HC Deb 28 October 1980 vol 991 cc399-417

2 am

Mr. Hooley

On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Some fairly extensive amendments are suggested to the clause. Will it be your intention to allow a "clause stand part" debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

That will depend on how extensive the debate is on the points we are dealing with.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after 'person' insert 'who is legally represented'.

This is an important amendment to an important part of the Bill. I concede that it has been met to some extent by the concession announced by the Minister of State on Second Reading. The issue arises because the normal protection afforded to a charged prisoner under section 105 of the Magistrates' Courts Act will not operate and a person who would normally be expected to be brought before the magistrates' court once every seven days need not be so brought in the circumstances laid down in the clause.

The danger is that this is the one clause in the Bill where there is an incursion into civil liberty. A prisoner may be denied a traditional right. It is a serious matter to contemplate that a prisoner may not be brought before a court for a considerable time. I do not say that he will be forgotten by the court, but in the pressure of events, with a crowded list, he may not be put on a list for a long time and he might feel that he was being left on his own.

The problem will not be so serious if the prisoner has legal representation, and I have suggested that the clause should operate only in the case of those with legal representation. The Home Office would have to find ways of bringing anyone else before the courts every seven days.

The Minister has indicated that he will issue a circular to magistrates inviting them to consider themselves bound to offer legal aid in cases where they refuse bail on a first appearance. He has pointed out that under the Legal Aid Act they are obliged to offer legal aid when bail is denied for a second time. He is inviting the courts to take the view that that statutory duty is to be laid on them in respect of a first appearance.

A circular has no legislative effect. The magistrates can refuse to be bound by it and can deny legal aid. They will then be able to remand for a period much longer than the necessary seven days, and the accused will have no right to apply for bail, except to a judge in chambers. He is unlikely to do that without legal representation.

Therefore, although the Minister's assurance carries us some way, it by no means deals with the whole of what we are concerned about. It does not allay all our anxiety. Having regard to the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and myself on Second Reading, I am not at all sure that it is necessary for the Home Secretary to have this power.

We may seek to divide against the clause, despite the assurance that has been given, unless we have further reassurance. The danger that I foresee is not necessarily mitigated by the assurance.

Successive Home Secretaries have made enormous efforts to improve the rate of the grant of legal aid by magistrates' courts throughout the country for all kinds of criminal appearances, but, in some of the London courts in particular, the rate is poor. The circulars sent out by previous Home Secretaries, as well as the present Home Secretary, have not produced the response that was intended. Without a statutory back-up, the Minister's assurance will not necessarily be heeded in some magistrates' courts. That poses a serious difficulty.

I grant that my amendment carries the difficulty that if the accused were not legally represented, or if he refused legal representation, the Magistrates' Court Act would apply and he would have to be brought before the court within the seven days. The issue then would be whether he was in a prison where the prison officers were refusing to release him to come before the courts. That difficulty is not necessarily met by the assurance. There may be other ways of dealing with the matter.

A special court could be assembled within the prison, and the magistrates' could meet there to deal with such cases. That is perhaps a better way of dealing with the matter. If the Minister persuades me that this power is required, because of the prison officers' obduracy, an accused who is not given legal aid—because the magistrates refuse to accede to the circular or he refuses legal aid—may well still be left languishing in a prison, and nothing will be done about it until the end of the dispute. That is wholly unacceptable as a way of dealing with the civil liberties of an accused person.

Neither the Bill nor the assurance—nor, perhaps, even my amendment—would meet that difficulty. It may be that this whole area must be reconsidered for the precise reason that I gave at the beginning, that this is the one part of the Bill that is an incursion into civil liberty and that therefore we should view it with the greatest concern in our review of the whole of this legislation.

I am not saying that my amendment is a perfect answer, but even now, after the assurance, it is one that the Minister might consider. He might also consider rethinking the clause before Report.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

In broad terms I support the remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). Like the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, I am concerned about the provisions in clause 2. On Second Reading, I indicated the nature of my concern. The clause as it stands would result, in certain circumstances, in defendants not appearing before the courts for long periods of time, subject to the continuation of the Bill. I regard that as an undesirable situation. The purpose of defendants appearing before the courts once every eight days is basically to ensure that they have the opportunity of making representations to the courts, to ensure that they have the opportunity to expedite the committal proceedings and to enable the courts to cast an eye on defendants to ensure that they have not been ill-treated in any material way. Any Bill that removes the supervisory function on the part of the court is undesirable.

