(3) The conditions specified in paragraph (b) of subsection (i) above shall not be deemed not to be complied with in the case of any Association by reason only that the memorandum or other similar instrument regulating its functions does not prevent the payment to its members of reasonable remuneration for goods or facilities supplied, or for services rendered, of reasonable interest for money lent, or of reasonable rent for any premises.'.—[Ms. Hoey.]
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I feel like saying, "Here we go again", because this issue comes up year after year. New clause 13 narrows the focus of our attempts to meet points that have been made in the past, when debating Finance Bills in Committee and on the Floor of the House, in arguing against exempting governing bodies of sport from corporation tax.
The amendment refers specifically to national governing bodies, and does not relate to sports clubs or to any organisations other than governing bodies. It is important to stress that, because, in the past, Ministers asked whether it was our intention also to exempt tiddlywinks clubs, and so on.
Ultimately, I should like to go further and to examine the business rate burden on sports clubs and all the other problems that they encounter. However, tonight's debate concerns only exemption for national governing bodies. The new clause seeks also to avoid any involvement in charity law, because—as was said by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in Committee—attempts to make legislative changes in that regard can be a nightmare.
After consulting national governing bodies and the Central Council of Physical Recreation, we devised a new clause that will allow the Secretary of State to decide which governing bodies would benefit. In the event of any dispute, and if the CCPR's ruling proved unacceptable, the Secretary of State would have the final say.
The new clause is aimed at boosting the morale of sport and at ensuring that the money raised by governing bodies in different ways can all be used to benefit sport. At present, some of it must be paid to the Government in corporation tax. Sometimes the amount is small, but sometimes the sum involved is fairly large.
The Minister and other hon. Members may dispute the cost of such a change to the Exchequer. We calculate that it will be in the region of £10 million—which, in the context of the Treasury's national revenues, is not a large figure. The amount saved in the case of the Amateur Swimming Association, for example, would be £15,000. Why should that organisation be required to pay that sum when the moneys that it raises do not profit any individual but are used to fund swimming?
A large proportion of the profits from next autumn's forthcoming rugby union world cup will go in corporation tax, but no other country competing in that event will be similarly taxed.
The corporation tax paid by the British Olympic Association is raised largely through voluntary effort and donations. People work extremely hard to ensure that our Olympic team has the necessary support. It is quite a large amount—some £2 million—but it does not seem so much in the overall context of the sum that is taken from sport.
The Lawn Tennis Association pays about £1 million. I am not talking about Wimbledon; I am talking about the need to promote and improve grassroots tennis for young people, so that we can produce some future Wimbledon champions.
The Minister may say that the money that has just been taken from the football pools will be given back to sport. In the past, the Government have always said that they want people to be able to decide for themselves how to spend their money. We shall debate later the way in which the new sports trust has been set up; let me say now, however, that we should not take with one hand and, with the other, try to give indirectly, in a different way. That would not enable the governing bodies to spend the money in the way that they consider best to develop sporting activities.
The Minister may feel that some of those bodies would not spend the money in the way in which the Government would like them to spend it. My new clause, however, would not preclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer from deciding on a criterion that might exempt, for example, the Lawn Tennis Association, on condition that the resulting savings were spent in a way that would improve tennis at a basic level—on improving coaching, for instance. There is no reason why that should not be defined, if the Government work closely with sporting bodies.
Last autumn I went to see the Financial Secretary, along with a cross-section of the governing bodies. The results were disappointing. We were received quite well; the Financial Secretary seemed to be listening to what we said, and it appeared from some of the questions that he asked—some of which were followed up through the Central Council of Physical Recreation—that the door was beginning to open. Informal conversations with the Minister for Sport suggested that he felt that a concession would be made. Then, just before the Budget, we suddenly heard that nothing would be given.
I ask the Treasury to reconsider. The amount concerned is not huge, and it would boost morale to a significant extent, allowing the governing bodies to expand the self-help that they are already carrying out.
After all the work that has gone into Sheffield, the world student games are going ahead, and we shall try very hard to get the Olympic games to Manchester. A boost for the governing bodies would convince people that the Government and Members of Parliament care about sport, rather than being interested only when the finale of a tournament is taking place, involving a specific team or event. Many Ministers and other Members support such events, but I am thinking of the ordinary, day-to-day work that is done by people who really care about sport at grassroots level. I hope that the House will support the new clause.
I am delighted to support new clause 13, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey), who is widely respected in the sporting world for her expertise and diligence. She is one of sport's finest friends.
