§ 3.52 p.m.
§ Mr. Brian O'Malley (Rotherham)
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 36, leave out '£1.68' and insert '£100'.
It is right that before we conclude the Report stage we should at least spend some time examining the problem of the numerically smaller class of contributors, those who are self-employed and who under the terms of the Bill will pay flat-rate Class 2 contributions and also be liable for a 5 per cent. levy on income exceeding £1,150 a year on their Schedule D earnings up to a ceiling of £2,500.
The House should first bear in mind that large numbers of the self-employed have small incomes. It is against that background that we should examine the financial obligations placed upon this category of contributors. It is a regrettable fact, which is generally accepted, that successive Governments have found it impossible to bring self-employed earners into an earnings-related system. Because of the continuing dependence on flat-rate contributions substantial numbers of self-employed persons with small incomes suffer from the same disadvantages inherent in a system of flat-rate contributions as are suffered by lower-paid workers who pay Class 1 contributions.
It is worth noticing that under the terms of the Bill a self-employed earner liable for Class 2 contributions with a weekly income on the Schedule D returns of £20 a week will be making a percentage contribution to the national insurance fund not of 5.25 per cent., which is the percentage paid by the employer, but of 8 per cent. Another example is that of a woman paying Class 2 contributions. Even under the transitional arrangements, when she will be paying a weekly con- 502 tribution of £1.40, she will be paying a flat-rate contribution equal to 10 per cent. of her total income.
I am not considering the fact that a self-employed earner has no employer to make a contribution. I am merely looking at the stark facts as they face such a person. Unlike a Class 1 contributor he is expected to make a percentage contribution much higher than that of employed persons even though a large number of self-employed persons have limited incomes. When such people take the option and make voluntary contributions to maintain a contribution record to obtain a full retirement pension they are required to pay what must to many be a near crushing burden.
As the Bill stands, whereas self-employed persons paying a Class 2 contribution will be required to pay £1.68 in the case of a man and £1.40 in the case of a woman, under the transitional proceedings those whose income is likely to be very small are required to make a payment of £1.33. This is not a party political point, it is part of the structure. This was inherited from the existing national insurance system. Since we are dealing with a major piece of principal legislation it is right that we should look at the problems arising for the self-employed person with a low income. We should also consider others, for example the single woman deprived of her job, looking after her elderly parents or sick members of her family.
The purpose of this amendment is to bring relief to those who have the option of making voluntary contributions and to attempt to give some assistance to self-employed persons, many of whom have limited incomes and who are, in overall terms, among the lower-paid. The effect of the amendment is not to bring in any additional resources from payments made by self-employed contributors.
The global effect of the amendment would mean that the whole body of self-employed persons would be making a global contribution at about the same level as now. There could be a debate about whether the proportion of contributions as between self-employed and employed persons is right. The Undersecretary pointed out in Committee that whereas the sum of the self-employed person's contribution relates to only 33 503 per cent. of the retirement pension, as a result of the Bill this group will find that they are contributing not 33 per cent. but 53 per cent. towards the cost of the pension.
We are not discussing that now. We are not discussing the overall basic amount of money to be raised by self-employed persons through their contributions. What I am trying to do is suggest a formula which will bring relief to self-employed earners and to those who find themselves in a position when it could be to their advantage to make voluntary contributions to maintain a contribution record even if their total income is very small.
We are not tied to this precise formula. If the Government wanted to raise more money from self-employed contributors we would be prepared to listen to any propositions they might wish to put forward. If they said that we had the balance of the arithmetic wrong and that the figures should be amended, we are flexible on this matter and would be prepared to listen.
Against that background I will briefly describe the effect of the amendments. The effect of Amendment No. 7 would be to reduce the Class 2 contribution for the self-employed, of whom large numbers are on very small incomes, from £1.68 to £1. Similarly, those paying voluntary contributions—we must consider these people with a great deal of sympathy —would be required to pay not £1.33, as stipulated in the Bill, but £1.
In order to balance the revenue brought into the National Insurance Fund we propose in Amendment No. 9 that the percentage contribution from those with incomes ranging from £1,150 to £2,500 a year should be raised from 5 per cent. to 1½ per cent. and from those earning over £2,500 a year 10 per cent.
