Relief for Students

Clause 13 – in the House of Commons at 5:02 pm on 20th July 1988.

Alert me about debates like this

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 10, line 3, at end insert— ( ) If a person is undertaking a course of nursing education on each day of that period, the amount he is liable to pay under this section shall be determined by order, no such amount being less than one-fifth of the amount it would be apart from this section.

Photo of Mr Paul Dean Mr Paul Dean , Woodspring

With this we shall consider the following Lords amendments: No. 32.

No. 33, in clause 27, page 16, line 29, at end insert and (e) education may include nursing education. Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end insert— `( ) The regulations shall include a statement of what courses constitute, in the Secretary of State's opinion, full-time courses of nursing education; but this is without prejudice to the power to provide, or not to provide, that a person undertaking such a course is to be treated as undertaking a full-time course of education for the purposes of this Part.'.

Photo of Michael Howard Michael Howard Minister of State (Department of Environment) (Local Government)

This group of amendments concerns the community charge liability of student nurses. This is a topic that was fully considered during the passage of the Bill through this House. Indeed, at Report stage on 19 April the House debated and voted on amendments about student nurses.

At that stage I argued, and the House accepted, that it would be inappropriate to treat salaried nurses—or, indeed, others undertaking training while at work—as students for the purposes of the community charge. During that debate, however, the question of student nurses and Project 2000 was raised. I said, in response: If Project 2000 is implemented in due course and student nurses are treated as students on bursaries rather than salaries, we shall certainly reconsider their position under the community charge."—[Official Report, 19 April 1988; 'Vol. 131, c. 751.] As the House will be aware, on 23 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced that the Government did indeed intend to accept many of the recommendations of Project 2000, including the proposal that student nurses should receive non-taxable bursaries rather than salaries.

The Government also made it clear during the debates on the Bill in another place that, once Project 2000 was implemented, assuming that the qualifying conditions concerning periods of supervised study and similar matters were met, student nurses would automatically become students for the purpose of the personal community charge, and thereby pay only 20 per cent. of the charge. So the question that arises is what the position should be before Project 2000 is implemented, at the stage when student nurses are still receiving salaries. As I said during earlier stages of the Bill's consideration, the Government argued successfully that it would be inappropriate to treat as students salaried nurses or others undertaking training while at work.

Having defeated an amendment in Committee in another place, the amendments now before us were added to the Bill on Report, against the Government's wishes. The amendments are intended to require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make an order determining the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses. The Government accept that there should be such a power and we are not, therefore, asking the House to overturn the spirit behind the amendments. Unfortunately, the Lords amendments are defective in their drafting. It is by no means certain that they would have the precise effect that their proponents intend. It is essential that the defective amendments should be replaced by ones that work, and that is the purpose of the Government amendment.

The Government amendment would still require my right hon. Friend to make regulations setting out the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses. The only difference in the effect of the amendments is that the Lords amendments would allow the payment to be anywhere between 20 and 100 per cent. of the charge. The Government amendment envisages a choice between 100 per cent. payment and 20 per cent. The option on interim levels of payment will not be open, except to the extent that student nurses may be eligible for rebates. That reflects the fact that in practice the Government would choose only 20 per cent. or 100 per cent. In other words, student nurses should be treated as students in some or all circumstances.

More extensive and complicated amendments would have been required to keep open the possibility of an intermediate figure. As I have said, when Project 2000 is implemented, student nurses will automatically become students for the purpose of the community charge. That leaves the level of charge to be paid by student nurses before Project 2000 is implemented. That is an issue on which we have yet to take a decision. We shall be considering the matter carefully in the light of all the issues that arise, including the timetable for implementing Project 2000. We shall then announce our decision and lay the regulations that the amendment requires my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make. The Government amendment incorporates the spirit of the amendments that were passed in another place and improves on their drafting. It is for that reason that I invite the House to disagree with the Lords amendment and to accept the Government amendment.

Photo of Mr Bill O'Brien Mr Bill O'Brien , Normanton

It is clear that their Lordships recognised that student nurses were students and, therefore, should qualify for relief from paying the poll tax in full. The Opposition welcome that view and would wish to uphold the Lords amendment.