The Government are keen on instructing people to stand on their own two feet. However, in respect of corporation tax for sport, the Government are clobbering sport with a late tackle on the referee's blind side. According to the Sports Council, sport generates an income to the Treasury that is five times the figure that the Government spend on sport. It is not as if sport is freeloading from the Treasury's coffers. It is a net contributor many times over to the provision of its own general funding across the country.
The present situation is full of anomalies. Some sports such as cricket are subject to look-through status whereby the national governing bodies are not subject to taxation, as is rugby. The burden falls on clubs and that is what the new clause seeks to redress.
Having referred to rugby, I want to use that sport to make my case. Of the 16 countries involved in the rugby world cup this autumn, only England, Scotland and Wales have substantial tax assessments against them. One wonders whether that is part of the reason why our rugby teams, particularly over the past weekend, have not been doing brilliantly in international terms. That must be a contributory factor.
Perhaps I should dwell for a moment on the problems facing Wales. I hesitate to do that, although my friend Ron Waldron is an excellent coach who has coached Neath to great success over the years. However, after Wales were defeated 71 points to 8 by New South Wales, I searched for the name of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury among those who scored the nine tries against Wales. The taxation that the Government are exacting from the Welsh Rugby Union is punitive to say the least. The WRU must pay VAT which is currently projected at £440,000 for this year; it must also pay an exorbitant business rate bill of £220,000 this year. On top of that, the WRU must also pay corporation tax of £330,000.
The WRU is not a profit-making organisation. None of its members is seeking to join Lloyd's. They do not expect dividends or benefits from the income generated by the sport. There is no personal gain in rugby in Wales or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Why should the WRU be subjected to corporation tax in this anomalous and punitive fashion?
In effect, the WRU's income from international matches is its sole source of surpluses. That income is severely raided by the Treasury through corporation tax. As a result of that, there is underprovision and the WRU is unable to invest the resources that it wants to invest in local clubs. Given the way in which the game in Wales has slid over the past few years, that is a real issue.
I hope that Conservative Members and, preferably, Treasury Ministers will address the crisis facing our school and youth sports. It is not surprising that British sports men and women face problems in competing successfully abroad in rugby and other sports, given the crisis in school sport.
I have two young sons. If it were not for the diligence of a few amateur voluntary helpers outside the school, the facilities for them would not be the same. The Government have destroyed teachers' confidence and morale and their commitment and willingness to work all hours under the sun for little or no reward while their professionalism was attacked from left, right and centre. That has created a crisis at school level whereby it is difficult to get the training, support and resourcing that school sport so desperately needs.
For years, schools in Wales were virtual factories for rugby. Now the burden in youth rugby falls on local clubs. The WRU has to sponsor and invest in those clubs. The £330,000 that the Treasury is nicking—if I may use that colloquialism—from the WRU's income this year is preventing it from investing that money in the provision of youth sport and club sport, which are the backbone of the game in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom.
We must consider how rugby is organised in Wales. It is organised by volunteers who are not out for personal gain. They put in long hours with no reward and with virtually no support from the Government. Indeed, there is an attack on their resources. My local club, Resolven rugby football club, suffers from the problem of lack of Government support and it has to pay exorbitant water charges. A new pipe has been put in for some new showers. As a result of the way in which water charges have catapulted upwards since privatisation, the connection charge for a 1-ft pipe connecting one pipe to another is £850, compared with the £30 which it would have cost when Welsh Water was under public ownership a couple of years ago. The club faces business rates, and exorbitant and punitive water charges. Those involved in the club have no personal gain and are determined to provide the best possible facilities for young people in particular. Surely with the rising rate in youth crime—
I ask my question as, I think, the only qualified rugby referee in the House. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that he did far more damage to the sport of rugby than the Government and the proposal on corporation tax ever have?
I was wondering when such a constructive intervention would be made by a Conservative Member. The changes now occurring in rugby and in sport generally in South Africa are a vindication of the strategy that many of us pursued of forcing those changes over the years.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention was an attempt to divert us from the central point. I hope that he does not belittle the real issue which I sought to address—the burden under which local rugby clubs work and suffer, which has been imposed by the Government's financial regime. I sought to make an important point about one of the real problems that we face as youth crime virtually gets out of hand and as young people roam listlessly round the streets because they have nothing to do. With a small concession by the Government, we could assist the Welsh Rugby Union—and this applies to other sports as well—and its local affiliates to provide the resourcing and investment necessary to inspire an interest and sense of enthusiasm in those young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall reviewed the way in which the debate has progressed over the years. The new clause is different from the one moved last year and the one moved the year before. It does not seek charitable status for national governing bodies, as has previously been sought.
