for financial reasons, that person will want, and will indeed need, to seek employment.
The pension funds for the particular groups about which we are talking provide for pensions of two thirds of final salary. There is an option to take some of that pension out as a capital sum, with very generous treatment of that capital sum by the Inland Revenue. That is an option, but most of the schemes about which we are talking will provide for a pension of two thirds of final salary after 30 years' service.
I do not have the papers with me, but I believe that that point was made in the context of the fire service. It may well be something to do with the pattern of employment. That observation was made in Committee and it was not queried there. I am not complaining about that, but, when I had the papers with me, that argument had some substance.
People are not drawing sums of money on which it is necessarily comfortable or easy to live. That is all the more true because of the age level that we are now discussing. It could be argued—this is why the previous Labour Government backed down on proposals which did not go as far as the present ones—that it is more likely that at the age of 60 family commitments will have decreased. However, at the age of 55 many people still have dependent children, particularly those young people who fit the Government's definition of dependent, who are under 25 and unfortunate enough to be unemployed and receive lower rates of benefits. If they are younger, they are subject to the range of provisions that we discussed earlier, which means that the Government expect young people to remain dependent on their parents at a substantially higher age than many hon. Members would consider to be right. At the age of 55 many people may well have families who need their help and support.
The Minister said that, because the provisions will not come into effect until January 1989, the Government have given plenty of notice that there will be a change, yet he did not recognise the point that was made in Committee, and again tonight, that people who have already retired may have been fortunate enough to find employment, but that they may lose that employment after 1989 and be caught by the provision. How on earth are such people expected to provide for a change that they could not possibly have expected? I suspect that, if any Opposition Member had suggested to them that a Conservative Government would do such a thing, they would have rejected such a suggestion with outrage. There is no way in which retired people or those on the brink of retirement can adjust to cope with the effects of the provisions.
In a sense, the Government are making a rod for their own back. They have said, reiterated and stuck to the argument, that people who leave the fire or police service at the age of 55 have retired and must look to their occupational pensions for full support. The Government do not expect them to seek employment. The consequence of that is that the Government are saying that the income that those people receive in their retirement should be such that they should not need to seek employment. The Minister's right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may not thank him for that information.
Someone who is about to retire now would be entitled to draw unemployment benefit until January 1989. That would be virtually the whole of the entitlement for unemployment benefit, which runs for only 12 months.
The Minister is right, but that is not the point that I was making. Someone on the brink of retirement now who obtains employment, but loses it after January 1989, will be affected by the clause and will not he in a position to make any adjustment to his circumstances or to his arrangements. The Government are saying to such people, "You have retired. We consider your occupational pension scheme, although you have paid contributions, to be generous. We consider that that is enough for you and that you will not be looking for employment. We do not expect you to be looking for employment or need it." I suspect that that will have consequences for the negotiations that will be undertaken on pay and conditions in the police and fire services. It is right that there should be such consequences, because the Government are reneging on one side of a deal.
Whether they work in the police or fire service, or in other occupations, people find themselves, through circumstances almost invariably beyond their control, forced into early retirement. Most men or women over 55 are still available for work, and looking for work. The clause is wholly misconceived. It is particularly misconceived in the case of people with patterns of employment such as those in the police and fire services.
Although I should have liked to press both amendments to a Division, to save the time of the House I shall withdraw amendment No. 16, but I shall formally move amendment No. 17 and press it to a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 6, line 39, at end insert—
'(c) in subsection (1), after "55" there shall be inserted the words "other than a person who has retired from the police service, the fire service, or any other prescribed occupation at the normal retirement age for that occupation".'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
|Division No. 134]||[8.15 pm|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Crowther, Stan|
|Allen, Graham||Cryer, Bob|
|Anderson, Donald||Cummings, J.|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Dalyell, Tam|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Darling, Alistair|
|Ashton, Joe||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NEj||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)|
|Barron, Kevin||Dewar, Donald|
|Battle, John||Dixon, Don|
|Beckett, Margaret||Dobson, Frank|
|Beggs, Roy||Douglas, Dick|
|Bell, Stuart||Dunn, Bob|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Dunnachie, James|
|Bennett, A. F, (D'nfn & R'dish)||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Eastham, Ken|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Blair, Tony||Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)|
|Blunkett, David||Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)|
|Boateng, Paul||Faulds, Andrew|
|Boyes, Roland||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Bradley, Keith||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Flannery, Martin|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Flynn, Paul|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)||Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Fraser, John|
|Buchan, Norman||Fyfe, Mrs Maria|
|Buckley, George||Galbraith, Samuel|
|Caborn, Richard||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Callaghan, Jim||Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||George, Bruce|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Gilbert, Rt,Hon Dr John|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Canavan, Dennis||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Gordon, Ms Mildred|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Clay, Bob||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinbu rgh S)|
|Clelland, David||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Grocott, Bruce|
|Cohen, Harry||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Coleman, Donald||Haynes, Frank|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Corbett, Robin||Hinchliffe, David|
|Cousins, Jim||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Cox, Tom||Holland, Stuart|
|Home Robertson, John||Murphy, Paul|
|Hood, James||Nellist, Dave|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||O'Brien, William|
|Howells, Geraint||O'Neill, Martin|
