§ Procedure of Board on review of life sentences—
§ '(1) The Lord Chancellor may make rules with respect to the making of applications to the Board under section (Periodic reviews of detention) above and to the proceedings of the Board in cases arising under that section and section (Power to release life prisoners) above.
§ (2) Rules made under this section may in particular make provision—
- (a) for regulating the means by which information relevant to an application or review may be obtained by or furnished to the Board;
- (b) for enabling the Board to dispose of an application without a formal hearing where such a hearing is not requested by the applicant;
- (c) for regulating the person by whom an applicant may, if he so desires be represented for the purposes of his application;
- (d) for making available to an applicant copies of any documents obtained by or furnished to the Board in connection with his application, and a statement of the stubstance of any oral information so obtained or furnished, except where the Board considers it undesirable in the interests of justice to do so;
- (e) for requiring the Board, to furnish reasons for any decision given by it in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the rules;
§
The following amendments: No. 71, in clause 26, page 19, line 18 at beginning insert
'Except in cases to which section (Procedure of Board on review of life sentences) applies and.'
No. 72, in page 19, line 21 after 'or', insert
352
'subject to section (Power to release life prisoners) and section (Periodic reviews of detention) below,'.
§
No. 73, in page 19, line 23, at beginning insert
'Except in cases to which section (Procedure of Board on review of life sentences) applies,'.
§ No. 74, in page 20, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
§ No. 75, in page 20, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
§ No. 76, in page 20, line 23, leave out subsection (4).
§ No. 77, in clause 30, page 20, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
§ No. 78, in clause 32, page 21, line 34, after 'recommended', insert 'or directed'.
§ No. 79, in page 21, line 38, after 'recommendation', insert 'or direction'.
§ No. 80, in page 22, line 5, after 'recommends', insert 'or directs'.
§
No. 81, in clause 41, page 26, line 10, leave out `28(4)' and insert
`(Power to release life prisoners (9))'.
§ Mr. SheermanThe new clauses and amendments seek to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell on 25 October 1990 in regard to life-sentence prisoners. We consider that judgment very important. We had expected the Government to use the Bill as a vehicle to bring them into line with it and we were very concerned when they found that they could not do so. The new clauses and amendments would bring the United Kingdom fully into line with the judgment. We think that important because this country, especially under the present Government, has a poor record with the European Court of Human Rights. I believe that more judgments have been made against us than against any other European Community member country and, in the case that I cited, every opportunity was provided for speedy compliance with the court's judgment.
The court held that persons given a discretionary life sentence were entitled to have their sentences reviewed at the end of the tariff period and at periodic intervals thereafter. If they were released on licence and the licence was revoked, they were also entitled to have their re-detention reviewed by a court.
The case follows an earlier British case, Weeks v. United Kingdom, decided on 2 March 1987, in which the court held for the first time that that principle applied. In the Weeks case, the court found that the Parole Board was an independent body but that its procedures were not sufficiently court-like and that it did not possess sufficient powers in respect of the sentences. Nor did it have the power to terminate the sentence if it formed the view that the personality disorder that had justified a life sentence had ended.
Our new clauses would give the Parole Board the power to release life-sentence prisoners as soon as the punitive element of the sentence had been served. It would also allow the board to provide a periodic review of detention and would give the Lord Chancellor the authority to institute a set of rules that would enable the board to become a court for the purposes of the convention. The new clauses have the support of two highly distinguished organisations in the field of human rights, Justice and Liberty.
In Committee, we argued long and hard about the role of the pressure groups—or interest groups—which have been quoted in support sometimes of one side of the argument, sometimes of the other; but it should be noted 353 that those two organisations, like many voices in the judiciary—and in another place—are strongly in favour of our proposals. It is also important that the Government accept the European Court's findings against this country and comply with its rulings.
Our new clauses form a package. The first gives the Parole Board the power to release life-sentence prisoners as soon as the punitive element of a sentence has been served. At present, in every life sentence case, the judge sets the punitive element in a private communication with the Home Secretary.