There are about 1½ million self-employed persons in the United Kingdom. On the most reliable figures that I have, I understand that about two-thirds of those 1½ million self-employed have earnings at or below £1,150 per year. Even those on £1,150 are expected to make an 8 per cent. date-rate payment.
The amendments would be particularly helpful to the self-employed with limited 504 incomes. They would find themselves advantaged up to a sum of 68p.
There would be little or no additional cost imposed on the self-employed with incomes of between £1,150 and £2,500. For example, a self-employed person with an income of £2,500—the ceiling laid down in Clause 5—would be liable to a percentage levy of 5 per cent. on £1,350, the difference between £1,150 and £2,500, and there would be a total levy of £2.98 —£1.68 for the Class 2 contribution, plus £1.30 as the 5 per cent. contribution under Clause 5.
Under my revised formula the total payments made, assuming a drop in the Class 2 contribution from £168 to £1 and a 7½ per cent. levy rather than a 5 per cent. levy, would be £1.95 on the levy and £1 for the contribution. So, even at the ceiling, the £2,500-a-year man would be paying not £2.98, but £2.95. Therefore, we are not loading additional burdens on the self-employed whose incomes are modest or up to one-and-a-half times national average earnings. We are particularly anxious to do what we can to help the self-employed with modest incomes, but we suggest that a possible formula might be that which we are proposing. It would mean that even persons earning up to one-and-a-half times national average earnings would not find themselves loaded with additional payments.
I understand that the total resources coming into the National Insurance Fund, under the system laid down in the Bill, would be about £132 million a year. Under our proposals the figure would be about the same. I cannot put it any nearer. The Opposition do not have the advantage of the research facilities available to the Government within major Departments.
There is room for argument about what should be the proper percentage contribution for pensions return which the self-employed should receive. If the Government believe that there is any need for a further upward revision, having moved from 33 per cent. to 53 per cent., which is a helfy increase, we would be prepared to look at any proposal they may make. However, we believe that our proposals provide a formula which could help the self-employed person with a small income.
505 It is right that this House should look at the problems of the small shopkeeper —the lady with the little corner shop who is faced with competition by supermarkets, hypermarkets, and the great chain stores—and all the self-employed who find that there is no gold mine at the end of the day and that they are working for an extremely limited income. It seems reasonable to put forward these proposals in order to give some assistance to the poorer of this section of the community whose needs, because they number only 1½ million rather than many millions, are often overlooked when we discuss general matters in this House.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean)
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that it is never easy to fit the self-employed into the national insurance scheme and to see that, on the one hand, the burden of contributions is not too great for them, given their circumstances, and that, on the other hand, they bear a fair share of the cost of the basic scheme. This is an age-old problem which is not made any easier under the new arrangements.
I remind the House that we are speaking about 1½ million self-employed people who pay contributions, of whom about 1 million will be paying the Class 4 contribution in addition to the Class 2 contribution.
It is difficult to get a fair balance for the self-employed. First, there is only one contributor to the scheme—the self-employed person. Secondly, there is a great variety of earnings and profits levels among the self-employed. They range from the small shopkeeper, at one end of the scale, to, perhaps, lawyers, some of whom have substantial earnings, at the other.
Another factor which has to be taken into account is that if the total contribution coming from the self-employed into the scheme is substantially less than the total coming in from the employed— from the employer and the employee— there is a temptation for artificial self-employment to be created. Indeed, there can be a real incentive on the part not only of the employee but of the employer to create such artificial arrangements. We have seen this in a number of industries and over many years it has 506 created serious problems. Therefore, we must try to balance this variety of factors in assessing what the self-employed should pay.
What we are proposing in the Bill for Class 2 contributions is something almost parallel with or similar to the arrangements which now exist. We are proposing that the level for the flat-rate contribution should be similar to that which applies now and that the ratio between what the self-employed and the employed pay should be broadly maintained.
That is the position from which we start. I freely admit that it is a matter of judgment whether this is correct, but we did not see any good reason for departing from, broadly, the position which exists at present.