|Hoyle, Doug||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Patchett, Terry|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Pendry, Tom|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Pike, Peter|
|Illsley, Eric||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Ingram, Adam||Prescott, John|
|Janner, Greville||Primarolo, Ms Dawn|
|John, Brynmor||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)||Radice, Giles|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Randall, Stuart|
|Kilfedder, James||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil||Reid, John|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Lambie, David||Robinson, Geoffrey|
|Lamond, James||Rogers, Allan|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Rooker, Jeff|
|Leighton, Ron||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)||Ross, William (Londonderry E,|
|Lewis, Terry||Rowlands, Ted|
|Litherland, Robert||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|Livingstone, Ken||Sheerman, Barry|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|McAllion, John||Short, Clare|
|McAvoy, Tom||Skinner, Dennis|
|McCartney, Ian||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Macdonald, Calum||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|McFall, John||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|McGrady, E. K.||Snape, Peter|
|McKelvey, William||Soley, Clive|
|McLeish, Henry||Spearing, Nigel|
|McNamara, Kevin||Steinberg, Gerald|
|McTaggart, Bob||Stott, Roger|
|McWilliam, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Madden, Max||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Mallon, Seamus||Thomas, Dafydd Elis|
|Marek, Dr John||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Turner, Dennis|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Vaz, Keith|
|Martin, Michael (Springburn)||Wall, Pat|
|Martlew, Eric||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Maxton, John||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Meacher, Michael||Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)|
|Meale, Alan||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Michael, Alun||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Wilson, Brian|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)||Winnick, David|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Worthington, Anthony|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Wray, James|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)||Mr. Frank Cook and|
|Mowlam, Marjorie||Mr. Allen McKay|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Allason, Rupert||Benyon, W.|
|Amess, David||Bevan, David Gilroy|
|Amos, Alan||Biffen, Rt Hon John|
|Arbuthnot, James||Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Body, Sir Richard|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Boscawen, Hon Robert|
|Atkins, Robert||Bottomley, Peter|
|Atkinson, David||Bottomley, Mrs Virginia|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)|
|Baldry, Tony||Bowis, John|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes|
|Batiste, Spencer||Brandon-Bravo, Martin|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Brazier, Julian|
|Bellingham, Henry||Brittan, Rt Hon Leon|
|Bendall, Vivian||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Knapman, Roger|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick||Knight, Greg (Derby North)|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Knowles, Michael|
|Burns, Simon||Knox, David|
|Burt, Alistair||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Butler, Chris||Lang, Ian|
|Butterfill, John||Latham, Michael|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Carrington, Matthew||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Cash, William||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Chapman, Sydney||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)||Lightbown, David|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Lilley, Peter|
|Cope, John||Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)|
|Couchman, James||Lord, Michael|
|Cran, James||Luce, Rt Hon Richard|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Lyell, Sir Nicholas|
|Curry, David||Macfarlane, Sir Neil|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Maclean, David|
|Day, Stephen||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Dicks, Terry||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Durant, Tony||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Dykes, Hugh||Malins, Humfrey|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Maples, John|
|Fallon, Michael||Marland, Paul|
|Favell, Tony||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Forman, Nigel||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Gale, Roger||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Mellor, David|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Miller, Hal|
|Gow, Ian||Mills, Iain|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Greenway, Harry (Eating N)||Mitchell, David (Hants NW)|
|Greenway, John (Rydale)||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Gregory, Conal||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Grist, Ian||Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)|
|Ground, Patrick||Morrison, Hon P (Chester)|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Moss, Malcolm|
|Hannam, John||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Mudd, David|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Neale, Gerrard|
|Harris, David||Nelson, Anthony|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Neubert, Michael|
|Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Heddle, John||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)|
|Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)||Page, Richard|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Paice, James|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Patnick, Irvine|
|Holt, Richard||Patten, Chris (Bath)|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Howard, Michael||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Portillo, Michael|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Raffan, Keith|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Redwood, John|
|Irvine, Michael||Renton, Tim|
|Jack, Michael||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Janman, Timothy||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Jessel, Toby||Riddick, Graham|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Key, Robert||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Rowe, Andrew|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Trippier, David|
|Ryder, Richard||Trotter, Neville|
|Sackville, Hon Tom||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Scott, Nicholas||Viggers, Peter|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Sims, Roger||Waller, Gary|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Ward, John|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Watts, John|
|Speed, Keith||Wells, Bowen|
|Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)||Wheeler, John|
|Squire, Robin||Whitney, Ray|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Widdecombe, Miss Ann|
|Steen, Anthony||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Stern, Michael||Wilkinson, John|
|Stevens, Lewis||Wilshire, David|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Sumberg, David||Wolfson, Mark|
|Summerson, Hugo||Wood, Timothy|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)||Woodcock, Mike|
|Taylor, John M (Solihull)||Yeo, Tim|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Thurnham, Peter||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Tracey, Richard||Mr. Peter Lloyd and|
|Tredinnick, David||Mr. Stephen Dorrell.|