HC Deb 16 June 1981 vol 6 cc902-13 'It is not contempt to make use of a document disclosed on discovery when and to the extent that the contents have been read aloud in open court for the purpose of assisting journalists or others to report or comment on the trial or matters raised in the proceedings'.—[Mr. John Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Morris

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause arises from the case involving Miss Harriet Harman. On Second Reading we discussed the subject extensively. In Committee we returned to it in some detail. The new clause we then moved was substantially wider than the one before us today. This new clause is much more restricted. It deals first with documents that have been disclosed upon discovery. Secondly, it deals with documents that have been read aloud in open court. Thirdly, it covers the situation where the showing of documents is done to assist journalists or others to report or comment on the trial, or matters raised in the proceedings. Therefore, the new clause has a narrower base than the new clause that we moved in Committee.

In Committee, I pointed out that a difficulty arose in view of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Harman case. Year in, year out, most of us involved in the courts have assisted journalists who wanted clarification, assistance with facts, the names of documents and a host of other matters in order to ensure accurate reporting of matters that have been heard in open court. That applies both to matters that have been revealed upon discovery and read out in open court and to any other matters that have been raised in open court and that do not involve the process of discovery.

In particular, in Committee I raised the problem of official law reporters. We rely on them heavily for the published reports in order to cite precedents in subsequent cases. As I understand the Court of Appeal's decision, a practitioner in the courts would not be able to assist a law reporter, let alone a journalist. Whatever one may feel about other aspects of the Harman case, it would be a grave loss to the courts, to practitioners and to those who seek clarification of the law, if the facts reported were inaccurate as a result of an inability on the part of journalists to seek assistance—as they now do—from counsel and solicitors and to see documents. That is a difficulty.

There are restrictions when the court is sitting in camera. In Committee, the Attorney-General and I drew attention to the practice of silent reading. Counsel may invite the judge to read documents silently in order to save embarrassment or for other proper reasons. That protects the interests of the parties involved and avoids the undue broadcasting of matters raised in court. There are other restrictions as regards children and matrimonial matters. In Committee, I was not persuaded—to put it as mildly, neutrally and moderately as possible—by the Attorney-General's argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that parties in the courts would seek to exercise the priviledge—by agreement one presumes—of more restricted discovery much more generally than hitherto and that the losers would be the public.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has turned the argument on its head. The Attorney-General mentioned only matrimonial matters in passing, because it is a nonstarter. His last injuction to the Committee was that we were dealing with a case that was on its way to the other place. He said that we should leave it to the other place to settle. He implied, that with its enormous experience, the other place—sitting in its judicial capacity—would clear up the unsatisfactory state of the law.

Unhappily—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) pointed out—if the Bill makes the progress that the Government anticipate, it will have gone through all its stages and will have received Royal Assent well before the Harman case reaches the other place acting in its appellate jurisdiction. That is an unhappy feature of the Bill. As a result we do not know how far we can rely on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurances and injunctions to the effect that we can leave it to the other place to sort out and that we can rely on its great wisdom. The matter is left to chance.

The subject matter is sub judice, although it will not affect the appeal per se. As you rightly said, Mr. Speaker, we can nevertheless discuss the merits of the issue as they appertain to current legislation. The House is in a difficulty. Hon. Members are uncertain about the state of the law. It may or may not be anticipated that the Court of Appeal's judgment will be set on one side. New legislation is being brought in at a time when the situation is crying out for amendment. In Committee the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) argued that if the judgment of the other place went the other way, there would be another occasion for Parliament to return to the subject and to deal with this aspect of contempt. Unhappily, we rarely get Bills on contempt.

It was the present Lord Chancellor—and I pay him full tribute—who set up the Phillimore committee. Then another Government came into office. Unhappily that Government, of which I was proud to be a member, did not do anything about Phillimore, because they were legislating in a whole host of other fields. We had to wait for the second appearance of the Lord Chancellor to get some drive behind the implementation of parts of the Phillimore report and other aspects as well. 6.30 pm

If we do not avail ourselves of this opportunity there may not be another opportunity for many years. What is the real cause of disquiet? The real cause of disquiet, following the Harman case, is that whether the public become aware generally of what is said in open court depends upon the accident of whether there is a reporter in court. If there happens not to be—as I understand the position to have been in the Harman case—and that reporter is briefed thereafter on the matters which have been read out in open court, then, as the law now stands following the decision of the Court of Appeal, whoever shows documents which have been revealed on discovery, as in the case of Miss Harman, can be said to be in contempt of court.

