§ The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commission of three persons of suitable qualifications and experience whose duty it shall be to monitor the operation of this Act and to report annually to both Houses of Parliament upon its working and effect.—[Mr. Alex Carlile.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House should bear in mind that there is no form of legal redress for those who are subject to exclusion orders. New clause 1 was tabled with that very much in mind.
I shall quote from paragraph 175 on page 68 of the "Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976", by Lord Jellicoe. He said in relation to exclusion orders:
It is in many ways the most extreme of the Act's powers: in its effect on civil liberties, it is in my view more severe than any other power in the Act; in its procedure and principles it departs more thoroughly from the normal criminal process than any other part of the Act; it has aroused substantial resentment even among many, particularly in Northern Ireland, who support the aims and content of the remainder of the legislation: it has led to criticism of the United Kingdom in the international fora on human rights; its value is difficult to demonstrate in a convincing way both for reasons of security and because it is the most essentially preventive part of the Act; and yet those ministers and police officers who have operated the system are convinced that exclusion has on occasions saved lives throughout the United Kingdom.I shall refer, too, to paragraph 200 on page 77 of the noble Lord's review, in which he said:I have concluded, albeit with some reluctance, that for the present at least a residual power to exclude must remainHe went on to say: 933I believe that the need for it is likely to decline still further and that it should be allowed to lapse as soon as it is no longer considered strictly necessary.My final quotation from the review for the purposes of new clause 1 is from paragraph 178 on page 69, where Lord Jellicoe said:My conclusion is that the power to exclude should remain available to the Secretary of State in extreme cases … that the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers.I am sure that hon. Members will find those quotations from Lord Jellicoe's review to be most helpful in their consideration of new clause 1. They make it quite clear that it is not merely my opinion, nor that of my colleagues, that the exclusion order provisions are extreme and well outside the normal judicial processes which we have all rightly come to respect.The importance of having some form of regular review or scrutiny of the operation of such provisions is quite obvious. However, the problem that arises in relation to the views as to the need for the provisions expressed in Lord Shackleton's report, and in Lord Jellicoe's review, is that those opinions are expressed largely on the basis not so much of evidence as of the views and opinions of others. Even the most carefully prepared and expressed review by Lord Jellicoe is not founded upon anything which we would ordinarily regard as evidence, particularly in the legal context.
We on these Benches fully understand the problems that would arise if there were a court hearing for every exclusion order at which the subject of the exclusion order could discover not only the basis but the personal sources of the information used against him. The danger to those giving such information or passing it on would be great. Indeed, we know that to be so from what has happened to those who have informed and have been caught by, for example, the IRA.
In our view, a scrutiny commission made up of a small number of suitable persons could be set up and would be able to report to the House and the other place in 12 months' time. Upon a subjective examination of each of the cases it would be able to tell us whether it was necessary for a resolution to be passed, affirming the continuation of this legislation. When Lord Jellicoe said that the provisions should be kept under regular review, we may be sure that he did not think merely that people should float their opinions every 12 months without having the advantage of evidence to substantiate them.
A scrutiny commission such as that suggested in new clause 1 would allow for continuing and subjective scrutiny of each case by properly qualified persons. That scrutiny could be based on something which we all understand to be evidence and which, even in the broad legal context, would be understood to be such. It would be as near to a judicial procedure as is reasonable in the circumstances of such legislation, without affecting what we on these Benches certainly accept to be the necessity for confidence.
On that basis, I commend the new clause to the House.
§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)Those of us who have been concerned with considering this Bill closely, and in Committee, have been struck by one of the difficulties that it presents. I refer to the combination, in a single Bill, of measures that are very different in 934 character from one another, and where the experience of their application and the importance of their retention might vary considerably. That may have been behind the thinking of those who tabled the new clause. However, they have not hit on the correct solution to that undoubted problem. After all, a task that hon. Members undertake is to interest themselves in legislation, to watch and to obtain information from the Government on the manner in which it is carried out and the experience that accumulates as it is applied. If hon. Members consult the written answers columns of Hansard during recent years, they will find a mass of information upon the application of the Act in the form in which it is at present in force.
4.30 pm
I do not think that, in order to cope with this problem, we need the assistance of an outside commission reporting to us once a year, quite apart from the difficulties of that commission looking into and, as it were, re-trying the cases that might have been dealt with under the various parts of the Act by the Home Secretary and his advisers. I think the difficulty is concentrated on the provisions for review of this legislation by the House that are to be found in clause 17. Although the House will not have the opportunity, owing to the all-wise decision of the Chair, of considering in detail certain propositions, I believe that they ought to be considered, and I want to make a suggestion to the Home Secretary for his consideration in the context of clause 17.