Equally important—I hope that the Economic Secretary will address this point in his reply—is the fact that the new clause gives the Secretary of State considerable discretion to determine what is or is not an eligible sport. On 13 April 1991, the Financial Secretary wrote to the secretary of the Welsh Rugby Union:
There is, however, no agreed definition of what constitutes a sport".
Frankly, that is weak. I invite the Economic Secretary or the Financial Secretary to talk to the Neath pack and to ask its members whether they are involved in a sport or are playing at model making for the Treasury. What is and what is not a sport is quite clear to those involved in rugby or any other sport in the United Kingdom.
If there is any doubt, the new clause provides the Secretary of State with that discretion and gives him the opportunity to draw a ring fence around legitimate sports to ensure that nobody can get away with a slipshod definition of sport. I fail to understand why all those mandarins and officials at the Treasury, who, with the parliamentary draftsmen, spend long hours devising clauses and regulations to ensure that people cannot escape the scope of the definitions relating to taxation and the financial sector, cannot provide a suitable definition of sport when the thousands, if not millions, of people who enjoy sport every day of the week could do so. Or is this an excuse so that the Government do not have to act to give relief, not only to rugby in Wales and elsewhere but to sport in general?
Finally, the cost of implementing the provisions would be minimal. It has been estimated by those in the sporting world who are expert at such things as being between £10 million and £12 million, which is nothing compared with the £2 billion that the Exchequer takes from sport every year.
The new clause provides a small concession, but, properly directed and targeted—to use one of the Government's favourite words—it could give considerable support to those sports, and especially to rugby, which desperately need it to provide them with the resources to make the investment that they could not make otherwise.
The House will want to record its admiration for the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) for coming here, so soon after the events in Australia, to advocate the cause of Welsh rugby. His anxiety to ensure that yet more funds are channelled into the cause of Welsh rugby may have been directly stimulated or provoked by those events in Australia. Hon. Members representing English constituencies should not feel any great sense of comfort, because the result obtained by their team on the same day was hardly any more comforting.
This debate has become something of an annual fixture in the sporting calendar. It is noteworthy that two former Ministers for Sport are in their places. I hope that one or other of them may feel compelled to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Three years ago, in a useful debate on this subject, the then Economic Secretary, now catapulted to fame as Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a sympathetic response to what was thought to be a constructive debate. To some extent, the form of the new clause that we are debating is less relevant than the principle that it seeks to establish. Different amendments, in different forms, have been tried over the years. Last year, in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Scotland) Act 1990, which one may think an unlikely vehicle, we tried to persuade the Government to accept that sport in Scotland at least should have charitable status. That must have followed too hard upon the success of the Scottish team at Murrayfield, when they won the grand slam, to succeed in persuading everyone on the Treasury Bench that it was necessarily a good idea.
The issue comes to this—to what extent are the Government willing to recognise the importance of sport in many people's lives and its contribution to health? That is an element of the work of the governing bodies of the sports associations to which insufficient regard has been ascribed until now. It is also noteworthy that the philosophy of the sports councils has become less to direct governing bodies and more to regard them as independent bodies with more devolved responsibilities and powers. If that is so, surely it would be only right and proper to release to governing bodies a far greater level of resources than they presently enjoy.
As the hon. Member for Neath hinted, since the disruption in schools both north and south of the border, the opportunities for individuals to take part in school sport have been substantially reduced. That is why the Scottish Sports Council, under the prompting of the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has responsibility for sport in Scotland and provided the funds, has launched a campaign the purpose of which is to fill the gap that has been created. That gap must be filled by the governing bodies of sport.
Some governing bodies are extremely professionally run. They have paid administrators and substantial staffs. They are sophisticated about attracting sponsorship. They know their way around government. They know how to lobby. But in many cases governing bodies are run by unpaid amateurs who devote their whole life to their particular sport and often run the affairs of the United Kingdom national sporting association from a spare room at the top of their house. In many cases the effort of a governing body is entirely amateur. If that effort was not produced in the committed and energetic way in which it is, those governing bodies would either not exist or at least would operate at a much lower level of activity than at present.
The issue is not so much the precise substance of the new clause. I have looked back at the Official Report of similar debates on previous occasions and I have no doubt that the Treasury Bench will take refuge in some didactic, nit-picking point about the form of the new clause. However, the issue is one of principle. How far do the Government recognise the contribution of sport? The Prime Minister seems to be an enthusiast for sport. The Minister for Sport appears to be someone whose red rose may not be in the right place, but whose heart is certainly in the right place.