Why does not the spirit that allows nurses in training to be accepted for relief not extend to nurses in Scotland for the first year of the poll tax in that country? I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that student nurses in Scotland in their first year will enjoy relief.

There are other students—they may be in an apprenticeship or in receipt of training—who have an income that is below the level determined by the Secretary of State for the Environment. In many instances, they have no income. The Labour party has always argued that taxation should be based on the principle of the ability to pay, and a flat-rate tax is unrelated to that ability. It is significant that the Government have no compassion. They are not willing to help those who are in receipt of low incomes. That is compounded by Ministers' arrogant attitude to students and others in higher education.

There are many in their 19th year who attend either a sixth form college or a tertiary college. They are participating in full-time education courses of 21 hours a week. According to the Government's proposals, they will have to pay poll tax, even though there is no family allowance available to them and they have no other income. No rebate will be made available to this group. The members of it are not even considered equal to those who are sleeping rough or others who are having to live in the cardboard city.

It is suggested by the Department of the Environment that there are 3,000 throughout the country who come within the group I have described. I suggest that if a proper count were undertaken, the total would be nearer 10,000. In the area of Wakefield, for example, there are no fewer than 56 such students. If the Wakefield figure is used for the rest of the country, there is a substantial number of 19-year-olds in full-time education who are not being taken into account. I ask the Minister seriously to regard these students.

Unless the Government are prepared to accept amendments, access to higher education and equal opportunities for young people will undoubtedly be removed from many. If these young people are made to pay £6 or £7 per week out of nothing, as it were, or from low incomes, access will be denied to them. The imperialistic attitude that the Secretary of State is taking to those on low incomes, especially to young people who are in higher or further education, ensures that the paying of poll tax will be controversial. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has outlined on earlier occasions how some of his constituents will regard poll tax legislation, there having been little time to discuss it in detail, or the Bill in its entirety. Many young people will fall by the wayside. They will not be able to pay any part of the poll tax.

The difficulty will be heightened dramatically when local authorities such as Westminster city council send in the bounty hunters. I have in mind a headline that appeared in the Westminster and Pimlico News. It appears that Westminster council suggests that bounty hunters will be employed to ensure that people pay their poll tax. The articles states: Private companies could be paid 'bounties' to collect names and personal information for Westminster's poll tax register. And outside bailiffs are likely to be used to collect outstanding poll tax debts, Westminster's policy and resources committee was told on Monday … each person will have to pay £372 in poll tax. However, each name is worth £1,300 to Westminster when government grant is added. It seems that Tory local authorities are organising bounty hunters. For every head, as it were, that they can recruit or shanghai on to the register in Westminster, a bounty will be paid by the authority. That practice has arisen because of the Government's methods of financing local government. If it is not the intention of the Secretary of State or the Minister for Local Government that bounty hunters should be employed by local authorities—especially by Tory-controlled local authorities—they should dissociate themselves from that newspaper article. No hon. Member or anyone outside should accept the practice of employing bounty hunters.

5.30 pm

What will happen when bounty hunters track down people who are experiencing difficulty paying the poll tax because of their low incomes? We all know that the information on the rebate scheme is so abysmal that no one can explain how it will work. Many people will be hounded by bounty hunters. When they are tracked down, councils such as Westminster city council will haul offenders before magistrates who, if they wish, may issue distress warrants.

Photo of Mr Irvine Patnick Mr Irvine Patnick , Sheffield, Hallam

Are those circumstances any different than those that operate at present, whereby councils employ people to find those who have not paid their rates and prosecute them?

Photo of Mr Bill O'Brien Mr Bill O'Brien , Normanton

There is a substantial difference. At present, no bounty is paid. According to Westminster city council, if a poll tax payer does not pay but is caught, the council's income increases from £372 to £1,300, which is the bounty that will be chased.

When bailiffs are called in, what will they collect from a 19-year-old or a student who has been unable to pay the poll tax? What furniture or materials will they collect?. Perhaps a record player or a couple of pairs of jeans. That is all that they could expect to collect from a 19-year-old. Bounty hunters will be paid substantial amounts to track down those people, but what is the point of employing bounty hunters to track down people who cannot afford to pay?