Without necessarily following what the lion. Member for York says about the solution, I should like the Committee to impose some limitation on the provision contained in clause 2. I should like to see, although it does not feature in any selected amendment, a requirement that the defendant be brought before the court at least once in a specified period, say, 21 or 28 days. That will not happen tonight. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider introducing such an amendment in another place. This matter is a serious intrusion into civil liberties. I am sorry that we should have done it.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk

I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) make that commitment. I had tabled an amendment providing precisely for the 21 days' appearance in court. We shall perhaps have the opportunity to re-table it on Report when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends might find themselves able to give support even to the extent of voting for it.

I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Despite the assurances given on Second Reading by the Minister of State, the Bill suspends the requirement of a weekly court appearance by a defendant remanded in custody. The amendments would ensure that this could be done only where the defendant was legally represented or where the right had been waived by the defendant, who, therefore, gave consent to this course of action. The amendments are important not solely for the reasons elucidated by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the hon. Member for Grantham but also because the decision whether bail or remand in custody should be given is important for the individual concerned.

It is not necessary to give details now of the conditions in remand centres for those remanded in custody. It is sufficient to say that the conditions were described by no less an august and authoritative body than the May committee as a scandal. If that is the situation, it is no less a scandal that people are remanded in custody. Far too many people are remanded in custody and without bail. Of the 52,00 people remanded in 1978, about 44 per cent. were eventually found not guilty or were given a non-custodial sentence. All had already served, in effect, a prison sentence. It is not the case that many of those people serve only short periods in prison, though technically still innocent. Many men and women spend inordinate lengths of time in custody on remand, still technically innocent of the offence with which they have been charged.

If we had the Scottish system of 110-day release if the charges had not been brought to court, there would not have been 900 people in British prisons, on a single day last year, who had been on remand in custody awaiting trial. No one would defend those circumstances; neither would the Government, nor the Home Secretary, because he is as anxious about them as anyone. He should ensure that as few people as possible are unnecessarily remanded in custody for such long periods.

2.15 am

The Minister of State makes great play with the fact that the legislation will last for only one month. A month is a long time in the life of an individual who is remanded in custody unnecessarily. It is no good simply brushing aside essential legal safeguards for the liberty of the subject. The Conservative claim to care about liberties more than we care, but in practice we do much more about them. The Minister "tuts", but tonight in a rushed sitting he is doing far more to erode liberties and to interfere with the so-called independence of the judiciary than my party did in its previous five years in power.

Remand in custody affects the whole environment of a person who might be innocent. It has enormous effects in terms of the person's job and family relationships. It is crucially disruptive even when the person is acquitted or found not guilty. Because of the stigma of custody, it is virtually impossible for him to pick up again his occupation, to live a decent law-abiding life among his fellow citizens or even to repair the damage done to his family and more remote relatives. All that must be taken into account when taking the decision whether to remand in custody.

Nothing is helped by removing the weekly appearance in court when the defendant can at least argue his own case. There are enormous disadvantages in being in custody. Lawyers will know better than I how much easier it is for a defendant to call witnesses, brief his solicitor and find people to give evidence or character references if he is not in custody. The defendant has a better opportunity to keep in touch with legal advisers and others who can help. He cannot prepare an effective case while in custody under the present prison conditions, and he will not be able to do that if the provisions in the Bill are enacted. The House has a fundamental duty to guard against that.

The amendments would ensure that this right was not removed unless the defendant had the advantage of professional advice when being considered for bail or had by consent waived his legal entitlement. The Times editorial has been quoted several times. It states: The regular appearance by an unconvicted accused is an ancient and necessary safeguard against injustice and abuse. No hon. Member would deny that. If that is so, I ask the Government to accept the amendments.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

By suggesting that there should be some administrative concessions the Government are back-pedalling a little. They are saying not that they are necessary now but that they might become necessary in future.

One solution is that people who have been remanded need not be brought before the court if they are legally represented. Those who support that view have more confidence than I in legal representations. I repeatedly hear complaints that a solicitor who had taken instructions to appear in a magistrates' court either did not turn up or sent a replacement who did not understand the case.