This is an opportunity for the Government to recognise and acknowledge the extraordinary contribution that sport makes and the tremendous efforts of unpaid individuals who work, as the word "amateur" necessarily implies, for the love of their sport. How much more redoubled will their efforts be if the Government say generously this evening, "You no longer have to pay corporation tax"?.
I rise to speak briefly particularly in response to the last few sentences uttered by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). As he mentioned, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), as former Sports Ministers, have subscribed very much to the principle of new clause 13. As he said, two or three years ago we received a favourable and sympathetic response from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then a junior Minister at the Treasury. That response was the result of several years of lobbying Treasury Ministers. We lobbied a whole series of my right hon. and hon. Friends who occupied various positions at the Treasury. They received us courteously and, indeed, gave us good reason to believe that one of these years the philosophy behind the new clause might just be accepted.
This year, as you know, Mr. Speaker, this new clause has been tabled by the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and for Neath (Mr. Hain). At an even lower scale in terms of cost, new clause 8, which unfortunately you were not able to select, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and me. It called for some tax relief for the British Olympic Association—one specific sporting body which should most certainly receive some tax relief in line with every other Olympic committee in the world. I want my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to know that this philosophy is accepted across the parties in the House. It would have been wrong for me not to put that on the record tonight. In his response, will he give us some idea of which direction we should be going to achieve tax relief for sport?
As I said, we have presented the minimum position with the British Olympic Association. The new clause tabled by the Opposition asks for rather more. Surely the time has now come for the Treasury to give some indication of when we can hope that sport's governing bodies can gain tax relief.
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) intervened, I was going to say that it was nice for an Englishman to get a word in, if only to remind the House that we do not have to go quite so far back in history to find an occasion when we won the grand slam. It is not surprising that if one wanted an example of a sport in a terrible mess, one would pick the Welsh Rugby Union. If one is to chuck public money around, even the Labour party now believes in throwing money at winners, not losers.
This is a difficult problem to solve. There is no easy solution. The fact that over the years people have tried to find a solution but none has been found shows how difficult it is. The relief proposed by the new clause is both extremely generous and wide ranging. The new clause would give complete exemption from corporation tax to any recreational association organised nationally which did not distribute its profit. Compare that with the current position where the only bodies wholly exempt from corporation tax are local authorities and health service bodies. Even the exemption enjoyed by charities is conditional on income being applied solely to charitable purposes. There is no such restriction in the new clause.
One must realise that such an exemption would confer an unfair advantage on these bodies. Where, for example, they sold sports equipment or refreshments, they might well be in direct competition with other local traders who do not enjoy similar tax privileges. There is no definition of "sport" or "recreational", and it would be almost impossible to devise a satisfactory one.
It is hard to see any good reason for granting an exemption to sport but not to other equally worthwhile activities. Therefore, any such relief would create considerable pressure for an extension to other bodies and could give rise to endless disputes about whether particular bodies or activities should qualify.
The new clause goes further than one might have expected in containing provisions designed to allow tax relief on covenanted donations or on donations under gift aid to such bodies. Relief on that sort of payment is designed to benefit charities. It is well established that sport is not a charitable activity. Charities would be deeply concerned at a proposal which threatened to divert money from them to new bodies.
The Government have considered possible reliefs for sports or sport's governing bodies several times, but it has been difficult to identify an acceptable proposal. Any exception would be arbitrary and difficult to confine, and it would not be possible to accept the new clause. I understand the problem, but there is no acceptable or easy solution to it, although we have looked hard for one.
If it is any consolation, the sports and arts foundation, which has been set up in association with this Budget, will provide valuable help for sport. We expect it to distribute some £250 million over the next four years. At least two thirds of that must go to sport, so there should be £160 million or £170 million from that, as well as all the other resources going into sport. I am sorry that it is not possible for the Government to accept the new clause.
I rather expected that response from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) suggested, it was unlikely that we would hear anything new. We have simply had a repetition of what has been said, ad nauseam, in Committee after Committee, year after year. I am disappointed that the Minister said absolutely nothing new. He continues to say that the Government have tried, but that they cannot find a way round the problem. However, if Back-Bench Members can come up, year after year, with new ways in which to tackle the problem, how many more ways do we have to find before the Government, with all their machinery of civil servants and support, can find a mechanism to accept the principle?
