I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am told that the Bill is a short one judged by social security standards, but it has been subject to considerable discussion in Committee and in the two days that we have spent on Report. Whatever the Opposition may say, the Bill, in essence, is about three things: training, targeting and some element of tidying up social security legislation and putting it on a firmer footing. I do not want to discuss each of those categories in any detail because, in essence, they have been discussed at length in Committee and in the course of the debates on amendments and new clauses on Report. By training I mean the decision to reinforce the guarantee of the offer of a training place to 16 and 17-year-olds. In the Bill we have said that benefit will not be available to those who are neither in education nor in a job and who turn down a training place. I cannot believe that the comments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who represented this as an appalling attack on those in this age group, can be sustained. I cannot believe that any hon. Member would wish to see youngsters of 16 or 17 with the option of a training place turn it down in exchange for idleness and dependence on benefit.
Some hon. Members have characterised this as an element of compulsion, of forcing youngsters on to training schemes, but that is not right. An element of choice remains. If I must put the argument another way, I cannot see why the state should be compelled to pay benefit to those who decline the offer of a training place in those circumstances. The quality of training and the availability of training places will be such that over a period it will be seen that this was a wise, sensible way to protect young people from the dangers of idleness and to offer them real opportunities to acquire skills that will fit them for adult life.
On the question of targeting — I understand that this has become a dirty word for the Opposition — we now spend a vast sum on social security benefit. In the coming year it will be about £48 billion. I cannot believe that any sensible or responsible Administration should do other than seek to ensure that that money is directed to meeting needs as accurately and in as well targeted a way as possible. We are seeking to do that with some of these measures.
By putting the exceptionally cold weather payments on to a regulated basis, and by providing a statutory basis for local authority emergency payments and for the future of the welfare food scheme, we are also seeking to tidy up existing social security legislation.
I wish to touch on only two further matters before conclude. This may be a unique occasion, in that l wish to compliment the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and others, although I do not see the hon. Gentleman in his place, on pursuing in Committee with insistence and vigour the cause of the under-twos on attendance allowance. But for the way in which they pursued that issue, I would not have been moved to return to the medical evidence as I did. Because of that, yesterday I could give the House the undertaking about the need to review this whole matter in the context of the OPCS reports and the outcome of the survey on community care by Sir Roy Griffiths. I freely admit that I started by accepting the received wisdom about the dividing line at the age of two, but the Committee moved me to query that and it will be to the benefit of children under the age of two who suffer severe disability.
In Committee, Opposition Front-Bench Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), asked about the small group of severely disabled people who come on to benefit after April and who will be less well treated than those who are at present on benefit. I had hoped that by Third Reading I would be able to come forward with specific proposals to meet their needs. If by any chance it were necessary for legislative provision to be made for this small group, I am satisfied that existing legislative powers would enable me to meet those needs.
As I said at Question Time yesterday, at present I am pursuing a solution that will depend on the voluntary sector. A small number of people are involved, and when we have the OPCS and Griffiths reports we will be able to consider a long-term solution. This will be a short-term solution for a small number of people, and it needs to be addressed in a flexible way. Perhaps the voluntary sector might be the most appropriate way of helping them. In this area, too, during the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill we have made some progress towards meeting the needs of an important group of people who are in need of extra help.
I was urged by one of my hon. Friends to find a solution for all time to a particular aspect of social security. I suspect that members of the Opposition Front Bench realise that we are likely to be back with more social security legislation in the not-too-distant future. Nothing is for ever in this area: we are spending the Government's largest single budget on it, and it would be foolish to think that one could fossilise the provision that is made. We shall constantly be trying to improve our provision and to target it better in the interests of those who are most in need of help in our community. I believe that the Bill is an important step forward in the three directions that I have identified, and I commend it to the House.
I listened with interest to the Minister's argument and his description of the Bill's aims as being those of training, targeting and tidying up. What a pity that every one of those categories means less provision for the people covered by the Bill.
By the standards of this Administration, this is not a major social security Bill. We are not dealing here with millions of losers, nor are we discussing losses and savings of millions of pounds. However, the Bill is part of the Government's drive, as the Minister plainly said, to target help—in the Government's phrase—on those in greatest need, by which it becomes daily more apparent that they mean giving help only to those in greatest need, which is a definition that grows harsher with every year that the Government remain in power. The Minister spoke of the vast amount spent on the social security budget, and the figures are incontestable. What is equally incontestable is the greatly increased area of need, which has grown partly as a direct result of the Government's economic policies.