I just looked over my shoulder to see whether the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), was still with us. It is extraordinary that the offender should be unaware of the length of the period concerned. The new clause requires the trial judge to state the period in open court. It seems to us common sense—common humanity—for the prisoner who has been found guilty to know what that element of his sentence is. If the sentence is appealed against, the appeal court will be able to consider the punitive element and determine its length. It is ridiculous that a prisoner should not know how his sentence is composed.
The European Court of Human Rights discussed at some length the distinction between the punitive and the security aspects of a life sentence. I quote from The Times Law Report on the case of Thynne:
In the court's view, each of the applicants was sentenced to life imprisonment because, in addition to the need for punishment, they were considered to be suffering from a mental or personality disorder and to be dangerous and in need of treatment …The court noted that the discretionary life sentence had clearly developed in English law as a measure to deal with mentally unstable and dangerous offenders. Such sentences were composed of both a punitive and a security element"—we understand that, and do not demur from it—the latter being designed to confer on the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permitted the prisoner's release …The factors of mental instability and dangerousness were susceptible to change over the passage of time, and new issues of lawfulness could arise.Under the new clause, the Parole Board would review life sentence cases once the punitive part had been served and it would have the power to release the offender. In making its decision, it would have to have regard to the risk factor—the need to protect the public from harm and to prevent the commission of further offences. It would, of course, consider the personality factors that had led to the original imposition of the life sentence. The board would have power to release the prisoner on licence or to bring the sentence to an end by unconditional release. It could determine the length of the licence, but if it did not set a term, it would have to review the licence at intervals.New clause 6 deals with periodic reviews of detention. This, too, follows a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that a person serving a discretionary life sentence must be entitled to periodic review of the detention to see whether the factors in the prisoner's personality that gave rise to it still exist. It seems to be common humanity and common sense that if, over a long period, the personality of the prisoner changes—either under treatment or, as is often the case, without treatment—the circumstances of that prisoner may be adjudged, on the basis of independent psychiatric advice, to have changed. This matter was discussed in the debate 354 on a previous amendment. The European Court of Human Rights believes that in such cases review should be possible.
New clause 8 deals with the procedure of the board on the review of life sentences. It would give the Lord Chancellor the authority to institute a set of rules enabling the board to become a court for the purposes of the convention. In other words, the court would have to meet the requirements of due process established in the convention, such as the right to representation, the right to bring evidence and to test the other side's evidence, and the right to ask the board to give reasons for its decision. It was the absence of such procedures that led the court, in the case of Weeks, as well as in the Thynne and other cases, to decide that the board could not be regarded as a court for the purposes of the convention. We believe that the Lord Chancellor should be given the ability to put that right.
Finally, there is the amendment that would result in the omission of subsection (3) of clause 30. It would remove the provision that a licence must last for the life of the prisoner. This would also be consequential on the judgment. Once the personality factors have ceased to exist, the justification for the sentence ceases, and it becomes unlawful in terms of the convention. Therefore, the board must have power to set a period for the licence that is less than life.
During the Committee stage we had a long debate on matters similar to these. The Minister will have noted that the amendments, as drafted, are not confined to discretionary life sentences. The House, too, will understand that. It is a deliberate decision on our part. This is what the European judgment is all about. Such sentences now constitute about 25 per cent. of life sentences in England and Wales and less than 5 per cent. in Scotland.
The amendments extend to all life sentences. There are two reasons for that. In their argument before the European Court of Human Rights the Government maintained that it would be wrong in principle and impractical in operation for two sets of rules to be operated by the Parole Board, depending upon whether the life sentence was mandatory or discretionary. That is good logic and common sense. We agree with those sentiments and consider that, as a matter of principle, all questions of detention and release should rest with the judiciary. It is difficult to think of circumstances in which the expert assessment of risk—now made by the Parole Board—should be overruled by the Minister and his officials. We mean nothing personal, but Ministers come and go and Secretaries of State change rapidly. We believe that the decision should be made by a court-like authority—the Parole Board.