The general public believe that that kind of situation reveals the law to be an ass. When matters are read out in open court and a reporter is present and reports that matter in the newspaper the following day nothing can be said about it. Nothing improper is done. But if no reporter is present and is briefed the following day, or a few days afterwards, something horrendous has happened. A grave contempt of court has been committed. I think words to that effect were used by one, if not more, of the judges. Our courts, unless there is a contrary injunction, are open courts. We are proud that they are open courts. It is important that justice is not only done but is seen to be done.

To find ourselves in the preposterous situation whereby contempt and all its powers and effects come into play depending upon the accident of a reporter being present or being briefed thereafter shows our procedures and our law to be in a state of ridicule. The situation appears to depend on the sharpness or the accuracy of the reporter's pencil.

If our courts are public, open courts, I believe it is right and proper that that report should be as accurate as possible. It is no good having inaccurate reports. That, in itself, is a mischief which we can well avoid. Therefore, while the clause deals only with a narrow aspect of the case we have sought to meet the situation and remedy the sense of injustice that now exists. We seek to deal with the situation where documents have been read aloud. Our aim is to assist those who wish to report or comment. If this new clause is accepted, it should be declared in all subsequent matters that such action is no longer contempt of court.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

Long ago I was called to the Bar. I even practised for a year. I have on occasion even substituted in court for the present learned Lord Chancellor. Those days are far past and I speak entirely as a layman, but I think that some laymen should speak up about this. I wholly adopt what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench. The law is in grave danger of malting itself an ass if, indeed, it is not an ass already. I understood from reading the case from which this matter arose that the argument against the solicitor was that she had given an explicit undertaking that she would not disclose this document. Whether that should really have counted as an adequate reason for holding her in contempt of court, I do not know. Certainly if she did give an explicit undertaking it seems to me to make the case slightly different from what has been represented. There may be some reason for saying she transgressed—

Mr. Christopher Price

This accusation has been made on a number of occasions. It has been necessary to set the record straight on a number of occasions. The only undertaking Miss Harman gave in this case was to deal with these discovered documents according to the normally understood rules whereby discovered documents are dealt with by solicitors. She gave no greater or lesser undertaking than that. As I understand it, the only argument is whether those normal rules include allowing journalists to see documents that are read out in open court.

Mr. Grimond

If I have done Miss Harman an injustice, of course, I withdraw. I do not think it is germane to my main argument, which is on the side of the clause. But I had understood, and I understand I was wrong, that she had given an undertaking that she would not disclose this particular document. However, it seems to me that if a document is read out in open court and it it is agreed that the court should be open—it is not subject to various rulings about matters taken in private, in camera, and so forth—it is ridiculous that it cannot be given to anyone to study exactly what it said.

It seems to me that this is even more the case in view of what was said on an earlier amendment about tape recorders. Surely, if tape recorders can be used in courts, they can be played over afterwards and out of court and will presumably contain the contents of documents which may have been mentioned in court. Therefore, it seems wholly illogical to me—and I think that to the ordinary members of the public it seems slightly absurd—that if this rule exists it should continue. The only question I have about the wording of the clause is that, as I understand it, it is confined to journalists or to others who are reporting or commenting upon a trial.

I am a trustee of a newspaper and I am very sympathetic towards journalists, but I do not quite see why they should be put in a semi-privileged position. If it is in order to tape record proceedings—and I do not see why they should not be played over to anyone for any purpose—I do not understand why it is only journalists or others who wish to report or comment on the trial who should be allowed the use of a document. If it is right that the document should be used at all, and I think it is if it has been disclosed in open court, it seems that all should be entitled to use the document. They may be people interested in the trial, they may be relations of one of the parties, or they may be writing a history of the matter.

Mr. John Morris

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the way that I addressed the House. When we discussed the matter in Committee we had a much wider amendment in which we said: It is hereby declared that the obligation to protect and maintain the confidentiality of the contents of a document disclosed to a party to litigation or his agent terminates if and to the extent that the contents of the document are read aloud in open court in proceedings which are not subject to any limitation in reporting."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 May 1981; c. 247.] We took the bull by the horns. The moment the matter had been read aloud in open court any question of contempt ceased. We did not expect a further discussion on an amendment as wide as that on Report.

Mr. Grimond

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that he sympathises with what I am saying, but for purely technical reasons has had to be restrictive.