The Bill is not a major social security Bill. It affects only epileptics such as Dorothy Moran, who lose their chance of drawing a maximum of about £30 in attendance allowance—in the cause, as the Minister said, of tidying up the law. It affects only those whose industrial injuries were severe enough to entitle them to the maximum reduced earnings allowance, and who stand to lose more than £19 a week when they retire. It affects only young people of 16 and 17 who already have diminished prospects — not only those who, as Conservative Members have often said and as the Minster has hinted, have rejected the chance to work, train or participate in a Government training scheme.
Every young person between the ages of 16 and 17 will be deprived of his right to benefit, apart from a few who will be granted it as a graceful gesture by the Government of the basis of a few, tightly defined exceptions. Such definitions may well exclude, for example, some who have endured sexual and physical abuse at home, and result in decisions that will not be subject to appeal. For low-income families, the measures will mean that their incomes will drop by £11·50 a week —a minor matter for those who are not in poverty themselves.
The Bill covers only large numbers of women, especially carers, who will lose their right to unemployment and sickness benefit, because the Government—they tell us that it is in the cause of strengthening the national insurance scheme — are tightening up the contribution conditions. It is unfortunate that, because of the Government's desire to strengthen the national insurance basis of the scheme, so many women and others are likely to lose.
The Bill will affect only those forced into so-called voluntary early retirement because of the shortage of employment and perhaps more especially because of the paucity of unemployment benefit. That benefit is bereft of any earnings-related addition and forces people to beggar themselves in their later years by facing the severe financial penalty imposed on those who draw early on their occupational pension to which, of course, they have contributed throughout their working lives.
It will affect people in the police and fire services who have made substantial occupational pension contributions on top of their national insurance contributions. They will be told that one of these rights for which they have paid for and for which, if they stay in employment, they will continue to pay is to be unilaterally withdrawn.
It affects only the very poorest in the land who might be forced to seek help from the DHSS for needs that they cannot meet and which no previous Government have ever expected them to meet from subsistence-level weekly benefits. The resources available for their unmet needs will be cut to the bone, if not beyond it, by the minuscule budgets of the social fund, which on average—especially in the poorer areas — have been cut by about 83 per cent. as a sign of the further support available to those who are by definition the poorest.
The Minister of State told us that none of those things is being done to cut back or to save, but that they are being done to make sure that help is offered only to those who by the Government's declining standards really need it.
Some of the arguments that we heard in discussions on the Bill were pathetic. We have heard the argument that Dorothy Moran and people like her will have to lose their entitlement to benefit because the Government would like to tidy up the law. The Minister assured us that the provisions in the Bill which deal with the Moran judgment are financially neutral and of no real significance to the Government. They are of significance only to the few thousand people like Dorothy Moran who will lose the opportunity to receive that tiny bit of further help for which they would not even be seriously considered unless they were already facing substantial difficulties.
We are told, and the Minister has repeated, that the provisions which deal with 16 and 17-year-olds do not represent compulsion. Of course they do not—perish the thought. It is just that, if the young people who are involved do not do what the Government say, they will not get any money to live on and their families will not get any money to support them. That distinction is sufficiently fine for bodies such as the Manpower Services Commission and all the youth training scheme providers to be unable to follow it.
I should like to place it on record, as we did in Committee, that we do not think that the Government are in a position to guarantee enough YTS places—even if that were an adequate measure of what should be offered to young people — by the time that this Bill becomes law, if it becomes law. We certainly do not think that there is the slightest chance of there being enough places of the right quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, it was most noticeable that the Government did not begin to consider any qualification that we put forward of what might be a satisfactory offer of a place on some course rather than merely any old offer that could he found to make up the numbers. The Government will be desperate to make up the numbers before April.