Clause 17 requires that the Act shall not apply for more than one year at a time without action by Parliament, and that action is set out in clause 17(2). The Secretary of State has to come before the House and seek approval of a statutory instrument, but the acid words are in clause 17(2)(a) which enable the Secretary of State by his statutory instrument to provide
that all or any of the said provisions … shall continue in force".I am not impugning the sincere intention of a Secretary of State on these yearly occasions to consider whether he should call for the renewal of all or only some of the parts of the Bill. What I am pointing out is that the House will not be in a position to query or debate that decision. The House will not, of course, be in the position which it is with the Bill where it can take the provisions clause by clause and argue them upon their respective merits. The House will not be able, if it is presented with a draft order, to pick it apart, so to speak, and to say, "Well, part I has justified itself, but the evidence of the working of part II during the past 12 months indicates that part II, is no longer, upon balance, beneficial", or other arguments of that kind. However effective or well supported the arguments may be by evidence—in some cases evidence provided by the Government—of the use or disuse of those provisions, the House will still have before it, in the case I posit, an order that renews the whole Act.The proposition that I wish to make to the Home Secretary is not that he should accept a new clause of this or any similar character, or, indeed, any amendment of the Bill as it stands, but that he should consider whether he can give an assurance about his intentions in regard to the renewal procedures in clause 17.
All Ministers are under considerable pressure from the managers of Government business so to arrange what they have to put before the House that it makes the minimum demand upon the time of the House. Nevertheless, I am 935 suggesting that the Home Secretary might utilise what appears to be his power under the terms of clause 17(2) to lay before the House not one instrument renewing the whole Act, even if he comes to the conclusion that that is what is required, but possibly two, three or four instruments that would enable the House to address itself separately to the merits and working of the different parts of the Act. If the Home Secretary were to take a kindly view of that suggestion, he would help the House very much and go far to meet the essential point that underlies new clause 1. It an acknowledged defect, of which we from Northern Ireland have only too much reason to complain, that the draft order procedure does not allow for anything to be removed or altered in what eventually comes before the House.
Having listened to the Home Secretary fairly frequently in Committee, I am sure that he will approach the future renewal of the Act not with a closed mind, with the attitude, "Well, there is the Act; let us go on with it as it stands for another year." I am sure that he is quite genuine in having provided himself, in the subsection to which I have referred, with the means of jettisoning portions of the Bill that in his judgment, and upon advice, are no longer justifiable on the statute book.
What I am putting to the Home Secretary is that even if, in his judgment, all parts of the Bill ought to be given another 12 months of life, he should enable the House, when he comes before it with a proposal, to consider separately and, if it can, to make a valid case against parts of the Bill which to a large extent do not cohere and are not interdependent with one another.
I hope that that suggestion will in some form commend itself to the Home Secretary, and that he will reasssure the House that, even if there is to be a proposal for the future renewal of the Act, it will be made in a form that will enable the House to form, to express and, if necessary, to record by vote a differing view upon the justification for the different sections of the Act.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)I have a good deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Bill in the form in which it has emerged from the Committee does not allow for separate consideration of constituent parts of the Bill. It does not enable the House to pass judgment on the individual components of the legislation.
When the House of Commons seeks to abridge the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen, as it has done in introducing this legislation, it obviously does so for weighty reasons, and only for weighty reasons. It is therefore incumbent upon hon. Members to consider whether the reasons that led to the introduction of the Bill remain or whether the Bill should be altered in any way in the light of experience.
That was the view expressed by Lord Jellicoe in his report in February last year. In dealing with this problem he specifically stated that he did not believe that continuing scrutiny by Parliament would best be achieved by subordinate legislation. He spoke of the need for annual renewal by primary legislation. In paragraph 14 of his report Lord Jellicoe said:
I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force and, if so, whether it requires amendment in the light of changes in the terrorist. In my view both these aims would best be achieved through a 936 requirement for periodic full re-enactment by Parliament. I recommend, therefore, that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should require annual renewal as at present but should have a maximum life span of five years, without the possibility of further extension.Lord Jellicoe was right, and the purposes which my hon. Friends and I—and the right hon. Member for Down, South— have in mind would best have been met had Lord Jellicoe's advice been accepted by the Government.The provisions of clause 17(2) (a) and (b)—(a) in particular—to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred are somewhat novel. When he replies to the debate the Minister may wish to tell us how, in the event of a statutory instrument being laid by him which would modify the provisions, he would propose to put before the House, in advance of the one and a half hour debate which would no doubt be necessary, the considerations which had led to such an important change in the law being necessary.