By including mandatory lifers the amendments would implement the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment published in July 1989. That came down broadly in favour of taking the power of release out of the hands of the Minister and putting it into those of an independent tribunal. I do not want to bore the House with the detail we discussed in Committee, but we have heard the views of the good, the wise and the experienced—I am looking at the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
The final argument in favour is that the principles of the convention set out by the European court in the cases of Weeks, Thynne and others about the nature of liberty 355 make it clear that once a life-serving prisoner has been released, whatever the initial basis for the life sentence, his convention rights are restored. That means that liberty cannot be taken away from the prisoner without due process before a court. Thus, on the revocation of a licence, every life prisoner is entitled to proper judicial process before the board, which must be given power to determine the question of release.
Running through all the amendments is a clear logic and rationale. We have built on the European court's judgment to bring the system into a much more coherent and consistent form. It is imperative that the Government comply with the European court's ruling. They have no excuse for delay. In Committee the Minister said:
I am inclined neither to accept the amendments nor to say at this stage when or how we shall implement the Strasbourg judgment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 1991; c. 337.]That is not good enough. The Minister justified his position by saying that the subject matter was, in part, sub judice. That was misleading. It was always a red herring as the judgment in the case is related to internal laws in Britain, not to European rulings, and, in any event, it has now been dealt with.Interestingly, the Minister's main reason for delay was that there was insufficient time to reflect on the court's decision. That will not hold water, either. It is true that in the Thynne case judgment was given in October 1990, but the judgment in Weeks, which covers much the same ground, was in March 1987. What is more, in the Thynne case the European Court of Human Rights drew up its report expressing the opinion that there had been a violation of the convention as early as September 1989. Therefore, the Government have had plenty of time to think the issues through.
The problem will not go away. We know of at least three cases in which prisoners are taking the Government to the European court on the same issue. We are raising the new clauses to give the Government yet another chance to show that they will comply with the European court judgments and we hope that they will provide the timetable under which they propose to proceed.
In this place we are all familiar with the doctrine of the "unright" time. The Government say that they will do something but, "This is not the right Bill, the right time, or the right month." I hope that I have made the case that the Government have a responsibility to bring this country into line with the European Court of Human Rights. What is the purpose of such a court if, time after time, we fail to comply and drag our feet even when we do comply? This Bill deals with precisely that range of matters and there is no excuse for any further delay.
§ Mr. John GreenwayI shall not detain the House for long because, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, we discussed this subject at some length in Committee. However, because of constraints on time, I did not participate in that debate.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield on discretionary sentences. However, I am not convinced that he made his case on mandatory sentences. The new clauses will incorporate both forms of sentence. I hear what he said about it being four or five months since the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Gunnell, Wilson and Thynne. 356 It is argued that the Government have had time to consider that case, but I do not believe that the public will expect them to rush into decisions that affect our freedom, peace and security. It is all very well to talk about what the European court said about that case, but we must not lose sight of the fact that those men were convicted of nasty multiple rapes and buggery.
9.15 pm
When mandatory sentences are passed, public concern about the need to be protected from murderers becomes even more important. Less than two months ago, we had an interesting debate on capital punishment. Many British people support capital punishment, but say that if we are not to have capital punishment life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment. The Government should have much time to think about how to deliver that requirement, which the public have expressed for a long time, and meet the requirements of the European court. Clearly, we must achieve a proper balance between the liberty and rights of the prisoner and the need to protect the public from dangerous criminals, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take a more cautious view than did the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
No hon. Member has the right to say, "This is our view and there is no other." We owe it to the British people to ensure that our system of criminal justice and sentencing are adequate to protect the public from people who are a danger to society. I am not sure how we can balance that need with the requirement to state the punitive element of a sentence when it is passed, which seemed to be what the hon. Member for Huddersfield was urging.
As we are so keen to achieve the right balance, it is fair that I should put both points of view. I asked the governor of Full Sutton prison, who has many years' experience in the prison service, for his view on parole and the automatic right to parole for long-sentence prisoners. He said that, in many ways, it is helpful to prison discipline and to the rehabilitation of offenders if they are aware of the punitive element of their sentence.