It is simply not good enough for the Minister of State casually to say that of course it will be all right and that all places are of good quality. The record of injury and even of death on YTS programmes is not such that anybody can treat proposals of that sort with complacency. When we asked in Committee about the quality of YTS places and about what will happen if the restricted period of entitlement to child benefit or bridging allowance or the other elements of the provision should run out before a proper offer of a place had been made, the only answer we received was that it would not happen between January and April. The Government said that somehow the Department would find what independent estimates have suggested is possibly 100,000 extra places. The Minister assures us that they will all be high-quality places.
The justifications which have been offered for the Bill at many of its stages have been weak, and they were weakest in the debate yesterday. The Minister referred to that debate, and I am grateful to him for the tribute he paid to some of my hon. Friends who raised matters in Committee and in the House. I join him in paying tribute to the tremendous work they have done.
Although the Minister was affected by the case put, which was enormously strong and one would have thought would affect anyone, I was astonished and appalled by the spectacle we saw in the Chamber yesterday. A number of Conservative Members, some of them new Members, suggested that they could not support a provision that would give much-needed help to the families of desperately sick children under the age of two because a Labour Government did not do it. What a pathetic argument.
Those hon. Members rose magnificently above the clear indication that when the last Labour Government left office there was very little experience of the way in which the scheme was working and decided they would ignore that. Some of them argued that they could not support the proposal because they did not like the other proposals put forward by the Opposition in Committee. Presumably they feel that if they support one proposal they must support all of them. It is a novel suggestion and one which we would commend. We do not expect 100 per cent. support from Conservative Members, but we expect them to listen and sometimes to be affected by reasonable argument.
The cream of the debate was the suggestion that the measure could not be supported because some Conservative Members did not like the tone of the debate. I am sure that the parents of those desperately sick and disabled children will be very sympathetic to that argument. Are these men or mice? They seem to be incapable of responding with any sensitivity to the arguments. If their Government, for whatever reason—however poor we may think the justification—say they have to resist the amendment, that is one thing; but to treat with such contempt serious argument on problems and difficulties is frankly contemptible.
It is strange that some Conservative Members can be so easily dissuaded from pressing the Government who tell us they have money to burn, or at least money that they are prepared to give away in tax cuts, with the bias favouring those who are already the most wealthy.
That carries the seeds of danger for them as a party and a Government. It may carry the seeds of danger for our whole society. I find it hard to believe that anyone could take pride in voting for the Bill. When my hon. Friends and I consider the amendments we have discussed and the debates we have had in Committee and on Report, we know quite certainly that we are right to vote against it.
I wish to put some things on the record. First, I refer to the expert way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) led my hon. Friends in Committee and to the expertise that she brought to it. I cannot help thinking what an excellent job she would do as Minister for Social Security, because she is concerned about poverty and the need for a social security system that eliminates rather than exacerbates poverty.
Having sat through the Committee on the Bill and the previous Bill, I believe that we live in total unreality. Outside the House, only five minutes walk away, people are living in a cardboard city, with no houses to go to. People are being evicted to make way for property speculators and are living on the streets of London and every other major city. People on every housing estate throughout the country cannot make ends meet. We have the greatest poverty since the war, with 6 million people living below the European poverty threshold.
What does the Bill do? Does it address those problems? Does it say that we will examine the problems of the poor and ensure that the social security system is a genuine safety net? No. The Bill is like taking a pair of scissors to a safety net. It makes holes in the safety net and creates misery and poverty.
I have considered some of the points in the Bill. It deals with the question of the young unemployed. We have heard Tory press stories about feckless youth and young people who do not want work, who are workshy and are trying to get money from the Government. That is utter and absolute bunkum and nonsense, and the Government know it. They know that in reality young people become very depressed at school if they know that there are no jobs for them to go to. They do not become very excited at the prospect of a YTS place instead of a job. When they are told that they will be coerced on to a scheme, they become positively angry. Who can blame them for that? The Bill is a step towards industrial conscription. The Government intend to introduce industrial conscription to low-wage jobs with a "no hope" future for young people who are the worst trained and worst educated of any industrial country. The Bill is part of that process.
Other sections of the Bill deal with income support, the treatment of people with disabilities and the need for support for carers. There is a thread running through the Bill of parsimony and nastiness in the way in which the regulations operate, until we come to the worst part of the Bill dealing with the social fund and the way in which that operates. Indeed, we have just debated that point.