Speaking as a layman not versed in the niceties of the law, and leaving aside the correct procedures of the House, I hope that the Attorney-General will either give a good reason in common sense why the clause should be rejected, or accept it in its wider form and agree with the layman's view that, if a document has been properly read aloud in court, it becomes public. It is important that the accuracy of the document should he established and therefore that direct reference should be made to it. If the proceedings are in public, there can be no harm in as wide a public as is interested getting to know what is going on in court. I hope that the Attorney-General, with his usual willingness to give common sense the edge over legal niceties, will agree to accept the clause, or something like it.

Mr. Christopher Price

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that in your infinite wisdom you selected the clause for debate. It must have been a bit of a battle. It is right that the House should return to this issue as often as possible, so that the public at large are made aware of the problems. It is right that we should discuss the issue when it is technically sub judice, just to remind ourselves that we can break our own sub judice rule when legislation on this matter is in progress. If a quarrel arose about which was the most important, it would be shown to be the High Court of Parliament and not the High Court of Justice.

The House of Lords in its judicial capacity will announce its decision on this issue no earlier than September of this year, and perhaps a good deal later. I am amazed at the judicial flexibility of the House of Lords. In the Tameside case in 1968, when the Court of Appeal finished hearing the case on Thursday, the House of Lords sat on Friday and Saturday to make sure that the case was disposed of in time for the Conservative Tameside borough council to allocate children to schools before the beginning of the summer holiday.

You will remember the case, Mr. Speaker, as you were concerned with several debates under Standing Order No. 9. The House of Lords showed a nimble flexibility, an ability to rush into instant judgment. The House of Commons is in difficulties, largely of the Government's making—the Government brought the Harman case and instituted this legislation almost simultaneously—yet the House of Lords shows no such dispatch and seems unable to dispose of this matter until well after the prospective date for Royal Assent to the Bill.

The argument that prevailed by one vote in Committee was that we should leave this matter to be disposed of by the House of Lords and come back to it later. I much disagreed with that. There is no harm in our giving the matter a full airing before the House of Lords in its judicial capacity considers it. Of course, the House of Lords is unaffected by anything said in this Chamber. Their Lordships' minds are neutral, but a little airing does their neutral minds no harm. That is the second reason why I am glad that you selected this new clause, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House of Lords in its legislative capacity will also discuss it. 6.45 pm

We are discussing on this clause the principle that we discussed in the previous debate—the openness of justice. The Harman case came about because the legal adviser to the Home Office—I acquit the Attorney-General of any hand in this—decided to take Miss Harman to court for contempt, to punish her for doing something which solicitors do day in, day out, in the courts—showing to a journalist a document that has been read out in open court.

The case was taken not because it was an intrusion into privacy or to protect an individual who might be harmed, but to cover up something that is a proper matter of public interest, particularly parliamentary interest, namely, the state of our prisons and the rules laid down for the control unit that was briefly introduced in Wakefield gaol, I am sad to say, by the Home Secretary in a Labour Government. That is what was disclosed to the court and about which David Leigh wrote a feature article in The Guardian.

The Home Office did not have to take Miss Harman to court. It had many options. By taking her to court the Home Office showed that it was irrevocably committed to a closed system of government which does not accord with the general view of the House, as shown by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides, particularly by Conservative Members, who either voted with Labour Members or abstained in our recent vote on tape recording.

In bringing the case, the Home Office was wholly out of accord with the general view of the country about openness and with the general view of the House, taken on a free vote. Some of our senior judges are also at odds with that view. I shall be careful what I say about Lord Denning, but I should like to quote verbatim from what he said in his judgment on the Harman case in the Court of Appeal. Speaking of the documents, Lord Denning said: It was in the public interest that they should remain confidential. The use made of them by the journalist in the present case was highly detrimental to the good ordering of our society. They had been used to launch a wholly unjustified attack on ministers of state"— as though Ministers of State are unused to attacks— and high civil servants, who were only doing their very best to deal with a wicked criminal who had harassed society and was serving a long sentence for armed robbery. The Times Law Report said: It made his Lordship regret that the court had ever ordered disclosure of the documents. The legal milestone would have to be taken up and set back a bit. I quote that passage in the context of the clause to show the sort of ministerial and judicial environment in which Parliament is legislating. We are operating in an environment in which too many people in our Government and judiciary do not believe in the openness in which a majority of the Committee Members believe.