I should have been happy if the Minister had even accepted the principle and said that the Government would like to find a way in which to provide money. However, there seems to be no give from the Government and, therefore, I want to press the new clause to a vote.
|Division No. 210]||[9.50 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||McFall, John|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Bellotti, David||Madden, Max|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Blunkett, David||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Caborn, Richard||Meale, Alan|
|Callaghan, Jim||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Morley, Elliot|
|Canavan, Dennis||Nellist, Dave|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Paisley, Rev Ian|
|Carr, Michael||Patchett, Terry|
|Cohen, Harry||Pendry, Tom|
|Cousins, Jim||Pike, Peter L.|
|Cox, Tom||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Cryer, Bob||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Redmond, Martin|
|Dixon, Don||Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Rooney, Terence|
|Eadie, Alexander||Salmond, Alex|
|Eastham, Ken||Skinner, Dennis|
|Fearn, Ronald||Spearing, Nigel|
|Fyfe, Maria||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Gordon, Mildred||Trimble, David|
|Graham, Thomas||Wallace, James|
|Grocott, Bruce||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Haynes, Frank||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Hood, Jimmy||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)||Wray, Jimmy|
|Illsley, Eric||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Leighton, Ron||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Lewis, Terry||Ms. Kate Hoey and Mr. Peter Hain.|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Bright, Graham|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)|
|Allason, Rupert||Browne, John (Winchester)|
|Amess, David||Buck, Sir Antony|
|Amos, Alan||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Arbuthnot, James||Burns, Simon|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas||Butler, Chris|
|Atkinson, David||Butterfill, John|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Carrington, Matthew|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Cash, William|
|Baldry, Tony||Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Chapman, Sydney|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Chope, Christopher|
|Bellingham, Henry||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)|
|Benyon, W.||Colvin, Michael|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Coombs, Simon (Swindon)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Cope, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Couchman, James|
|Boswell, Tim||Cran, James|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Bowis, John||Day, Stephen|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Devlin, Tim|
|Brazier, Julian||Dicks, Terry|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Lilley, Rt Hon Peter|
|Evennett, David||Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)|
|Fallon, Michael||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Lord, Michael|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||McCrindle, Sir Robert|
|Fishburn, John Dudley||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Fookes, Dame Janet||MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Forman, Nigel||Maclean, David|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael|
|Forth, Eric||McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Malins, Humfrey|
|Franks, Cecil||Mans, Keith|
|Freeman, Roger||Maples, John|
|French, Douglas||Marlow, Tony|
|Fry, Peter||Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)|
|Gale, Roger||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Gardiner, Sir George||Mates, Michael|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Gill, Christopher||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Glyn, Dr Sir Alan||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Mellor, Rt Hon David|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Mills, Iain|
|Gorst, John||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Mitchell, Sir David|
|Gregory, Conal||Moate, Roger|
|Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Grist, Ian||Morris, M (N'hampton S)|
|Ground, Patrick||Moss, Malcolm|
|Grylls, Michael||Moynihan, Hon Colin|
|Hague, William||Neale, Sir Gerrard|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Needham, Richard|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Hannam, John||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Norris, Steve|
|Harris, David||Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hayes, Jerry||Page, Richard|
|Hayward, Robert||Paice, James|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Patnick, Irvine|
|Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)||Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)|
|Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)||Patten, Rt Hon John|
|Hill, James||Pawsey, James|
|Hind, Kenneth||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Holt, Richard||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Rattan, Keith|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)||Riddick, Graham|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Hunter, Andrew||Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn|
|Irvine, Michael||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Irving, Sir Charles||Rowe, Andrew|
|Jack, Michael||Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela|
|Jackson, Robert||Ryder, Rt Hon Richard|
|Janman, Tim||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Jessel, Toby||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Kilfedder, James||Shelton, Sir William|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Knapman, Roger||Sims, Roger|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Lang, Rt Hon Ian||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Latham, Michael||Speed, Keith|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Speller, Tony|
|Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)||Walden, George|
|Squire, Robin||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Waller, Gary|
|Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John||Ward, John|
|Stern, Michael||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Stevens, Lewis||Watts, John|
|Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)||Wells, Bowen|
|Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Summerson, Hugo||Whitney, Ray|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Taylor, Sir Teddy||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman||Wilkinson, John|
|Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)||Wilshire, David|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Thorne, Neil||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Thurnham, Peter||Wolfson, Mark|
|Townend, John (Bridlington)||Wood, Timothy|
|Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)||Yeo, Tim|
|Trippier, David||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Trotter, Neville||Mr. David Lightbown, and Mr. John M. Taylor.|
|Wakeham, Rt Hon John|