I ask the Minister to lend a receptive ear to the request for amendments to be made to include students and the other people to whom I have referred. We welcome the Lords amendment but think that it should be extended to include many other young people and those who will experience difficulty in paying the poll tax. In an area where the poll tax will be £250, the cut-off point for paying it for 18 to 24-year-olds will be less than £51. That is a substantial reason why the Minister should address himself to this important issue.

Any amendment that is made should take into account the anomalies of the low-income groups and people in training. The rebate scheme should be extended to include those groups and people on training schemes. If Conservative Members believe that the problem will disappear when Project 2000 is introduced in September 1990 they are incorrect. Those unfortunate people will have to pay the poll tax within six months of its introduction or 12 months to 18 months in Scotland. To say that the problem will be resolved by the introduction of Project 2000 is incorrect. I ask the Minister to examine this problem and make amendments to ensure that no hardship is suffered by those in full-time education or in training in the first month of the introduction of the poll tax. It will be anomalous if students other than student nurses are not included in the rebate scheme.

We appreciate, accept and welcome the Lords amendment, but we ask that it be extended to include other students. Does the Minister accept that training schemes should be designated to allow young people throughout England, Scotland and Wales who are continuing with full-time education and training to qualify for a poll tax rebate, as suggested in the Lords amendment? We ask the Minister to comment specifically on that point. We shall support the Lords amendment.

Photo of Mr John Hannam Mr John Hannam , Exeter

As I understood the opening remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, the Government accept the spirit of the Lords amendment that student nurses should be eligible for an 80 per cent. discount on the community charge. I am not clear at what stage of their training they will become eligible. If they fall into the category of receiving discounts throughout their training, we could create a serious anomaly for other professional student categories who pursue a one-year, pre-registration period of training of a similar nature to nurses before being allowed to practise.

Before the Lords amendment was passed the other groups of professional trainees reluctantly accepted the Government's statement that unless they were in full-time, grant-receipted education they would be eligible for full payment of the community charge. A number of those groups, including dental trainees, optometrists and pharmacy students, having completed their normal tertiary three-year, grant-maintained education, do an extra year of low-paid, pre-registration training. Like nurses, they are employed during that period by health authorities or, in Scotland, by health boards for their final qualifications. Their pay scales are roughly similar to those of nurses—about £5,000 or £6,000 a year.

I and the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) tabled an amendment on the basis of the original Lords amendment at the request of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, to which I am an adviser, which was backed by the British Medical Association and the British Dental Association. Its purpose was to bring the other professional trainees within the scope of the exemption given to nursing students.

The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (M r. Chope), wrote to me on Monday expressing understanding of the anomaly that could be created and intimated that the Government would consider what provision to make. I shall not take up the time of the House, because it is clearly understood that a problem could be created if, in the interim period until the implementation of Project 2000, nurses were to receive exemption from the community charge. I am confident that my hon. Friend, understanding the problem, will be able to find a solution to it so as not to perpetuate an unnecessary anomaly. I hope that he will be able to clarify the position as it affects the important groups of trainees in other medical professions.

Photo of Mr Gordon Oakes Mr Gordon Oakes , Halton

I shall be brief in this truncated debate. I rise to support fully what the lion. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has said and to support the amendment that stands in his name and mine. Since we tabled the amendment, which is in effect an amendment to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No.33 has appeared. I hope that as we are considering it with these others the Government will be able to do something about pre-registration students.

As the hon. Member for Exeter said, there are doctor, dentist, pharmacist and optician pre-registration students. Those are the basic categories. The dentists and doctors may not be as badly off as the opticians and pharmacists, who are paid less on the whole—there are exceptions—and sometimes considerably less, than the top grade of student nurses.

I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment that concerns nurses. It would have been disgraceful to do otherwise, but there are these other groups of health care professionals. I am not going as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I agree with what he said about low-paid people, but I am not taking the matter that far; nor is the hon. Member for Exeter. We are concerned only with a narrow band of people who will be working with student nurses, in the same teams, and who receive as much as £1,000 less than they do, yet will have to pay the full burden of the poll tax. A sledgehammer tax such as the poll tax will always result in such problems.