To ensure that the law is on all fours with the atmosphere in the Committee, the House should be disposed to vote for the clause, even though it does not go nearly as far as I should like it to go. The reasons for that have been explained. To have the clause selected, it had to be cast in that form.

I shall say a little about the argument used in Committee about asking the House of Lords to settle the matter judicially before we returned to it. The Attorney-General asked us to let the House of Lords deal with it and we could return to it. The truth is that we shall not come back to it. We have legislation on contempt of court only when Governments are forced to have it.

It is no credit to the Government that we are discussing the Bill. The credit for that lies with Mr. Harold Evans and The Sunday Times, for taking the Thalidomide case to Strasbourg, and to the judges at Strasbourg, who produced the judgment that would have forced the Government of either party to bring in legislation to ensure that our law accords with the Convention on Human Rights, which the Government have signed and pledged themselves to follow. It was convenient to throw in Phillimore, juries and one or two other things, but that was the only reason that forced the Bill into the legislative timetable.

I cannot see an opportunity for that to happen in the near future. That is an additional reason for us to pass the clause now, without waiting for the House of Lords.

The Attorney-General

First, I shall answer one or two points that have been made in the debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) mentioned law reporters. Law reporters are not forbidden to go to the parties. They can go to the party whose document they require. I should have thought that it would be impossible that that party would not make available to a law reporter anything that he needed to make his law report accurate. That is a poor point.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—what a lovely sound that constituency has—raised another matter. I should explain about the correspondence. It all falls on two documents—a document from the Treasury Solicitor written to Miss Harman on 17 October and her reply. A number of documents were produced as a result of a claim for public interest immunity and some were received by the judge before the case started. He ruled that the prejudicial effect to the party outweighed the value of the immunity claim.

The letter said that the Home Office does however, require that inspection of the disclosed documents and dissemination of their contents should be limited to the legal officers of the NCCL and their assistants at any time concerned with the conduct of this action, except in so far as wider inspection or dissemination is strictly necessary for the conduct of the action. In other words my client would not wish the documents to be used for the general purposes of the NCCL outside your function as solicitor for the plaintiff. In her reply, Miss Harman wrote: As far as 'the general purposes of the NCCL' is concerned you may rest assured that, as a solicitor, I am well a ware of the rule that requires that documents obtained on discovery should not be used for any other purpose except for the case in hand". That was the undertaking given.

Mr. Christopher Price

Does the Attorney-General not agree that many solicitors who are sent the sort of conditions that he has read feel that that still allows them to show documents read in open court to journalists where necessary?

The Attorney-General

I have discussed that with many solicitors. Most have thought that the court's decision in this case was right because it protects the client. I shall deal with that in more detail later.

The matter was discussed fully in Committee and I repeat again the point I made then. It would be wrong for the new clause to be discussed solely by reference to Miss Harman or to the Harman case—first, because there is an appeal pending in another place, and, secondly, because amendments to legislation based wholly on the facts of an individual case are so often unsound.

Time after time, the cry from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee when we were dealing with the starting point of strict liability—I was referring to the publicity when Sutcliffe was arrested—was that hard cases made bad law. Now I shall use that claim in this case.

The issues raised in the new clause should not be considered simply with the Home Office in mind because they apply to all litigation and litigants—large or small, rich or poor, corporate or private. Likewise, the amendment applies equally across the board. The issues have little if anything to do with open government because in the majority of cases to which the new clause will apply the parties have nothing to do with the Government. It is a matter of civil contempt, unlike the rest of the Bill, which deals with criminal contempt.

One other matter I should like to get rid of straight away is the suggestion that that case has any connection with freedom of the press. It has nothing to do with it. The case referred to the mutual obligations of parties to litigation and their legal advisers about documents which one side was forced to produce to the other. The only reason I think the case has become associated with the press in the minds of some people is that the documents were disclosed to a journalist. There was never a question of contempt proceedings against that journalist or any other representative of the press. In principle, the issue would have been the same if the documents had been used for any other purpose unconnected with the proceedings.

I do not want to go through the history of discovery, which is well known to the lawyers in the House. Even the short-term lawyers may remember about it. It is a method by which one side can be compelled to produce documents that are relevant to the issues in the case to which he is a party. Because exceptional power is granted, the courts have always been jealous to ensure that documents are guarded by the solicitor who obtains them, and, in a sense, becomes a trustee for them. It applies as much to bus tickets as to the most fiery love letters.