If we were dealing only with discretionary life sentences, perhaps the hon. Member for Huddersfield would have a point. As I said, we are not. We are dealing with discretionary and mandatory sentences. Even after the Bill has been given Royal Assent and is in force, there will still need to be a debate on mandatory sentences. The European court has not ruled on that matter, so the Government should be under no pressure to take precipitate action on it. For that reason, if for no other, the House should reject the new clause.
§ Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)It may seem curious that, within weeks of my reaching the 25th anniversary of my arrival in this place, I now wish to make a maiden speech. This will be my maiden speech on a Criminal Justice Bill. I ask for my right hon. and hon. Friends' forgiveness when I tread into this strange new legislative territory.
I am prompted by a constituency case which reveals the unjustness of the present system in determining life sentences. It involves a young man called Wayne Smart. The case has been the subject of lengthy correspondence with a succession of Home Office Ministers since 1986. I sought then, and I seek now, to get natural justice.
The case involves some terrible events that led to the death of a local person. I do not wish to rehearse the 357 circumstances, save to say that almost everyone who knows the young person and the background has found these events totally out of character. The parents, the young man and obviously the family of the person who was killed have been shattered by the experience. We are all baffled to know what led to it.
Wayne Smart had no record of previous violent offences—his only previous offence was driving a car without a licence. I received a petition containing more than 600 names from people living in the community where the murdered person and Wayne Smart lived. The petition pleaded with the Home Secretary for leniency. By any standards in my constituency experience, it was extraordinary to receive such a petition.
I presented the petition to Home Office Ministers in the hope that it would play an important part in determining the young man's length of sentence. That was the beginning of my long contact with a labyrinth of procedures. The case preceded the Handscomb decision in March 1987, which allows counsel to make a plea of mitigation to the trial judge after a person has been found guilty of murder. In this case, there was no opportunity to make a plea of mitigation.
When I started on the road of trying to find out how Home Office Ministers would decide the length of sentence that Wayne Smart would serve, I found that there were five stages, the most important of which was the Home Office decision as to when a case should first be reviewed by a local review committee—the so-called tariff decision. In the vast majority of cases, and certainly in this one, that is when the most important decision is taken in determining the length of sentence that a person will serve.
However, as the law stands, a prisoner is permitted virtually no right to make representations; nor does anyone have a right to make representations on his behalf to know on what basis and in what manner a decision on the length of sentence is made. As a layman who is unfamiliar with this aspect of criminal justice, it strikes me as utterly contrary to the principle of natural justice that one is not allowed to know the basis on which such a vital decision is taken.
In October 1989, with increasing concern about trying to work out the labyrinth of procedures, I wrote to the Home Secretary of the day, and I received a letter from the Minister's predecessor. I made a simple request. I asked him to send me, as the representative of the person and family concerned, information about the basis upon which that person's sentence was determined. In a letter dated October 1989, I was refused that information.
The interesting aspect of the matter is that the decision is not a judicial one—a point that my hon. Friends have been making—but a Home Office executive decision. An elected representative in this House or anyone else representing someone such as Wayne Smart is not entitled even to know the information, evidence or factors that are taken into account when determining the length of time that a person will serve in prison. Given that that is a Home Office executive decision, and given that it is a matter of profound importance to the person concerned—the Wayne Smart case preceded the Handscomb case, so there was no opportunity even to make a plea of mitigation to the court—such cases show that the existing procedures are contrary to natural justice.
I hope that my brief intervention in such a debate as this points out a fundamental flaw in the procedures, and that it will be heeded by Ministers and taken into account. As 358 others have said, there is already widespread criticism of Home Office Ministers' executive power to determine the length of time that a person such as Mr. Wayne Smart should spend in prison. I hope that, irrespective of the many arguments that have been put, the Minister will take a simple message from a simple case and review the procedure and the law behind it.