When the Government make the regulations envisaged under amendment No. 33, I plead with them to extend the same provisions to pharmacists and other postgraduate pre-professional people in training, because such people will be in a difficult position. I wish that, instead of mentioning nursing education, the amendment had used the phrase "health care education", in which case there would have been no difficulty about extending the regulations. I ask the Minister to take care of the anomaly that will inevitably result and that will apply particularly to pharmacy students, but also to many others.

Photo of Mr Nicholas Bennett Mr Nicholas Bennett , Pembroke

The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) will forgive me if I do not follow his point about pharmacists. I want to take up the issue of student nurses.

I supported the Government wholeheartedly in Committee and on Report on this matter. It seemed to me that we were in danger of creating another anomaly that would mean that people in salaried jobs would receive an exemption that was not available to others who were in salaried jobs but might be earning less than student nurses. We were being misled to a certain extent by emotion and the word "student". Student nurses are paid employees earning a salary. That will change in September 1990 with the introduction of Project 2000, under which nurses will become students in full-time education, with part of their training done on the wards. They will receive a bursary. When that happens, it will make sense to treat them as other students.

5.45 pm

However, we are not clear about students who begin their training before September 1990 and who, on the old training scheme, will be salaried employees. My guess is that they will continue to be on the old training scheme until the end of their three-year training programme. I cannot believe that it is intended to switch them into Project 2000 halfway through their training. If that is so, and if they remain salaried employees, it would be unfair to treat them other than as salaried employees who may be on a fairly low wage. They should be treated in the same way and receive the same rebates. If they transfer to Project 2000, Ministers will want to ensure that they are treated like other students. May we have some clarification about this?

Photo of Matthew Taylor Matthew Taylor Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Energy)

I was contacted this week by two student nurses in my constituency in their second year. One of them, Mandy Lumley, said: It is unfair that we are singled out to pay this tax whilst students remain exempt. Karen said: I have only just realised what this means to me and I am horrified that it is another deduction from my pay packet. Jane Brown, the Royal College of Nursing representative, echoed that by saying that the student nurses that she represented were just beginning to realise how serious the problem was. That is no wonder, given the impact of the figures that have frequently been debated in the House at all stages of this Bill. I do not intend to hold up proceedings by going through them again—Ministers have already heard them.

When the Minister started his speech, I wondered whether he had had a change of heart and would not accept the spirit of the amendments. He launched into a strong attack on the principle of the amendments, but he has said that he will accept their spirit. He is to be congratulated on that, as is Baroness Robson of Kiddington, who followed through, on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democrats, the campaign that we have waged at all stages to get student nurses this form of exemption. In that, she was successful in another place.

Lords amendment No. 22 is different from the amendments that we proposed in the House. Here, we sought merely to include nurses in the definition of a student so that they would obtain 80 per cent. student relief as of right. Our colleagues listened to the Government's arguments and tabled a conciliatory amendment in the Lords. It leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide what level of poll tax student nurses should pay, as long as it is at least 20 per cent. That shows that we have conceded ground. By way of return, I hope that the Minister will give a firmer sign of whether he intends to make use of these provisions before Project 2000 is brought in.

Since this issue was debated in the Commons, the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced implementation of Project 2000, which, by implication, means entitlement to 80 per cent. relief from poll tax for student nurses. In that way, the Government agree with the principle. The Minister has said that he agrees with the spirit; the problem remains the gap between the introduction of the poll tax and the full implementation of Project 2000. It is even conceivable, because of the phased implementation of Project 2000, that some student nurses could be paying 100 per cent. of the poll tax while their workmates, who are not on precisely the same form of course, will pay only 20 per cent. because they started their training at a different time, as Project 2000 was being phased in.

I hope that, having taken the decision to allow student nurses the 80 per cent. relief, the Government will implement it in as fair a way as possible. This amendment has had all-party support, although the Government expressed their unhappiness with its wording before Third Reading in the Lords. So what the Minister said about it is not new. The Government tried to persuade Lady Robson to accept further amendments, which she resisted.