The rule is simple. If a litigant is bound to hand over documents to his opponent, documents to which ordinarily the opponent would have no right, it is on the footing that the documents are used only for the business in hand. The moment one departed an inch from that rule, and there was a risk that one party might feel that the other side would use those documents for a purpose unconnected with the action, we should find the general standards of honesty in disclosure reduced, if not badly eroded. People would hide, and not disclose in their list or affidavit of documents, documents that they did not want disclosed, not because they were trying to cheat the opponent but because they did not want the wider publicity.

What will happen when an undertaking has been given and the documents are read in open court? It would be ridiculous if we were forced to the stage where the party who owns the documents says to the judge "It is a bundle of 600 pages. Your Lordship has it, my learned Friend has it. May it please be read silently?" That would achieve the same result of preventing any document from being handed to the press.

We must discover what use is to be made of a document in connection with the proceedings—whether it is essential that it is used only in connection with the proceedings to meet the obligation of the party who has obtained the documents. In our view, that is the right way to do it. That view has been upheld by a High Court judge and the Court of Appeal and is pending hearing in the House of Lords.

Without being in any sense critical of those who drafted it, when I read the new clause I thought that it looked as if the reading of the document allowed in court was simply for the purpose of assisting journalism. I suspect that it could easily be construed that way, but, assuming that that is not its purpose, the clause, if passed, would release that solicitor from his trust. 7 pm

What are the circumstances in which that could happen? Let us take the ordinary case of a journalist writing a report on the case. If he fails to get a note of what was said in court or could not hear properly, he has the option of going to the party whose documents they are and asking to see them. Lord Justice Dunn, one of the members of the Court of Appeal that decided the case, said: If a reporter wishes to check … the exact wording of a document, he or she can always ask the counsel or solicitor for the party who has disclosed the document. I have never known such a request to be refused even in the case of private and confidential documents. That is the way that Miss Harman should have dealt with the journalist. She should have said "No. These documents are in my hands with strict control upon them. Apply to the Home Office for leave to have them."

Mr. Grimond

My question may be extremely elementary. The Lord Chief Justice may give a direction about the use of tape recorders and they may be used on a considerable scale. If a recording is made of a document that has been disclosed, will a person who plays the recording to someone else be liable for contempt of court? I do not ask whether they would be prosecuted for contempt or civil contempt, but merely liable.

The Attorney-General

That is contempt between parties. It is not criminal contempt. It is the case of one party being allowed to go to court to say "My opponent has broken the rules of contempt." If a recording was made by a journalist present with his tape recorder, there would be no breach.

The Lord Chancellor has undertaken to look again at the matter. If we extend the provisions in the way that the new clause wishes, we may have to look at the classes of privilege that might need to be extended. I imagine that courts might have to be readier to allow what I call silent reading—which, in fact, is a contradiction in terms—of documents in court.

It is also very valuable to hear the views of the House of Lords. The point that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) makes—that this is a real opportunity to deal with the matter—is not right. Administration of justice Bills are constantly going through the House. I am advised by my noble Friend that the matter is just the sort of thing that could properly be dealt with in such a Bill, after the House of Lords has ruled on it, which is what I invite the House to do.

Mr. John Morris

I shall not pursue the Attorney-General's point about silent reading being a contradiction in terms. He may read loudly, but I normally read silently.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not as helpful as he might have been. I shall not use the strong language that he used against the Opposition Front Bench when he was dealing with the issue of law reporters who would not be forbidden to see documents. I puzzled for a moment about what he meant. I tried to distinguish between law reporters and reporters from Lloyd's Law Reports, the Estates Gazette or any other magazine that publishes a law report, but I realised that he was starting up a completely false hare.

No one is suggesting that law reporters would be forbidden to see documents. No one is suggesting that law reporters would be in difficulty. It is the person showing the document to the law reporter who would be in contempt. The difficulty arises for the person who shows the document to a reporter from The Times or The Guardian, the official law reporter or anyone else. I hope that the Attorney-General will forgive me for this, but he was not being as helpful as he might be in pursuing a false point.

Therefore, we come to this situation. If there is a reporter present in court, or in the alternative, if a judge allows a tape recording to be made without the reporter being present, no difficulty arises. However, if by chance no reporter is present in court and no tape recording is made, but the reporter who wishes to comment or report on the case thereafter goes to one of the parties to the process of discovery, that party is in jeopardy of contempt. The law is ludicrous. I hope that in due course the House of Lords will reverse the judgment that caused the matter to arise.