§ Mr. LawrenceI cannot follow the constituency case that was raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). However, as it was his "maiden speech" and hon. Members are supposed to say something nice about a maiden speaker, I applaud his opportunism in raising a constituency issue at this time rather than in a much later Adjournment debate in the normal way. The debate is about life sentences——
§ Mr. RowlandsSo is the case to which I referred.
§ Mr. LawrenceI wanted my comment to be nice. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would consider that I was being complimentary. I am sorry that he does not. Perhaps we may talk about it later.
I do not have any strong feelings on the new clauses. I do not think that there is much wrong with periodic reviews of life sentences. I should hope that they would be reasonably frequent—perhaps even annual—for humanitarian reasons. Of course, there is always the danger, which must be avoided, that we have so many reviews that expectations are falsely raised. That is a cruel thing to happen to someone who is serving a life sentence or any other lengthy sentence.
9.30 pm
In response to the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), first, I do not accept that this country has a poor record of compliance with the human rights rulings in Europe. I know that that is often said by Opposition Members and by so-called "freedom groups", but it simply is not so. I do not want to spend time rehearsing the basis of the argument, because those points will no doubt be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, we were among the first to accept the European Court rulings and we have been assiduous in following them. Having entered the field early, of course we have more rulings against us than some other European countries who came to the obligations of the European Court as Johnnies-come-lately.
Also, it is not sufficiently realised that we have international responsibility for some of the islands around this country, such as the Isle of Man and the Channel islands. The Isle of Man got into trouble with the European Court over corporal punishment. If that issue had been taken up by this place, it would have received rather more support at the time than it enjoys this evening, with the House as currently constituted.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will not be allowed to get away with that observation. As a Conservative, I am proud of the fact that we are astute and assiduous when complying with the human rights requirements, but I leave the rest of that issue to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Secondly, nor do I understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying when he called upon us to comply with the European Court ruling which, as I recall it—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—applies 359 only to discretionary sentences. Life imprisonment is a mandatory sentence. It therefore follows that the European Court ruling does not apply to this country——
§ Mr. SheermanPerhaps I did not present my case as articulately as usual, but I clearly made the point that our provisions extended from that judgment in order to broaden the base to cover both sorts of life sentence.
§ Mr. LawrenceIf that is so, I quite understand why my right hon. Friend is taking her time on behalf of the Government to accept the new clauses. If the hon. Gentleman is rolling together what would be an obligation under discretionary sentences with mandatory sentences, that matter obviously requires consideration. However, it cannot be said that we are somehow not in conformity with an obligation laid down by the European Court. If the hon. Gentleman expects that we shall substitute discretionary sentences for mandatory sentences for life imprisonment, I for one hope that he will be disappointed.
That is all that I wanted to say. Even in a brief debate, hon. Members should not be allowed to make wholly unacceptable points without expecting to have them dealt with. There is some merit in my right hon. Friend's obvious reluctance to accept the new clauses. I shall listen with great interest—as I always do—to her reasons, bearing in mind that we must be careful and humane about the way in which we deal with people who are incarcerated in life imprisonment, certainly until such time as we improve the standard of our prisons throughout the country, so that they are more decent places in which our prisoners can abide.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold)It is perfectly understandable that we should debate this new clause this evening, just as we debated it in Committee. Our debate is also understandable in the light of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on Gunnell, Thynne and Wilson. Clearly, this matter should be raised and is of concern to Opposition Members. Equally, the Select Committee in the House of Lords has made recommendations on the way in which tariffs are set and sentences are reviewed when the punitive part of sentences has expired.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I also listened carefully to the case put by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I am not familiar with it, and I trust that he will excuse me if I do not go into detail, but I carefully noted what he said, and I clearly understood the point that he made. Of course, I will take it back to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his consideration.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield is well aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes the European Court of Human Rights judgment very seriously indeed. I know that the hon. Gentleman fully understands that my right hon. Friend has been in post for not quite two months. The implications of the judgment are a serious responsibility for a Home Secretary. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, the issue is of great importance, and therefore requires a great deal of consideration.