The Government say that including student nurses in clause 13 is unnecessary, as clause 30 gives them the power to specify what is meant by "student". That is true, but before the amendment was agreed to the Government had no intention of including student nurses. So we thought they needed to be persuaded in that direction.

Furthermore, they have said that they have no intention of using the new power to vary the rebate by a percentage intermediate between 0 and 80 as that would lead to unacceptable complications. That may be a fair point, as long as the Government are prepared to make some concession to students who are meant to be covered in this way.

We accept that the wording of the amendments could be improved, and we have no objection in principle to seeing it changed as long as the Government are prepared to commit themselves to granting a poll tax rebate to a significant number of student nurses. So far, they have not been prepared to make any concession on that. Not so long ago, the Government said that they would allow a registration scheme for dogs but they had no intention whatever of putting it into practice. We are worried that that is the attitude of the Government in this case. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.

Our response depends entirely upon the Government. If they show a willingness to offer an 80 per cent. exemption to student nurses from 1990 we can accept their amendment to Lords amendment No. 33. Although the Government say that they agree with us, we have not had that commitment. The student nurses in my constituency that I mentioned will be comparatively well off. In London, nurses might lose up to 17 per cent. of their incomes because of the poll tax.

We are talking about a fairly small number of people prior to the implementation of Project 2000. It would not be enormously costly or a permanent fixture. I hope that the Government will accept my point and that the Minister's reply will be welcomed by student nurses when they read the reports of this debate.

Photo of Mr Allen McKay Mr Allen McKay , Barnsley West and Penistone

I too should like to speak about student nurses. I agree wholeheartedly with the amendment because I can see problems in the future. The time may come when we cannot do anything to amend the measure and it will be a matter only for the Secretary of State. For that reason, it would be wise to accept the amendment. I agree with the Lords amendment with which the Government disagree.

I am a little worried about Project 2000. Who, and how many, will it cover? At present we have many student nurses of varying technical and academic ability. I understand that some of the best students who are academically qualified will go forward to Project 2000. If my figures are right, the Barnsley authority is thinking about 10 a year. That means that we are not talking about the whole of the student nursing fraternity in that area.

The Secretary of State must determine who is a student nurse. Do we take the word "student" as the criterion? It has been said that they are salaried but, of course, the amount of the salary takes account of the fact that they are students. If that were not the case, they would not be getting such low salaries. Will the legislation cover all student nurses when Project 2000 is introduced, or will it cover only the narrow band of student nurses who will go forward to Project 2000? If it is only that narrow band, then we are creating another anomaly; to avoid that, it would probably be better to support the Lords amendment and the amendments to it.

One student should he treated in the same way as another. The pay of student nurses goes up when they have finished their student days, and to make it easy and simple we should give a rebate to all students whatever their category or occupation.

Photo of Michael Howard Michael Howard Minister of State (Department of Environment) (Local Government)

I shall not be able to reply to all the points that have been raised during this short debate, because final details on the precise nature of Project 2000 have not yet been decided. It is precisely for that reason that both the Lords amendment and the Government amendment which we have put down in substitution of the Lords amendment take the form of a regulation-making power that will enable the Secretary of State to make an order fixing the community charge that will be payable by student nurses. It was recognised that that is a sensible way to deal with the matter so that when all the details of Project 2000 have been settled an order can be made in the light of the decisions.

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked me to deal with the situation that would arise in Scotland. We welcome to our deliberations after his long perambulation the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). [Interruption.] I hope that he ran all the way. We are delighted to see him with us. He reiterated the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. Of course there is a similar but separate order-making power for student nurses in Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will he required to make an order determining the level of community charge to be paid by student nurses there. He will make that order in good time for the start of the new system north of the border on 1 April 1989. At this time I cannot say what order my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will make, because he will have to take into account the kind of factor about which I have spoken and which will be the basis of the Government's decisions on this matter.