This is the second Social Security Bill that we have had in a relatively short time. I believe that we will be back here again very soon because there will be much opposition to the way in which the Bill will operate. The Government are very good at producing what they call "fact sheets" on social security. They are very nicely produced, and I commend them. Indeed, they are beautifully produced. It is unfortunate that they have such an ill purpose and that they seek not to eliminate poverty, but to explain why the Government are not prepared to spend public money on eliminating poverty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has explained, the Government are more interested in tax concessions to allow a small minority of very wealthy people to live a life of conspicuous consumption while they allow the large number of very poor people to rot. I want a Social Security Bill to be introduced that guarantees living standards, guarantees to eliminate poverty in our society and takes away the threat of coercion implicit in this Bill.
From next April there will be an even greater division in our country between the rich and the poor. There will also be an enormous burden on the people who work in the DHSS to carry out the regulations. Those people are being given insufficient advice and training now. There are staff cuts and they are threatened by privatisation and all the other things that Tory Governments dream up for public servants. We will end up with the problem of low-paid civil servants dealing with very poor people on the other side of the counter, with all the tensions and frictions that that creates.
I feel certain that we will be back fairly soon, because the Bill is unworkable. I hope that it will be very closely monitored if, unfortunately, it receives its Third Reading and is carried into law. I hope that it will be carefully watched from the time that it becomes law and that every possible challenge will be mounted against it so that the Government will be forced to bring in regulations in respect of the social fund, forced to look again at various aspects of the Bill and forced to come back to the House with another Social Security Bill that at least recognises that the job of the DHSS is to eliminate poverty, not to create a labyrinth of legal restrictions that prevent the DHSS from paying people the support and aid that is necessary for them to enjoy a decent existence.
The Minister said that the Bill was about training, targeting and tidying up. I congratulate him on finding some pattern in the Bill, even though it is only one of alliteration. I thought that the Bill was a hotch-potch of ideas, the only connecting link of which was that it made people's positions worse. The common thread was that it made worse the position of people of different ages and in different circumstances.
The Government had two lines of argument. Some clauses were said to affect very few people, were not important, would not cost very much and were not worth bothering about. Other clauses would affect many people and would cost an enormous amount. They could not say, "The country cannot afford it," because they keep on telling us that the country is in an unparalleled state of prosperity, but they certainly said, "It will cost an enormous amount and we cannot do it." It was confusing to take part in debates, sometimes following immediately after each other, where those mutually exclusive lines of thought were advanced, but we became accustomed to it in Committee and learned to deal with it.
I am slightly inhibited tonight by the Minister's generous praise of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and myself to extend the attendance allowance to babies aged under two. I am grateful for that praise and I am glad that we produced some movement. I read carefully the Minister's statement on the matter at the conclusion of yesterday's debate. He said:
The advice that I have received confirms that, as hon. Members argued in Committee, these babies have attendance needs which exceed those of a normal child.
The hon. Members to whom he referred were all Opposition Members. It cannot have been easy for him to concede that we were right. Having said that 3,000 children a year were affected, and that to do what we wanted would cost £7 million a year, the Minister concluded his useful and interesting observations by saying:
If the hon. Lady is not willing to withdraw the new clause, I ask the House to reject it, but against the background of a recognition that support for the families of disabled children throughout the age range will now inescapably be part of the system."—[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 237–38.]
All the Conservatives Members then voted against it.
Our problem is that we do not know what the Minister meant. Will those provisions become part of the system now, or will they become part of it in the fulness of time? In the fulness of time, the under-twos will cease to be under two. Their parents will find it incomprehensible that the Minister has considered the matter and is grateful for the advice of the Opposition, yet there will be no movement until those children are aged over two. I hope the Minister means that when the Bill goes to the other place the Government will introduce an amendment to put his words into effect and the provision "now inescapably" into the social security system.
I hope, too, that the Members of the other place will consider carefully the other arguments of the Opposition, which are equally cogent and correct. They include arguments on carers, and on the iniquity of putting the working-class poor into debt. Officially, for the first time they will be encouraged—nay, coerced—into going into debt. Debt has been the great scourge and fear of working people over generations. Now the state is saying, "You will be in debt to us, and instead of being the final safety net, the state will be your creditor."