For that reason, I can assure Opposition Members that, as soon as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has 360 given the matter his full consideration and finished the discussions in which he is engaged, he will come to the House and give the results to Parliament immediately.
For the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale gave, it is impossible for us to accept the new clause. It rolls up mandatory and discretionary life sentences. In his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Huddersfield knew that we could not accept the new clause. The European Court of Human Rights decision related only to discretionary matters and did not touch on mandatory matters. That considerably broadens and extends the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in coming to a decision. It is less of a problem to consider the discretionary life sentence implications of the European Court of Human Rights decision.
Equally, the new clause would mean that the criteria that the Parole Board has to follow would have to be considerably tightened in order to meet the requirements of justice in this country. It is for those reasons, but at the same time assuring Opposition Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will come to a decision, that I ask the hon. Member for Huddersfield to withdraw the new clause.
§ Mr. SheermanThe Minister knows from the dialogue that we have had in the past few weeks in Committee that I am not satisfied by that response. She also knows that she cannot get away with sidestepping the issue by saying that it is our fault that she cannot accept the new clause because we have rolled up the two issues. As we all know, the Government could probably have unrolled them by tabling their own amendments, making a clear break between discretionary and mandatory life sentences.
Since the first case in 1987, the Government have had plenty of time. We cannot excuse the new Home Secretary. We cannot drag our feet. There must have been good advice from the Department over the long period since 1987 and for half the past year. Unfortunately, we must divide the House, because we need to push the point as far as we can at this stage.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 279.
363| Division No. 73] | [9.40 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) |
| Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.) | Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) |
| Allen, Graham | Buckley, George J. |
| Alton, David | Caborn, Richard |
| Anderson, Donald | Callaghan, Jim |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Campbell-Savours, D. N. |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Canavan, Dennis |
| Ashton, Joe | Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Cartwright, John |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) |
| Barron, Kevin | Clay, Bob |
| Battle, John | Clelland, David |
| Beckett, Margaret | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Beggs, Roy | Cohen, Harry |
| Bell, Stuart | Corbett, Robin |
| Bellotti. David | Cousins, Jim |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Crowther, Stan |
| Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) | Cryer, Bob |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Cummings, John |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Boateng, Paul | Dalyell, Tam |
| Boyes, Roland | Darling, Alistair |
| Bradley, Keith | Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Dixon, Don |
| Dobson, Frank | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Doran, Frank | Marek, Dr John |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Eadie, Alexander | Martlew, Eric |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Maxton, John |
| Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E) | Meacher, Michael |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) | Meale, Alan |
| Fatchett, Derek | Michael, Alun |
| Faulds, Andrew | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Fearn, Ronald | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Fisher, Mark | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Flynn, Paul | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Mullin, Chris |
| Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) | Murphy, Paul |
| Foster, Derek | Nellist, Dave |
| Fraser, John | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Fyfe, Maria | O'Brien, William |
| Garrett, John (Norwich South) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) | Parry, Robert |
| George, Bruce | Patchett, Terry |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Pendry, Tom |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Gordon, Mildred | Prescott, John |
| Graham, Thomas | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Radice, Giles |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Randall, Stuart |
| Grocott, Bruce | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn |
| Hardy, Peter | Reid, Dr John |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Richardson, Jo |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Robertson, George |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | Rooker, Jeff |
| Henderson, Doug | Rooney, Terence |
| Hinchliffe, David | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) | Ross, William (Londonderry E) |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Rowlands, Ted |
| Home Robertson, John | Ruddock, Joan |
| Hood, Jimmy | Sheerman, Barry |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | Short, Clare |
| Hughes, John (Coventry NE) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Illsley, Eric | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| Ingram, Adam | Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam) |
| Janner, Greville | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Snape, Peter |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) | Soley, Clive |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Spearing, Nigel |
| Lambie, David | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Strang, Gavin |
| Leighton, Ron | Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford) |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Lewis, Terry | Trimble, David |
| Lightbown, David | Turner, Dennis |
| Litherland, Robert | Vaz, Keith |