The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was quite wrong to suggest that the Government would not have moved as a consequence of the introduction of Project 2000 had it not been for the amendment moved by Baroness Robson of Kiddington and passed in the other place. The hon. Gentleman may remember that when the question of Project 2000 was raised when the Bill was in the House, I said in direct response to an intervention that I think he made that we would have to consider the effect of Project 2000 if the recommendations that it envisaged were accepted. I said that that might have a significant effect on the liability of student nurses for the community charge.

Photo of Matthew Taylor Matthew Taylor Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Energy)

The Minister is right, but as I understood it he was talking about what would happen to student nurses under the Project 2000 proposals. The main question today is what happens to those who are not on Project 2000 while the project is being phased in? We are not clear about that.

Photo of Michael Howard Michael Howard Minister of State (Department of Environment) (Local Government)

That is true; it is not clear because no decisions have yet been taken. It was because of that state of play, recognised in the amendment put forward by Baroness Robson of Kiddington and passed in the other place, that the amendment takes the form of a regulation-making power. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to take into account the evolution of the Project 2000 proposals before making an order under that regulation-making power.

Photo of Matthew Taylor Matthew Taylor Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Energy)

The Minister's answer sounds good. He says that he accepts that there will possibly be differences between students during the implementation of Project 2000 and that it is his intention to use these changes potentially to ensure that students will not be treated in different ways at the same time.

Photo of Michael Howard Michael Howard Minister of State (Department of Environment) (Local Government)

I have said a number of times that that is the kind of consideration that we shall take into account. We have not decided how to exercise the order-making power. We shall consider the problem of anomalies that may arise but have not yet taken any decisions on the matter.

The hon. Member for Truro should be somewhat cautious in his observations about student nurses. Student nurses become qualified. I hope that he tells his constituents in Truro that qualified nurses paying local income tax under the proposals that his party favours would end up paying £260 a year towards the cost of local authority services compared with a community charge of £190. When the hon. Gentleman pretends to be the champion of student nurses, I hope that he makes it plain to student nurses in his constituency just how much more they would have to pay under the proposals advanced by his party when they become fully qualified and have to pay his local income tax.

We accept the spirit of the Lords amendment. I believe that the one distinction between the effect of that amendment and the effect of the amendment that we are seeking to substitute for it is generally accepted and has not led to particular criticism. For that reason I commend the amendment that the Government have advanced to the House.

The hon. Member for Normanton also asked about 19 year-olds at sixth-form colleges. They will, of course, be entitled to the maximum 80 per cent. rebate depending on their income, or if they have no private income. In an area where the provision of the standard level of services results in a community charge of £202, such students would be expected to make a 20 per cent. contribution. That means that they would be paying something like 80p per week and I do not believe that that is an unreasonable contribution for them to make.

It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 211.