The assurance that someone will be legally represented is worthless. My constituents who get into trouble would like to be present to see that their legal representatives are carrying out their instructions and do a good job. They will not have confidence if they are not there to see that that is being done. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the Government to say that this provision will apply only to people who are legally represented. or that the Home Office will take steps to ensure that the courts give legal aid and that everyone is represented. If the Government want a safeguard, it is contained in the proposed amendment in page 2, line 30. The right must remain with the individual prisoner to insist that he is brought before the court if that is what he wants. Anything less than that is to deprive the individual of a basic right, and at this stage that cannot be justified.

It is often important to a prisoner that he can come before the court so that the court can see him and he can complain about the treatment he is receiving. It is also important for him to be seen by his relatives. It is often difficult for them to visit him anyway, and in present circumstances it is particularly difficult. The very fact that he appears in court is an opportunity for his relatives to see him and see that he is fit, and that gives them some reassurance.

The Government have given no indication why it is necessary at this stage to take away the prisoner's right to appear. The least the Government can do is to accept the amendment in page 2, line 30 which leaves with the prisoner the right to request to be brought before the court.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

The value of a Committee stage has been proved to me again tonight because I raised this matter during the Second Reading debate in the light of an amendment that we had tabled which was prompted to a large degree by the editorial in The Times. I realise the difficulties. Men are in police cells in Bodmin and they have to come to a court in London. The police cells in London are full. I have no doubt that the position has become even worse in the 24 hours since that information was first revealed. Our attempt was to make sure that the legal representative of the person concerned should appear in the court.

As a result of the Second Reading debate the Minister gave a commitment concerning the circular that has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). A number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have raised the issue again. I do not want to rehearse the points that have been made. I simply want to express from this Front Bench the concern that is felt in the Committee and that I am sure will be raised in another place. It is important to look at this matter again. I shall be interested in the point that the Minister has put to us about the practical difficulties. It is no use our making it mandatory for the Government to do something that proves to be impossible.

I am concerned, as I know the Home Secretary is. Let us find the best way of dealing with this issue in the current circumstances. Doubts have been cast on the circular. I shall be interested in the Minister's comments in the light of the practical problems and the further consideration he has given to the matter.

Mr. Freud

I rise briefly to support the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to embellish slightly the remarks of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and to declare that I share the concern about legal representation voiced by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). Prisoners on remand are not guilty. Therefore, it must remain their fundamental right to present their own case to show why they should not be committed to custody.

I do not have the 1978 figures quoted by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, but I do have the Home Office figures for 1977, which worry me. Of the 58,000 held in custody on remand, 2,000 were found not guilty and 28,000 did not eventually receive a custodial sentence, and should not have been remanded in custody in the first place. Put another way, 52 per cent. of those held in prison before trial were not sentenced to prison. Because remanded prisoners are invariably held in local prisons, and the conditions in those prisons are worse than in other prisons, they suffered an exceptional hardship when the intention of remand in custody is only to stop them getting away and not to punish them excessively before they are tried.

The clause would further weight the scales against prisoners held on remand. Those who are against clause 2 must insist that, whatever the position in the country, prisoners should be delivered before magistrates' courts even if that involves a hard decision by the Home Secretary, because in present circumstances it is difficult to achieve that. However, I feel that that is the job of the Home Secretary. The fact that the Government and their precedessors have been consistently incompetent and dilatory in their handling of the prison crisis has never been an excuse for an increase in the power of the Executive to override civil liberties and human rights.

Mr. Hooley

I regard the clause as far and away the most outrageous and obnoxious in the Bill—and I like very little the Bill as a whole. The clause is fundamentally in breach of the spirit of the statute of habeas corpus even if it does not actually override the letter of that statute. Surely it is a fundamental principle of our legal system that a person has a right to appear in court and state his case against being held and for being released on bail. We should not operate a system under which people could be held by the police without regular and frequent appearances in a properly constituted court to make their case.

The various points about health, condition and contact with relatives and lawyers have been adequately made by my hon Friends and there is no need for me to reiterate them, but it is a fundamental principle of our civil liberties that it is now suggested should be put aside. The Minister will say that it is only for a short time. That is the sort of stupid excuse that we always hear from the Executive. We do not know the length of time. We do not know how intransigent the Home Office or the prison officers will be about the quarrel.

Mr. Freud

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Official Secrets Act 1911 was introduced for a short time as an experimental measure until the Bosnian crisis was over and is still on the statute book?

Mr. Hooley

That is an interesting point. That sort of thing may happen.