The hon. Member very rightly drew attention to the difficulties which this can create, particularly for the self-employed person on a very low income. It is a difficulty which of course exists in the present scheme. One of the ways in which we tried to meet it, both under the existing arrangements and in Clause 3 of the Bill, is to provide a safeguard so that the self-employed will not have to pay a compulsory contribution when his earnings are below a certain level. In effect, we are making the Class 2 contribution voluntary where earnings are less than £9 a week. This means that the cover for the self-employed for pensions is not available when they are not making contributions, but we are continuing the arrangement which existed previously for those for whom paying the contribution would be a hardship.
We are continuing the flat-rate contribution—but not because we think that is desirable. In an ideal situation we would much have preferred to move over to an earnings-related position, but we have not yet been able—in view of the ways in which self-employed operate and the way in which their taxation arrangements are made—to devise a way in which they could pay the earnings-related contributions. So we have to maintain the system. I think it fair to say, having conceded the disadvantages which exist in a flat-rate system of contribution, that we have to be very careful that the self-employed are not bearing less than their fair share of the pay-as-you-go scheme because of 507 the temptations which otherwise would arise.
To illustrate the inherent dangers, if we go back to the beginning of the present scheme in 1948 we find that from that time the self-employed has paid a steadily smaller share of the cost of pensions and other benefits. It was 69 per cent. of the maximum Class 1 contribution in 1948, but it was only 33 per cent. of such a contribution in 1972. There has been a very substantial drop in the proportionate share of the burden borne by the self-employed. For this reason we have tried to avoid, on the one hand, the low-paid self-employed having an unreasonable burden put on him while, at the same time, asking the higher-paid self-employed contributor to pay a larger share through the Class 4 contribution.
§ Mr. O'Malley
The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have tried to avoid a lower-paid self-employed earner bearing an intolerable burden as a result of the system of flat-rate contributions. Does he not think that in the example which I quoted of a self-employed woman receiving £15 a week and paying 10 per cent. of her income there is an intolerable burden?
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Dean
Inevitably in a flat-rate contribution the lower the earnings the higher proportion does the contribution bear to those earnings. This is an inevitable part of the arrangement. We are deliberately not increasing the burden of the self-employed under the new arrangements in spite of the fact that their share of the cost of the scheme has reduced fairly substantially over the years. In order that the higher-paid self-employed shall bear an additional share of the cost of the basic scheme, we have introduced the concept of the Class 4 contribution.
I accept that, as the hon. Member said, it is a matter of judgment where to draw the balance between these two categories of contributors. If we take the combination of the Class 2 and the Class 4 contributions, we have aimed not to put too big an additional cost on to the self-employed who will be paying this new contribution for the first time. The new Class 4 contribution—which, incidentally, will apply only to profits and gains above 508 £1,150—partly redresses the balance, but the maximum contribution paid by a self-employed person with profits and gains of £2,500 or more is still only 53 per cent. of the total Class 1 contribution on equivalent earnings.
The hon. Member may think that in giving those figures I am making a comment in favour of the proposals he has made. One has to recognise that this is a new contribution. It is a burden that the self-employed are not bearing at present and substantially to increase the contribution at the higher end, which is what the hon. Member's proposal amounts to, would bring them to the highest rate of tax, to 85 per cent. This is a substantial, almost a penal, rate to expect the self-employed to bear. I therefore suggest that we have got the right balance here between the flat-rate contribution and the earnings-related contribution which will be paid by those self-employed who have profits and gains above a certain level. But this is a matter of judgment and it is a factor which can always be changed in future if in the light of experience that seems appropriate.
§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
I listened with very great care to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said. As I think he knows, I have always taken a great interest in people engaged in self-employment in a small way. I am always anxious that we should be as fair as possible under the circumstances which have been so ably and fairly outlined by my hon. Friend.