Division No. 427][6 pm
AYES
Aitken, JonathanBanks, Robert (Harrogate)
Alexander, RichardBatiste, Spencer
Alison, Rt Hon MichaelBellingham, Henry
Amos, AlanBendall, Vivian
Arbuthnot, JamesBennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)Bevan, David Gilroy
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Ashby, DavidBlackburn, Dr John G.
Atkins, RobertBlaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Atkinson, DavidBody, Sir Richard
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)Boswell, Tim
Baldry, TonyBottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaGrant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bowis, JohnGregory, Conal
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir RhodesGriffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir BernardGrist, Ian
Brandon-Bravo, MartinGround, Patrick
Brazier, JulianGummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Bright, GrahamHamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Brittan, Rt Hon LeonHamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Brooke, Rt Hon PeterHampson, Dr Keith
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)Hanley, Jeremy
Browne, John (Winchester)Hannam, John
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Buck, Sir AntonyHarris, David
Burt, AlistairHaselhurst, Alan
Butcher, JohnHawkins, Christopher
Butler, ChrisHayes, Jerry
Butterfill, JohnHayward, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carrington, MatthewHeddle, John
Cash, WilliamHicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Channon, Rt Hon PaulHicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Chapman, SydneyHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Chope, ChristopherHill, James
Churchill, MrHind, Kenneth
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Holt, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Hordern, Sir Peter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)Howard, Michael
Colvin, MichaelHowarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Conway, DerekHowell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Cope, Rt Hon JohnHunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Couchman, JamesHunter, Andrew
Cran, JamesHurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Currie, Mrs EdwinaIrving, Charles
Curry, DavidJack, Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)Jackson, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)Janman, Tim
Day, StephenJessel, Toby
Devlin, TimJohnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Dicks, TerryJones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dorrell, StephenJones, Robert B (Herts W)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesKellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dover, DenKey, Robert
Dunn, BobKilfedder, James
Durant, TonyKing, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Emery, Sir PeterKirkhope, Timothy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)Knapman, Roger
Evennett, DavidKnight, Greg (Derby North)
Fairbairn, Sir NicholasKnight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Fallon, MichaelKnowles, Michael
Farr, Sir JohnLamont, Rt Hon Norman
Favell, TonyLang, Ian
Fenner, Dame PeggyLatham, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)Lawrence, Ivan
Finsberg, Sir GeoffreyLeigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Fishburn, John DudleyLennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fookes, Miss JanetLightbown, David
Forman, NigelLilley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Forth, EricLloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fox, Sir MarcusLord, Michael
Franks, CecilLuce, Rt Hon Richard
Freeman, RogerLyell, Sir Nicholas
French, DouglasMcCrindle, Robert
Fry, PeterMacfarlane, Sir Neil
Gale, RogerMacGregor, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, GeorgeMacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Garel-Jones, TristanMaclean, David
Gill, ChristopherMcLoughlin, Patrick
Glyn, Dr AlanMcNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Goodlad, AlastairMcNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr CharlesMadel, David
Gorman, Mrs TeresaMajor, Rt Hon John
Gorst, JohnMalins, Humfrey
Gow, IanMans, Keith
Gower, Sir RaymondMaples, John
Marland, PaulSims, Roger
Marlow, TonySkeet, Sir Trevor
Marshall, John (Hendon S)Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)Soames, Hon Nicholas
Maude, Hon FrancisSpeed, Keith
Mawhinney, Dr BrianSpicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mellor, DavidStanbrook, Ivor
Miller, Sir HalStanley, Rt Hon John
Mills, IainStern, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)Stevens, Lewis
Moate, RogerStewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Monro, Sir HectorStewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Montgomery, Sir FergusStokes, Sir John
Moore, Rt Hon JohnStradling Thomas, Sir John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)Sumberg, David
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)Summerson, Hugo
Moss, MalcolmTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Moynihan, Hon ColinTaylor, John M (Solihull)
Mudd, DavidTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Neale, GerrardTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Neubert, MichaelThompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Newton, Rt Hon TonyThompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Nicholls, PatrickThorne, Neil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)Thornton, Malcolm
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)Thurnham, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon CranleyTownend, John (Bridlington)
Oppenheim, PhillipTownsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Page, RichardTracey, Richard
Paice, JamesTredinnick, David
Patnick, IrvineTrippier, David