| Livingstone, Ken | Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Walley, Joan |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Loyden, Eddie | Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C) |
| McAllion, John | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Wigley, Dafydd |
| McCartney, Ian | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Macdonald, Calum A. | Wilson, Brian |
| McFall, John | Winnick, David |
| McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| McKelvey, William | Worthington, Tony |
| Maclennan, Robert | Wray, Jimmy |
| McMaster, Gordon | |
| McNamara, Kevin | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| McWilliam, John | Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham. |
| Madden, Max |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Alison, Rt Hon Michael |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Allason, Rupert |
| Alexander, Richard | Amos, Alan |
| Arbuthnot, James | Franks, Cecil |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Freeman, Roger |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas | French, Douglas |
| Ashby, David | Fry, Peter |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Gale, Roger |
| Atkinson, David | Gardiner, Sir George |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Gill, Christopher |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Glyn, Dr Sir Alan |
| Batiste, Spencer | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Bellingham, Henry | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Bendall, Vivian | Gorst, John |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Benyon, W. | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Gregory, Conal |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Grist, Ian |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Ground, Patrick |
| Body, Sir Richard | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Hague, William |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Boswell, Tim | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | Hannam, John |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) |
| Brazier, Julian | Harris, David |
| Bright, Graham | Hawkins, Christopher |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Hayward, Robert |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Hill, James |
| Burns, Simon | Hind, Kenneth |
| Butler, Chris | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Butterfill, John | Holt, Richard |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Carrington, Matthew | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Cash, William | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Chope, Christopher | Hunter, Andrew |
| Churchill, Mr | Irvine, Michael |
| Clark, Rt Hon Sir William | Jack, Michael |
| Colvin, Michael | Janman, Tim |
| Conway, Derek | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Cormack, Patrick | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Couchman, James | Key, Robert |
| Cran, James | Kilfedder, James |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Curry, David | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Day, Stephen | Knowles, Michael |
| Devlin, Tim | Knox, David |
| Dicks, Terry | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lang, Rt Hon Ian |
| Dover, Den | Latham, Michael |
| Dunn, Bob | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Eggar, Tim | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Lilley, Peter |
| Evennett, David | Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) |
| Fallon, Michael | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Favell, Tony | Lord, Michael |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) |
| Fookes, Dame Janet | Maclean, David |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Forth, Eric | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman | McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick |
| Madel, David | Shersby, Michael |
| Malins, Humfrey | Sims, Roger |
| Mans, Keith | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Maples, John | Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) |
| Marland, Paul | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Marlow, Tony | Speed, Keith |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Speller, Tony |
| Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Mates, Michael | Squire, Robin |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Steen, Anthony |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Stern, Michael |
| Miller, Sir Hal | Stevens, Lewis |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Mitchell, Sir David | Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N) |
| Moate, Roger | Stokes, Sir John |
| Moore, Rt Hon John | Sumberg, David |
| Morrison, Sir Charles | Summerson, Hugo |
| Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Moss, Malcolm | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Mudd, David | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Neale, Sir Gerrard | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Nelson, Anthony | Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Thorne, Neil |
| Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Norris, Steve | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Tracey, Richard |
| Page, Richard | Tredinnick, David |
| Patnick, Irvine | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Pawsey, James | Viggers, Peter |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Walker, Bill (T'side North) |
| Porter, Barry (Wirral S) | Waller, Gary |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Walters, Sir Dennis |
| Portillo, Michael | Ward, John |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Price, Sir David | Warren, Kenneth |
| Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy | Watts. John |
| Rathbone, Tim | Wells, Bowen |
| Redwood, John | Wheeler, Sir John |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Whitney, Ray |
| Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Wilshire, David |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Rost, Peter | Wolfson, Mark |
| Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela | Wood, Timothy |
| Sainsbury, Hon Tim | Woodcock, Dr. Mike |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Yeo, Tim |
| Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | |
| Shelton, Sir William | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville. |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.