I am not accusing the Government of intending indefinitely to suspend a fundamental civil liberty. I am saying that the country is not in the sort of crisis where such a fundamental civil liberty should be suspended to satisfy the administrative convenience of the Home Office and to enable it to pursue its side of an industrial quarrel which is absurd in itself. We do not have to suspend civil liberties because of an industrial dispute which turns on an argument about whether somebody is paid an extra £1 for a meal break. That is utterly ridiculous and absurd. In no circumstances could I allow to pass the occasion on which such a clause was proposed in any Bill without opposing it. If I were the only person in the House to vote against it, I should certainly do so. I regard this as an absolute outrage.

2.30 am

Even under the draconian powers—and they are draconian—of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, about which I had a good many reservations, there was no provision such as this. Even under that Act the persons concerned had to be produced before the court so that their case could be properly heard and so that the public and their relatives might know what was going on.

I am glad that at least one Conservative Member has supported the complaints from these Benches. This is an absolutely outrageous clause. I am fairly confident that, if anyone sought to pursue the matter to the European Court of Human Rights or elsewhere within the next few weeks, it would bring opprobrium on this country for neglect of fundamental human rights, an issue in respect of which we are supposed to be a great protagonist and a shining example.

I can see no defence for this clause. If the Home Office can seriously consider deploying troops and police in order to detain people who cannot otherwise be detained, it can certainly deploy troops and police to uphold an essential part of our civil liberties and enable the prisoners who ought to be presented before the court to be brought before the court. If the soldiers can be used for keeping people locked up, surely they can be used to transport, conduct or escort prisoners from the prison cells to the courts. That is obviously an undesirable and unsatisfactory arrangement, but, after all, it is part of the normal duties of the police to produce people in court. Surely from the point of view of maintaining an absolutely fundamental right of a proper process of law and of our civil liberties, arrangements could be made, even under the difficulties which exist, to ensure that people have a right to appear in court.

In no circumstances could I allow a clause of this kind in this wretched Bill to go through without voting against it, and I hope that there will be a substantial vote against this obnoxious provision.

Mr. Budgen

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) mentioned our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, the House of Commons and the House of Lords are the proper guardians of the liberties of the people of this country. It is most regrettable that there is every indication that the present Administration will seek to renew our signature to that convention.

I was somewhat shocked that the hon. Gentleman suggested that he would encourage people to litigate through that source. After all, if for the sake of argument we are talking about the rights of minorities such as the rights of fiances to come into this country, that is something which ought to be a matter of concern and controversy not just within the Labour Party but also within the Conservative Party and within every group in this House. But it is we who ought to decide these matters. I hope that those who disagree with anything that is going through this House will make their objections known here and not seek to appeal to any supranational body which may wish to impose its ideas as to how the liberties of the British people ought to be safeguarded.

Mr. Soley

It is precisely the failure of the House of Commons through the present Government to defend those liberties that makes us have to go outside it. Throughout the twentieth century Bills such as this have consistently undermined the very principles about which the hon. Gentleman is talking.

Mr. Budgen

It may be that at various times the House of Commons and the House of Lords have had differing views about the balance between the rights of the State and the rights of the individual. I would never argue either that the rights of the individual are absolute rights or that the rights of the State are absolute rights. Those are all matters of balance. But I regret most that there is some sort of Euro norm and that we, for instance, are an inferior race in relation to the treatment of minorities and that we may be dictated to and advised by, for instance, the Germans upon the treatment of minorities. That inevitably flows from our having signed the convention. I repeat what I said when some of my hon. Friends wished to take the matter of our immigration regulations—[Interruption].

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. Several speeches recently have been well outside the issue that we are debating. I must bear that in mind.

Mr. Budgen

I think that there is some point in what hon. Gentlemen have said.

Mr. Brittan

I can well understand and appreciate the concern that the Committee has expressed about this provision. It is because I share that concern that I dealt with the matter at considerable length in my speech on Second Reading rather than waiting for the matter to be raised in Committee. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) put the matter fairly, and he has seen the competing considerations and the balance that we have to make on this matter.

With regard to the basic need for the provision, there is no difficulty in seeing the problem. Those people who appear on continual remands in custody may not always be allowed back to the prison to which they have been committed by the court during this dispute. There is the further point—

Mr. Douglas Hogg


Mr. Brittan

I should like to continue for a moment and explain the position.

There is the further point that those people have to be escorted, which imposes a further burden at a time when the burdens are already considerable. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that a change of the sort that is proposed in this part of the Bill would play an important part in alleviating the situation. We are not suggesting that this is in any way desirable. It can be described as an erosion of civil liberty, but, equally, other provisions allowing for people to be released are undesirable. The only difference is the way in which they bite. There is no doubt that, if the object of the measures is to alleviate the pressure, this provision would succeed in so doing to a substantial extent. For that reason, we believe that clause 2 is necessary.