However, we are more concerned with the generality of the position to ensure that the problem does not arise again. I forgive the Attorney-General completely. He can be exonerated from blame for the Home Office's activities. We suspect that he was not consulted at all. I do not ask him to rise to confirm or deny that. That is the general impression. It was a piece of private enterprise by the Home Office, and I hope that in due course it will have its come-uppance from the House of Lords.

However, in the meantime the law is seen by the public to be an ass. The situation is ludicrous. Documents are read out in open court. They are public to all within earshot, but if, by chance, there is no one there with the means of mechanism to transfer the information to a wider audience, contempt can arise. I, therefore, wish to press the matter to a Division, and to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 136.

Division No. 222] [7.10 pm
Allaun, Frank Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Alton, David Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Beith, A. J. Haynes, Frank
Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N) Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Home Robertson, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy Hooley, Frank
Brown, Hugh D, (Provan) Howell, Rt Hon D.
Buchan, Norman Howells, Geraint
Campbell-Savours, Dale Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Canavan, Dennis Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Johnson, James (Hull West)
Cook, Robin F. Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Cowans, Harry Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Craigen, J. M. Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Crowther, J. S. Lestor, Miss Joan
Cryer, Bob McCartney, Hugh
Cunliffe, Lawrence McElhone, Frank
Dalyell, Tam Maynard, Miss Joan
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Meacher, Michael
Dewar, Donald Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Dixon, Donald Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Dormand, Jack Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Douglas, Dick Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce O'Neill, Martin
Eastham, Ken Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Evans, Ioan (Abordare) Pendry, Tom
Ewing, Harry Penhaligon, David
Faulds, Andrew Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Freud, Clement Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Golding, John Robertson, George
Graham, Ted Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Rowlands, Ted Wainwright, R.(Colne V)
Silverman, Julius Whitehead, Phillip
Skinner, Dennis Whitlock, William
Soley, Clive Wigley, Dafydd
Spearing, Nigel Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Stoddart, David
Stott, Roger Tellers for the Ayes:
Strang, Gavin Mr. Frank R. White and
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) Mr. James Tinn.
Atkins, Robert(Preston N) Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Loveridge, John
Benyon, W. (Buckingham) Lyell, Nicholas
Berry, Hon Anthony McCrindle, Robert
Best, Keith Macfarlane, Neil
Blackburn, John MacGregor, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes MacKay, John (Argyll)
Braine, Sir Bernard McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Bright, Graham McQuarrie, Albert
Brinton, Tim Madel, David
Brotherton, Michael Major, John
Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n) Marlow, Tony
Bruce-Gardyne, John Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Mates, Michael
Budgen, Nick Mather, Carol
Butcher, John Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Carlisle, John (Luton West) Meyer, Sir Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Chapman, Sydney Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Moate, Roger
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Molyneaux, James
Clegg, Sir Walter Monro, Hector
Colvin, Michael Montgomery, Fergus
Cope, John Murphy, Christopher
Cranborne, Viscount Myles, David
Dickens, Geoffrey Neale, Gerrard
Dorrell, Stephen Needham, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Nelson, Anthony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford) Newton, Tony
Eggar, Tim Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Elliott, Sir William Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Emery, Peter Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Fairgrieve, Russell Proctor, K. Harvey
Faith, Mrs Sheila Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Rifkind, Malcolm
Fisher, Sir Nigel Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Forman, Nigel Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Fox, Marcus Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Shelton, William (Streatham)
Glyn, Dr Alan Skeet, T. H. H.
Goodhew, Victor Speed, Keith
Goodlad, Alastair Spence, John
Gow, Ian Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Gower, Sir Raymond Stanbrook, Ivor
Gray, Hamish Stanley, John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) Steen, Anthony
Hamilton, Hon A. Stevens, Martin
Hampson, Dr Keith Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Hannam, John Stradling Thomas, J.
Haselhurst, Alan Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Thompson, Donald
Hayhoe, Barney Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Heddle, John Thornton, Malcolm
Henderson, Barry Viggers, Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Waddington, David
Hunt, David (Wirral) Wakeham, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Waldegrave, Hon William
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Kaberry, Sir Donald Watson, John
Knox, David Wells, John (Maidstone)
Lang, Ian Wells, Bowen
Lawrence, Ivan Wheeler, John
Le Marchant, Spencer Wickenden, Keith
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Wolfson, Mark Tellers for the Noes:
Younger, Rt Hon George Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to