When Parliament decides how to respond to such a proposal from the Secretary of State relating to the powers necessary effectively to combat the threat of terrorism, we should be better informed than we can be by way of answers provided by Ministers at the Home Office; answers which are necessarily of a statistical nature and cannot contain argument.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, hon. Members can obtain a good deal of information about the operation of the legislation, and I do not complain about that. However, we cannot, by means of probing questions, obtain a full understanding of how, in practice. these somewhat draconian provisions are being operated and what is the judgment of those who are operating them as to their effectiveness, the extent to which they may be counter-productive and whether they should be modified.
§ Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Billericay)I fail to see how the provisions of clause 17 differ from the recommendation of Lord Jellicoe which the hon. Gentleman read to the House. There is a yearly provision for renewal which comes before both Houses of Parliament and the clause states that this legislation
shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years".How does what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting differ from what is in the clause?
§ Mr. MaclennanPerhaps Lord Jellicoe's recommendation was not as clear as I had understood it to be. The suggestion that there should be full re-enactment does not imply that it should be by way of statutory instrument. Lord Jellicoe made it plain that he was talking about full parliamentary scrutiny. Earlier in the passage to which I referred he said that
the renewal debates have not on the whole received the parliamentary time which they merit.He was speaking of precisely the statutory instrument procedure which he was calling into question, and he added:There have been exceptions, but in the Commons they tend to be held late at night and to last no more than ninety minutes or so, and in the Lords they can be even briefer and more perfunctory.He went on:I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force".Having read that passage from the Jellicoe report, I shall not weary the House by repeating it.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The penultimate sentence in paragraph 14 of the Jellicoe report contains the actual recommendation:
I recommend, therefore, that the Prevention of Terrorism Act should require annual renewal as at presentand that is precisely what will happen.
§ Mr. MaclennanThe hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention shows that Lord Jellicoe's recommendation was perhaps less clear than I had understood it to be. However, I have no doubt that Lord Jellicoe was recommending that primary legislation should be reintroduced annually, but that it should not outlast the five-year period. Indeed, all the criticisms that he made in paragraph 14 were about the procedure concerning subordinate legislation.
I come to the considerations that would move the minds of hon. Members in the event of the Secretary of State making orders, and it must be said that the information on which the judgment of the House could be made is, as things stand, too limited. There should be men and women of the highest experience and independence who would be able in a continuous way to scrutinise the operation of the measure. The House would value the evidence which such a commission would give. The House entrusts the Secretary of State with these exceptional powers only with the greatest reluctance, recognising their necessity, but if they are to affect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen in the way that the Bill proposes, it is clear that there must be continuing observation of how the measure is working.
§ Mr. MaclennanI have given way enough. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
It is important to demonstrate that the measure is under scrutiny. If there is any doubt in the minds of the individuals who carry out the task, that doubt should be reported to the House. There is sometimes too great a reluctance by the Government—I do not speak only of the present Government— to submit their workings to the close scrutiny which a measure of this sort should have. It is clearly not possible for hon. Members, in matters touching the security of the nation, to probe in depth. Therefore, the people whom one would have in mind to whom to entrust the task would be senior Privy Councillors and those with experience of the operation of security, people in whom the House would have total confidence — the type of confidence that led to the establishment of the review conducted by Lord Jellicoe. Such a step would greatly assist the House in considering, as it will from time to time, whether such provisions are necessary.
While what we propose may not be quite what the right hon. Member for Down, South would favour, it would assist in enabling hon. Members to formulate their response to any suggestion that the measure should be amended or extended, and our future deliberations would be informed by the weighty judgments of the kind of people whom we hope the Government would appoint.
§ Mr. SoleyI understand what the Liberal party is trying to achieve, but my understanding is not as a result of the 938 speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). If the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is seeking to achieve a judicial aspect for exclusion orders, he should support new clause 2. His new clause covers the whole Act and does not provide a judicial review or anything remotely resembling it.
The need is for better statistics and I should like the Government to make a major effort to provide them, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. I should also be happy to consider the possibility of a Select Committee being set up to consider the operation of the Act or a special Committee of the House to act as a watchdog over the security services. That would be useful and positive.
My main reservation about the new clause is that it is weak and inadequate. That is why we cannot support it. The House is sometimes tempted, particularly on the advice of the Liberal party, to put barriers between the people whom we seek to represent and the House. The House of Commons was set up initially to protect, defend and enhance civil liberties. What on earth are we doing trying to set up a commission to do our work for us, to tell us what to do while we trot into the Lobbies, put up our hands and say yes or no? We must do the work.