The question then arises whether its operation can and should be limited in any way. I indicated on Second Reading that I thought it right that an attempt should be made to secure that where possible a person, if not brought before the court under the provisions enabling the court to require a person to be brought before it, should at least be legally represented for the purpose of making an application for bail if he could not be present himself. I explained at length the existing procedure and the circular that we proposed to issue which would bring about that effect as far as possible.

The hon. Member for York said that that assurance was not sufficient because of the uncertainty that would be applied. It has been said that, in spite of the suggestions that legal aid should be granted, in some courts, which have been specifically mentioned, the proportions of the granting of legal aid appications are not as high as desirable. Without my going into the rights and wrongs of that, the figures that had been mentioned refer to criminal legal aid in all criminal proceedings.

What we are talking about here and seeking to apply by analogy is not the general provision for the grant of legal aid but the specific provision of the Legal Aid Act which requires, in the circumstances that I outlined earlier this evening, that legal aid be granted to a defendant remanded in custody, subject to means. What I was seeking to do was to ensure by means of a circular that provision was applied at an earlier stage than is the case at present so that, effectively, legal aid would be available.

I think that that is a reasonable approach. The hon. Member for York and others, may doubt whether it does the trick. I have no reason to believe that it will not work or that it will be disregarded. But again, because this Bill, in the form that it will be when amended, provides for the power to have effect for only one month, we shall, within reasonable compass, know whether the measures that I have described will be effective to achieve the result which I think is reasonable.

The hon. Member for York was particularly fair in conceding that his approach would involve a difficulty if the person could not be brought up from prison because of the working of the dispute or for whatever reason, and could not be legally represented for some unforeseen reason. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), in his criticisms of the legal profession, suggested some discreditable reasons why the representation might not take place or might not be adequate. But there are other reasons of an unforeseeable kind where the same might occur. The hon. Member for York suggests that the alternatives should be either presence in court or legal representation. One must immediately ask: what if that simply cannot be procured? The answer is that if the solution that has been canvassed by the hon. Member—although, to be fair, not pressed by him—were adopted, the person concerned, who might be someone against whom there is strong evidence of his having committed a serious offence, would simply have to be released. That is the stark alternative.

I do not think that it would be acceptable to either the Committee or the public that we should be placed in that position. It would be an entirely wrong position into which to be put. If we proceeded in the way that has been suggested, by legislative provision, we should be on the horns of that dilemma. At a time when it is not possible to predict the evolution of the dispute, I do not think that the Government can responsibly invite the Committee to agree to that course.

The course that I have suggested and indicated that the Government propose to follow certainly does not deal with the problem fully, but the problem cannot be dealt with adequately or fully until the whole dispute is resolved. We are talking not about what is desirable but about what is least bad. If we did what I have suggested by means of a circular, that would be achieving the best outcome in a difficult situation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

I am very troubled by one point. The Minister is making the assertion that he must have the powers in clause 2 because of the inconvenience or perhaps the impossibility of transporting prisoners from the place of custody to court. But as I understand the position, as I said on Second Reading, the fact is that most of these offenders will be in places designated as prisons under clause 1 and very much within the control of the Home Office and not within the control of the prison officers. I do not see this inconvenience arising.

Division No. 477] AYES [2.47 p.m.
Beith, A. J. Kilroy-Silk, Robert Soley, Clive
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Lyon, Alexander (York) Tilley, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale Mikardo, Ian
Cryer, Bob Penhaligon, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
English, Michael Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down) Mr. Clement Freud and
Flannery, Martin Richardson, Jo Mr. Philip Whitehead.
Hooley, Frank
Alexander, Richard Butcher, John Gow, Ian
Ancram, Michael Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln) Gower, Sir Raymond
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Gummer, John Selwyn
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) Colvin, Michael Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Berry, Hon Anthony Costain, Sir Albert Hawkins, Paul
Best, Keith Dorrell, Stephen Hawksley, Warren
Biggs-Davison, John Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Henderson, Barry
Blackburn, John Dover, Denshore Hooson, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Hordern, Peter
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Eyre, Reginald Hunt, David (Wirral)
Bright, Graham Faith, Mrs Shelia Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Brinton, Tim Fell, Anthony Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Brittan, Leon Fenner, Mrs Peggy Lang, Ian
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Le Marchant, Spencer
Bruce-Gardyne, John Fraser, Peter (South Angus) Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Budgen, Nick Garel-Jones, Tristan Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
2.45 am
Mr. Brittan

With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think he is right to say that there is a large number of offenders who are in prisons that are not designated. I assure my hon. Friend that the problem arises. He may or may not like the solution, but the problem certainly arises.