I urge those in the other place to continue the arguments, to note that there has been some movement in the minds, if not the votes, of Conservative Members and to try to rescue some elements of the social security system from the damage that the passage of the Bill will do tonight.
I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about the valiant efforts of our hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). It was in some ways a joy to serve on the Committee, although the material of the Bill was so deplorable. It was good to be working as part of a team defending people who need defending, and it was in some respects a model of what Committee proceedings can be.
Of course, the Opposition always have the problem of being grossly under-resourced compared to Ministers. We delighted in seeing the scurrying, the notes and the hasty consultations between the many advisers helping the Minister, and we looked with great favour and approbation at our single, solitary adviser, Tony Lynes, without whom we could not have done the job which even the future Opposition—the present Government—must surely concede was done.
The Government should bear in mind, however, that we also had alongside us, offering us briefings and help, many voluntary organisations. I know that, being non-party political bodies, they will undoubtedly have been offering the same help to Conservative Members, but they will have noticed that the Members of Parliament who responded to their pleas, who read their briefings carefully and took account of them—indeed, understood them—were Opposition Members.
For many years the Conservative party has made the voluntary organisations appear to be its fiefdom. Those days have now gone. Voluntary organisations of all kinds, dealing with all the topics related to health, social security, disability, women—the "establishment" of the women's movement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) described them yesterday, as well as the radical elements — were putting forward items and suggestions that Opposition Members took up. That will not leave the political situation untouched.
Although the Government may defeat us in the Lobby tonight, we have consistently won every argument, day after day. It has been worth putting it on the record. The Government's numbers in the Lobby will not ultimately prevail. We will have a great deal of work to do to undo the damage that they have done, but sooner or later our day will come.
|Division No. 136]||[10.45pm|
|Allason, Rupert||Bevan, David Gilroy|
|Amess, David||Biffen, Rt Hon John|
|Amos, Alan||Blackburn, Dr John G.|
|Arbuthnot, James||Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Boscawen, Hon Robert|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Bottomley, Peter|
|Atkins, Robert||Bottomley, Mrs Virginia|
|Atkinson, David||Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Bowis, John|
|Baldry, Tony||Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard|
|Batiste, Spencer||Brandon-Bravo, Martin|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Brazier, Julian|
|Bellingham, Henry||Brittan, Rt Hon Leon|
|Bendall, Vivian||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)|
|Benyon, W.||Browne, John (Winchester)|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick||Knapman, Roger|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Knight, Greg (Derby North)|
|Burns, Simon||Knowles, Michael|
|Burt, Alistair||Knox, David|
|Butler, Chris||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Butterfill, John||Lang, Ian|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Latham, Michael|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Carrington, Matthew||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Cash, William||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Churchill, Mr||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Lightbown, David|
|Cope, John||Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)|
|Couchman, James||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Cran, James||Lord, Michael|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Luce, Rt Hon Richard|
|Curry, David||Lyell, Sir Nicholas|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Macfarlane, Sir Neil|
|Day, Stephen||MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Maclean, David|
|Durant, Tony||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Dykes, Hugh||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Fallon, Michael||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Forman, Nigel||Malins, Humfrey|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Maples, John|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Marland, Paul|
|Gale, Roger||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Gill, Christopher||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Mates, Michael|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Gow, Ian||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Mellor, David|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Miller, Hal|
|Greenway, John (Rydale)||Mills, Iain|
|Gregory, Conal||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Grist, Ian||Mitchell, David (Hants NW)|
|Ground, Patrick||Moate, Roger|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Hannam, John||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Morrison, Hon P (Chester)|
|Harris, David||Moss, Malcolm|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney||Mudd, David|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Neale, Gerrard|
|Heddle, John||Nelson, Anthony|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Neubert, Michael|
|Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)|
|Holt, Richard||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Page, Richard|
|Howard, Michael||Paice, James|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Patnick, Irvine|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)||Patten, Chris (Bath)|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Pawsey, James|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Irvine, Michael||Portillo, Michael|
|Jack, Michael||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Jackson, Robert||Raffan, Keith|