In a way, the House has failed, particularly in the last 10 or 15 years, to be an effective defender of the civil liberties and democratic forums that the House was established to protect. It is not enough to set up a commission of wise people. Who will select the wise people? Will they be Liberals chosen to protect Liberal values? Who will decide on the values? For what interests will they speak? Hon. Members are elected, and one of their primary purposes is to defend and enhance civil liberties. The new clause undermines that purpose. I accept that that is not intended and that Liberal Members have good intentions. I am not saying that they are trying to put back the clock or work a trick, but I believe that they have not understood the logic of our constitutional position. We are here as the first and last defenders of the people's rights. If we dodge that, duck our responsibilities and pass them to others, not only do we do a diservice to those people, but we undermine and betray the purposes for which the House exists.
§ Mr. CarlileIs the hon. Member really saying that the House is abdicating its responsibility when it considers, for example, the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading or anyone else appointed by statute to consider the workings of an Act? If he is saying that, his view is insupportable and I do not understand it.
§ Mr. SoleyThe hon. Member must understand the fundamental difference between this Act and fair trading. We are talking not about fair trading, but about whether people should be excluded from one part of the United Kingdom. We are not talking about the price of a packet of tea.
§ Mr. WaddingtonIf press reports are correct, later tonight the public will be gasping with astonishment at the spectacle of a Labour party which apparently still aspires to government voting against a measure which it has supported consistently for eight years, after having introduced it. The public will not be surprised if we all express our reluctance that a measure such as this should 939 remain on the statute book for a moment longer than necessary. Therefore, I fully understand the view of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).
In his review of the 1976 Act, Lord Jellicoe addressed himself particularly to the need to scrutinise exceptional powers. In paragraph 14 of his report, he said:
if the terrorist scene is an evolving one, then legislation enacted to deal with the situation at one period may well need substantial amendment by Parliament in the light of changing circumstances. The Prevention of Terrorism Act rightly contains provision for annual renewal by order, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament … I am sure that Parliament should be given a genuine opportunity from time to time to consider coolly whether the legislation really needs to remain in force and, if so, whether it requires amendment in the light of changes in the terrorist. In my view both these aims would best be achieved through a requirement for periodic full re-enactment by Parliament.Later, in paragraph 17, Lord Jellicoe considered the question of reviewing the legislation before re-enactment. If that takes place it will not normally take place for five years. Lord Jellicoe examined particularly the procedures for considering possible amendments to the Armed Forces Act and concluded that a similar procedure could profitably be adapted and applied to the prevention of terrorism legislation. He said that he did not think that the taking of evidence by a Select Committee would be appropriate.The Government have accepted the recommendation that the legislation should have a limited life. That is incorporated in clause 17(3). We believe that the Secretary of State of the day should decide, when the time for re-enactment approaches, how best to respond to Lord Jellicoe's general recommendation about review. I stress that he made no firm recommendation about the form that such a review might take. He certainly made no suggestion remotely resembling that suggested by the Liberal party.
The hon. Member for Montgomery referred almost entirely to exclusion powers, but the Bill deals with much more than that. The new clause also deals with much more than exclusion.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman asked him to consider laying more than one instrument before Parliament at the end of a year, so that Parliament can make a decision about whether separate parts of the Act, rather than the whole, might be renewed. We shall consider that suggestion seriously. We inserted in the Bill the words "all or any". Those words were the subject of an amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Down, South and they are intended to convey as strongly as possible that two separate options are open to the Government—to renew in toto or to renew in part.
I shall not repeat what I said in an intervention when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was speaking. The position is plain. Lord Jellicoe recommended annual renewal as at present, but that at the end of each five years the Act should lapse and that we should therefore have to relegislate so that each part of that legislation can be fully considered. That seems to be a sensible recommendation and an important safeguard. That is why we incorporated it in the Bill.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the inappropriateness of the proposal in the new clause, and I advise the House to reject it.
§ 5 pm
§ Mr. Alex CarlileI accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in relation to clause 17(2)(a) as being constructive and appropriate, but with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman I think that his suggestion and what is contained in new clause 1 are not mutually exclusive but can be properly regarded as complementary. To rely upon questions asked in the House and, even more, to rely upon answers given to questions asked in the House for the purpose of reviewing the operation of such an important piece of legislation, affecting the rights of the individual, would be extraordinarily haphazard, entirely inappropriate and about as inept a form of scrutiny as one could imagine.