I was prolonging my remarks to accommodate my hon. Friend, who I noticed wanted to intervene earlier. I hope that I have dealt with the issues raised in the debate.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

I thought that there was a real dilemma. Having heard the Minister, I am not sure whether there is. I had assumed that the prison officers were refusing to let the accused come out of prison to go to the court. The Minister says that they would not be allowed back in again if they were released out of court. If they are housed in a remand prison such as Brixton and they are allowed to come out and not allowed to go back in, they fall into the category of those who can go to the designated approved camps. In those circumstances, it is possible to say that those who are not legally aided can go elsewhere. That being so, I must press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 111.

Lyell, Nicholas Proctor, K Harvey Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Macfarlane, Neil Raison, Timothy Tebbit, Norman
Major, John Rathbone, Tim Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Marlow, Tony Rees-Davies, W. R. Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Mates, Michael Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Thompson, Donald
Mather, Carol Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus Sainsbury, Hon Timothy Trippier, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman Waddington, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Wakeham, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Waldegrave, Hon William
Moate, Roger Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Watson, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills) Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Murphy, Christopher Silvester, Fred Wheeler, John
Myles, David Sims, Roger Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Needham, Richard Speller, Tony Wickenden, Keith
Nelson, Anthony Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire) Wilkinson, John
Normanton, Tom Stainton, Keith Wolfson, Mark
Onslow, Cranley Stanbrook, Ivor
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby) Stevens, Martin TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire) Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire) Mr. John Cope and
Parris, Matthew Stradling Thomas, J. Mr. Peter Brooke.
Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 15.

Division No. 478] AYES [2.57 a.m.
Alexander, Richard Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ancram, Michael Hawkins, Paul Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Hawksley, Warren Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Henderson, Barry St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) Hooson, Tom Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Berry, Hon Anthony Hordern, Peter Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Best, Keith Hunt, David (Wirral) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Biggs-Davison, John Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Blackburn, John Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Silvester, Fred
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Lang, Ian Sims, Roger
Braine, Sir Bernard Le Marchant, Spencer Speller, Tony
Bright, Graham Lester, Jim (Beeston) Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Brinton, Tim Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Stainton, Keith
Brittan, Leon Lyell, Nicholas Stanbrook, Ivor
Brooke, Hon Peter Macfarlane, Neil Stevens, Martin
Brown, Michael (Bring & Sc'thorpe) Major, John Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Bruce-Gardyne, John Marlow, Tony Stradling Thomas, J.
Budgen, Nick Mates, Michael Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Butcher, John Mather, Carol Tebbit, Norman
Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln) Maude, Rt Hon Angus Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Thomas, Pt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Meyer, Sir Anthony Thompson, Donald
Colvin, Michael Mills, Iain (Meriden) Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Cope, John Moate, Roger Trippier, David
Costain, Sir Albert Morrison, Hon Peter (City of cheater) Waddington, David
Dorrell, Stephen Murphy, Christopher Wakeham, John
Dover, Denshore Myles, David Waldegrave, Hon William
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Needham, Richard Watson, John
Eyre, Reginald Nelson, Anthony Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Faith, Mrs Sheila Normanton, Tom Wheeler, John
Fell, Anthony Onslow, Cranley Whitelaw, RI Hon William
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby) Wickenden, Keith
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire) Wilkinson, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus) Parris, Matthew Wolfson, Mark
Garel-Jones, Tristan Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Gow, Ian Proctor, K Harvey TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gower, Sir Raymond Raison, Timothy Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N) Rathbone, Tim Mr. Robert Boscawen
Gummer, John Selwyn Rees-Davies, W. R.
Beith, A. J. Kilroy-Silk, Robert Soley, Clive
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Lyon, Alexander (York) Whitehead, Phillip
Campbell-Savours, Dale Mikardo, Ian
Cryer, Bob Penhaligon, David TELLERS FOR the NOES
English, Michael Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down) Mr. Frank Hooley and
Flannery, Marlin Richardson, Jo Mr. John Tilley
Freud, Clement

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to