|Janman, Timothy||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Jessel, Toby||Redwood, John|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Renton, Tim|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Key, Robert||Riddick, Graham|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Tracey, Richard|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Tredinnick, David|
|Rost, Peter||Trippier, David|
|Rowe, Andrew||Trotter, Neville|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Sackville, Hon Tom||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Sainsbury, Hon Tim||Viggers, Peter|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Scott, Nicholas||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Waller, Gary|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Ward, John|
|Sims, Roger||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Watts, John|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Wells, Bowen|
|Speed, Keith||Wheeler, John|
|Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)||Whitney, Ray|
|Squire, Robin||Widdecombe, Miss Ann|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Steen, Anthony||Wilkinson, John|
|Stern, Michael||Wilshire, David|
|Stevens, Lewis||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Sumberg, David||Wood, Timothy|
|Summerson, Hugo||Woodcock, Mike|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)||Yeo, Tim|
|Taylor, John M (Solihull)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Thornton, Malcolm||Mr. Richard Ryder and|
|Thurnham, Peter||Mr. Stephen Dorrell.|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Coleman, Donald|
|Allen, Graham||Cook, Robin (Livingston)|
|Anderson, Donald||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Cousins, Jim|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Cox, Tom|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Crowther, Stan|
|Ashton, Joe||Cryer, Bob|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Cummings, J.|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Barron, Kevin||Cunningham, Dr John|
|Beckett, Margaret||Dalyell, Tam|
|Beggs, Roy||Darling, Alastair|
|Bell, Stuart||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Dewar, Donald|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dixon, Don|
|Blair, Tony||Dobson, Frank|
|Blunkett, David||Doran, Frank|
|Boateng, Paul||Douglas, Dick|
|Boyes, Roland||Dunnachie, James|
|Bradley, Keith||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Eastham, Ken|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)||Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Fatchett, Derek|
|Buchan, Norman||Faulds, Andrew|
|Buckley, George||Fearn, Ronald|
|Caborn, Richard||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Callaghan, Jim||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Flannery, Martin|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Flynn, Paul|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Foster, Derek|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Fraser, John|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Fyfe, Mrs Maria|
|Clay, Bob||Galbraith, Samuel|
|Clelland, David||Galloway, George|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Cohen, Harry||Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)|
|George, Bruce||Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Gordon, Ms Mildred||Morley, Elliott|
|Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)||Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Mowlam, Marjorie|
|Grocott, Bruce||Mullin, Chris|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||Murphy, Paul|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Nellist, Dave|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Hinchliffe, David||O'Brien, William|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||O'Neill, Martin|
|Holland, Stuart||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Home Robertson, John||Patchett, Terry|
|Hood, James||Pendry, Tom|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Pike, Peter|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Howells, Geraint||Prescott, John|
|Hoyle, Doug||Primarolo, Ms Dawn|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Randall, Stuart|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Hume, John||Reid, John|
|Illsley, Eric||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Ingram, Adam||Robertson, George|
|Janner, Greville||Robinson, Geoffrey|
|John, Brynmor||Rogers, Allan|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Rooker, Jeff|
|Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Ross, William (Londonderry E)|
|Kilfedder, James||Rowlands, Ted|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Salmond, Alex|
|Lambie, David||Sheerman, Barry|
|Lamond, James||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Leighton, Ron||Short, Clare|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lewis, Terry||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Livingstone, Ken||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Livsey, Richard||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Snape, Peter|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Soley, Clive|
|Loyden, Eddie||Spearing, Nigel|
|McAllion, John||Steinberg, Gerald|
|McAvoy, Tom||Stott, Roger|
|McCartney, Ian||Strang, Gavin|
|Macdonald, Calum||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|McFall, John||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|McGrady, E. K.||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Turner, Dennis|
|McKelvey, William||Vaz, Keith|
|McLeish, Henry||Wall, Pat|
|McNamara, Kevin||Wallace, James|
|McTaggart, Bob||Walley, Ms Joan|
|McWilliam, John||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Madden, Max||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)|
|Mallon, Seamus||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Marek, Dr John||Williams, Rt Hon A. J.|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Wilson, Brian|
|Martin, Michael (Springburn)||Winnick, David|
|Martlew, Eric||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Maxton, John||Worthington, Anthony|
|Meacher, Michael||Wray, James|
|Meale, Alan||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)||Mr. Frank Cook and|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Mr. Frank Haynes.|