Patten, Chris (Bath)Trotter, Neville
Patten, John (Oxford W)Twinn, Dr Ian
Pawsey, JamesVaughan, Sir Gerard
Porter, David (Waveney)Waddington, Rt Hon David
Portillo, MichaelWakeham, Rt Hon John
Powell, William (Corby)Waldegrave, Hon William
Price, Sir DavidWalden, George
Raison, Rt Hon TimothyWaller, Gary
Redwood, JohnWardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Rhodes James, RobertWarren, Kenneth
Riddick, GrahamWatts, John
Ridley, Rt Hon NicholasWells, Bowen
Ridsdale, Sir JulianWheeler, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon MalcolmWhitney, Ray
Roe, Mrs MarionWiddecombe, Ann
Rossi, Sir HughWiggin, Jerry
Rost, PeterWilkinson, John
Rowe, AndrewWilshire, David
Rumbold, Mrs AngelaWinterton, Mrs Ann
Ryder, RichardWinterton, Nicholas
Sackville, Hon TomWolfson, Mark
Sainsbury, Hon TimWood, Timothy
Sayeed, JonathanWoodcock, Mike
Scott, NicholasYeo, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)Young, Sir George (Acton)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)Younger, Rt Hon George
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)Tellers for the Ayes:
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.
Shersby, Michael
NOES
Abbott, Ms DianeBennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)Bermingham, Gerald
Allen, GrahamBidwell, Sydney
Alton, DavidBoateng, Paul
Anderson, DonaldBradley, Keith
Armstrong, HilaryBray, Dr Jeremy
Ashley, Rt Hon JackBrown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Buchan, Norman
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)Buckley, George J.
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)Caborn, Richard
Barron, KevinCallaghan, Jim
Battle, JohnCampbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Beckett, MargaretCampbell-Savours, D. N.
Beith, A. J.Canavan, Dennis
Bell, StuartCartwright, John
Benn, Rt Hon TonyClark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)Lambie, David
Clay, BobLamond, James
Clelland, DavidLeighton, Ron
Clwyd, Mrs AnnLestor, Joan (Eccles)
Cohen, HarryLewis, Terry
Coleman, DonaldLitherland, Robert
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)Livingstone, Ken
Cook, Robin (Livingston)Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Corbett, RobinLofthouse, Geoffrey
Corbyn, JeremyLoyden, Eddie
Cousins, JimMcAllion, John
Cox, TomMcAvoy, Thomas
Cryer, BobMcCartney, Ian
Cummings, JohnMcKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Cunliffe, LawrenceMcKelvey, William
Cunningham, Dr JohnMcLeish, Henry
Dalyell, TamMcNamara, Kevin
Darling, AlistairMcTaggart, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)McWilliam, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)Madden, Max
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)Mahon, Mrs Alice
Dewar, DonaldMallon, Seamus
Dixon, DonMarek, Dr John
Dobson, FrankMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Doran, FrankMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Douglas, DickMartin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Duffy, A. E. P.Martlew, Eric
Dunnachie, JimmyMaxton, John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs GwynethMeacher, Michael
Eastham, KenMeale, Alan
Evans, John (St Helens N)Michael, Alun
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Fatchett, DerekMichie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Faulds, AndrewMillan, Rt Hon Bruce
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)Morgan, Rhodri
Fisher, MarkMorley, Elliott
Flannery, MartinMorris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Flynn, PaulMorris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelMullin, Chris
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)Murphy, Paul
Foster, DerekNellist, Dave
Foulkes, GeorgeOakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Fraser, JohnO'Brien, William
Fyfe, MariaO'Neill, Martin
Galbraith, SamOwen, Rt Hon Dr David
Galloway, GeorgeParry, Robert
Garrett, John (Norwich South)Patchett, Terry
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)Pike, Peter L.
George, BrucePowell, Ray (Ogmore)
Godman, Dr Norman A.Prescott, John
Goodhart, Sir PhilipPrimarolo, Dawn
Gould, BryanQuin, Ms Joyce
Graham, ThomasRadice, Giles
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)Redmond, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Reid, Dr John
Grocott, BruceRichardson, Jo
Hardy, PeterRoberts, Allan (Bootle)
Harman, Ms HarrietRobertson, George
Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyRobinson, Geoffrey
Haynes, FrankRogers, Allan
Healey, Rt Hon DenisRooker, Jeff
Hinchliffe, DavidRoss, Ernie (Dundee W)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Rowlands, Ted
Home Robertson, JohnRuddock, Joan
Hood, JimmySedgemore, Brian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)Short, Clare
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Illsley, EricSmith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Janner, GrevilleSmyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
John, BrynmorSoley, Clive
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)Spearing, Nigel
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)Squire, Robin
Kinnock, Rt Hon NeilSteinberg, Gerry
Kirkwood, ArchyStrang, Gavin
Straw, JackWilliams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)Wilson, Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)Winnick, David
Turner, DennisWise, Mrs Audrey
Vaz, KeithWorthington, Tony
Wall, PatWray, Jimmy
Walley, JoanYoung, David (Bolton SE)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wareing, Robert N.Tellers for the Noes:
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)Mrs. Llin Golding and
Wigley, DafyddMr. Adam Ingram.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 22 accordingly disagreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 207 to 217, 3 to 10, 12 to 16, and 18 to 21 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 17 agreed to.