It is obvious that this is a very difficult position. As my hon. Friend said, the decision taken by the Government is a matter of judgment. I certainly would not be in any position to contradict or even to add anything to what he said, but one thing he said has given me quite a lot of hope. When introducing an enormous Bill of this kind from which an immense number of situations can arise, one realises that it must take a considerable time before one can see whether matters of judgment have been exercised in the right direction. One cannot decide early whether the judgment is good, indifferent or bad. All I know is that on a matter of this kind my hon. Friend will have tried to make the very best judgment he can in the interests of the people whom he, just as other 509 hon. Members on both sides of the House, is anxious to look after.
My hon. Friend gave me a little hope when he referred to the matter of judgment and whether it was correct. I have not received any representation from people in a small way of business whose position we are discussing. I am very close to my constituents, and as a rule they let me know whether they approve of what Governments are doing, but I have had no representations on this matter. Since it is so complicated, it will take them some time to understand all the decisions which are embodied in the Bill on their behalf and to see whether they will face too heavy a burden or whether their position is being properly protected.
What encouraged me in my hon. Friend's speech was that he said that, when everyone concerned has been able to assess this judgment, there will be an opportunity in future years to alter these decisions, if necessary. My experience in political life is that, when something is discovered to be wrong, it is the most difficult thing for any Government to find time to correct it. This is a very important matter, so I am grateful for the Minister's comment.
I cannot make any helpful observations because of my lack of knowledge of this subject, but I am glad that my hon. Friend's speech will be on the record. Whenever this matter is being re-examined, if it turns out that the judgment has not been right, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find Government time to readjust it. That is the best thing that we can do. If he says anything else, I hope that he will re-emphasise that, if there are difficulties for these people, there will be an early opportunity to readjust the position and to give them fairer treatment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
Perhaps I should remind the House that there is no need to ask for permission to reply. Any hon. Member in charge of an amendment, from whatever part of the House, has an absolute right of reply. The same applies to the Government in answering.
§ Mr. O'Malley
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) accepted that the Government had made a judgment but were prepared to keep their minds open. What has happened is rather different. The Government have taken over part of the existing scheme, without fully considering the inherent disadvantages.
The Under-Secretary said that the Government did not want to provide incentives for artificial self-employment. That sounds a bit odd coming from this Government, with their history of the treatment of the "lump" in the building industry. When they came to office, they found a ready-defined solution waiting on a plate but chose to ignore it. A characteristic of their period in office has been the growth of bogus self-employment which this Department resolutely refused to do anything about in Committee.
The Under-Secretary says, in those courteous tones, that it is a matter of judgment and that the Government will consider all these things, but nothing ever happens. This is my fear about the Bill. I agree that we should not put too big a burden on Class 4 contributors. That is why one of our amendments would have provided that these contributors, up to earnings of £2,500 a year, would pay no more—in fact, marginally less—than under the Bill as drafted.
How can anyone defend a situation in which self-employed people are asked to bear contribution levels which are such high percentages of their income as I have described? If we were going to deal with this problem for the lower-paid employed people by the introduction of earnings-related contributions but could not introduce earnings-related contributions for the self-employed, we should have sought some formula to give the lower-paid self-employed these advantages in some other way.
Therefore, in the present economic circumstances and the general context of the Government's policies, with ail their hand-outs to the wealthiest sections of the community—
§ Mr. O'Malley
The hon. Lady has obviously not been listening to our debates 511 over the past 18 months, which show that money has been shovelled out by the bucketful to those at the top of the income ladder.