The Minister of State referred to the fact that in moving the new clause I spoke only of exclusion orders. That is right, because I regard the scrutiny commission as having the most important role in relation to exclusion orders. Of course, the scrutiny commission would also be concerned with the way in which the power of arrest was exercised and the way in which detainees were detained. It is most important to bear in mind that each year when these provisions come before the House and the other place for approval, if that is what is asked for by the Government, not only the Home Secretary, the Minister of State and a small coterie need to be informed of the way in which the Act has been operating and the way in which the provisions have been applied; Back Benchers also need to be informed, so that their approval or disapproval of the continuation of the provisions is based upon evidence and so that they make a proper decision instead of relying on the recommendation of a small body of people, founded upon inadequate evidence.
As for the criticisms of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), his assessment of the constitutional position of the House shows a somewhat inadequate knowledge of history. I was reminded that the constitutional and historical position is that the House was originally created for the purpose of levying taxation and for no other reason. My hon. Friend and I shall not be supporting new clause 2 because it is obvious, if one examines it, that it raises security problems which could be damaging for the individual. I can only conclude that the Labour party is not prepared to support this new clause because the hon. Member for Hammersmith did not think of it himself.
§ Mr. CarlileI hope that the House will take a view other than that of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time
§ The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 228.
942| Division No. 138] | [5.3 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alton, David | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Wainwright, R. |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Wallace, James |
| Freud, Clement | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Howells, Geraint | Wilson, Gordon |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | |
| Kirkwood, Archibald | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Maclennan, Robert | Mr. A. J. Beith and |
| Meadowcroft, Michael | Mr. John Cartwright. |
| Penhaligon, David |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Hordern, Peter |
| Alexander, Richard | Howard, Michael |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Arnold, Tom | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Ashby, David | Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H. | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Batiste, Spencer | Hunter, Andrew |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Irving, Charles |
| Beggs, Roy | Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick |
| Bellingham, Henry | Jessel, Toby |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Body, Richard | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Key, Robert |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Bright, Graham | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Knowles, Michael |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Knox, David |
| Budgen, Nick | Lang, Ian |
| Burt, Alistair | Latham, Michael |
| Butcher, John | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Lester, Jim |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
| Clegg, Sir Walter | Lightbown, David |
| Cockeram, Eric | Lilley, Peter |
| Colvin, Michael | Lloyd, Ian (Havant) |
| Coombs, Simon | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Couchman, James | Luce, Richard |
| Cranborne, Viscount | McCrea, Rev William |
| Crouch, David | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | McCusker, Harold |
| Dicks, T. | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) | MacGregor, John |
| Eggar, Tim | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Maclean, David John. |
| Favell, Anthony | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Maginnis, Ken |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Major, John |
| Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) | Malins, Humfrey |
| Fox, Marcus | Malone, Gerald |
| Freeman, Roger | Maples, John |
| Gale, Roger | Marland, Paul |
| Galley, Roy | Marlow, Antony |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Mates, Michael |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Mather, Carol |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Maude, Francis |
| Gow, Ian | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Gregory, Conal | Mayhew, Sir Patrick |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Merchant, Piers |
| Ground, Patrick | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Grylls, Michael | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Mitchell, David (NW Hants) |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Moate, Roger |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Molyneaux, Rt Hon James |
| Harvey, Robert | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Hayes, J. | Mudd, David |
| Hayward, Robert | Murphy, Christopher |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Henderson, Barry | Norris, Steven |
| Hicks, Robert | Onslow, Cranley |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Oppenheim, Philip |
| Hill, James | Osborn, Sir John |
| Hind, Kenneth | Ottaway, Richard |
| Hirst, Michael | Page, John (Harrow W) |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Holt, Richard | Pawsey, James |
| Hooson, Tom | Pollock, Alexander |
| Porter, Barry | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Powley, John | Sumberg, David |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Raffan, Keith | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Rathbone, Tim | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Renton, Tim | Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Tracey, Richard |
| Robinson, Mark (N'port W) | Trotter, Neville |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Rost, Peter | Viggers, Peter |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Waddington, David |
| Ryder, Richard | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Walden, George |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Waller, Gary |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Watson, John |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Watts, John |
| Silvester, Fred | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Sims, Roger | Wheeler, John |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Whitney, Raymond |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S) | Wilkinson, John |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Speller, Tony | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Spence, John | Wolfson, Mark |
| Spencer, D. | Woodcock, Michael |
| Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) | Yeo, Tim |
| Squire, Robin | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | |
| Stanley, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Steen, Anthony | Mr. Douglas Hogg and |
| Stern, Michael | Mr. Michael Neubert. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.