Therefore, in the circumstances, we on this side remain profoundly dissatisfied with the way in which the Government
§ have decided to treat—in fact, to neglect —the self-employed on low incomes. That is why I recommend my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 190.513
|Division No. 128.]||AYES||[4.27 p.m.|
|Ashton, Joe||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Oram, Bert|
|Atkinson, Norman||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Barnes, Michael||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||Orme, Stanley|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Oswald, Thomas|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)||Hamilton, William (File, W.)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sulton)|
|Baxter, William||Hamling, William||Padley, Walter|
|Beaney, Alan||Hardy, Peter||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Harper, Joseph||Pardoe, John|
|Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Bishop, E. S.||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred.|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Hattersley, Roy||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Booth, Albert||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Peg.|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Bradley, Tom||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Radice, Giles|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen. N.)||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Buchan, Norman||Janner, Greville||Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||John Brynmor||Rowlands, Ted|
|Carmichael, Neil||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Jones Rt. Hn.Sir E!wyn(W.Ham,S.)||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(Stepney)|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Coleman, Donald||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Kaufman Gerald||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Dept(ord)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Kelley Richard||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Lamborn Harry||Silverman, Julius|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Lamond James||Skinner, Dennis|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Latham Arthur||Small, William|
|Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Lawson' George||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Leonard Dick||Strang, Gavin|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Lipton, Marcus||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||McBride Neil||Summer-skill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||McElhone, Frank||Swain, Thomas|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Machin, George||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geottrey||Mackenzie, Gregor||Tope, Graham|
|Delargy, Hugh||Mackintosh, John P.||Torney, Tom|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Maclennan, Robert||Varley, Eric G.|
|Doig, Peter||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Dormand, J. D.||McNamara, J. Kevin||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Marks, Kenneth||Wallace, George|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Marquand, David||Watkins, David|
|Driberg, Tom||arshall, Dr. Edmund||Weitzman, David|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Mayhew, Christopher||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Edelman, Maurice||Meacher, Michael||Whitlock, William|
|Edwards, Robert (Bllston)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Mendelson, John||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Ewing, Harry||Mikardo, Ian||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)|
|Faulds, Andrew||Millan, Bruce||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Woof, Robert|
|Foot, Michael||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Ford, Ben||Moyle, Roland||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||O'Halloran, Michael||Mr. Tom Pendry and|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||O'Malley, Brian||Mr. James A. Dunn.|
|Glnsburg, David (Dewabury)|
|Adley, Robert||Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Bell, Ronald||Boscawen, Hn. Robert|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Bossom, Sir Clive|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Benyon, W.||Braine, Sir Bernard|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Biffen, John||Bray, Ronald|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Biggs-Davison, John||Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Howell, David (Guildford)||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hunt, John||Raison, Timothy|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Redmond, Robert|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||James, David||Rees, Peter (Dover)|
|Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn)||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Channon, Paul||Jessel, Toby||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Chapman, Sydney||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Chichesier-Clark, R.||Jopling, Michael||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Cooke, Robert||Kimball, Marcus||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Coombs, Derek||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Kinsey J. R.||Shersby, Michael|
|Costain, A. P.||Knox, David||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Critchley, Julian||Lamont, Norman||Soref, Harold|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Lane, David||Speed, Keith|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack||Le Marchant, Spencer||Spence, John|
|Dean, Paul||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sproat, lain|
|Dixon, Piers||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langslone)||Stewart-Smith. Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Longden, Sir Gilbert||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Loveridge, John||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Luce, R. N.||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Sutcliffe, John|
|Eyre, Reginald||MacArthur, Ian||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)|
|Farr, John||McCrindle, R. A.||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Fell, Anthony||McLaren, Martin||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Finsberg Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Tebbit Norman|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Temple, John M.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Madel, David||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Fortescue, Tim||Maginnis, John E.||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Fowler, Norman||Mather, Carol||Thomas Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Fox, Marcus||Maude, Angus||Trew Peter|
|Gardner Edward||Mawby, Ray||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Meyer, sir Anthony||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Vickers, Dame [...]oan|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Waddington, David|
|Godber Rt. Hn. J. B.||Molyneaux, James||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Gower, Raymond||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Monro, Hector||Warren, Kenneth|
|Gray, Hamish||More, Jasper||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Green, Alan||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Grieve, Percy||Morrison, Charles||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Grylls, Michael||Mudd, David||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Gummer, J. Selwyn||Murton, Oscar||Wilkinson John|
|Gurden, Harold||Neave, Airey||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Nott, John||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hannam, John (Exeter)||Oppenheim Mrs. Sally||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Orr, Capt. L P. S.||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Osborn, John||Woodnutt Mark|
|Hawkins, Paul||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Worsley Marcus|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Page, Rt. Hn Graham (Crosby)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Hiley, Joseph||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Holland, Philip||Perclval, Ian||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hornby, Richard||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Mr. Kenneth Clarke and|
|Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Powell, Rt. Hn J. Enoch||Mr. Victor Goodhew.|
|Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.