HC Deb 29 October 1984 vol 65 cc1099-122
Mr. Eldon Griffiths

In the nearly 21 years that I have had the pleasure of sitting in the House I have never experienced a more distressing occasion. I find myself in profound disagreement with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends for whom I have the greatest affection and respect, built up over many years of working together. It is no light matter to be in such disagreement with so many of one's good friends.

In anything that I say tonight, I hope that it will be understood that Conservative Members will conduct their disagreements in a civilised and courteous fashion, and that, when the disagreements are behind us, we shall as a party and as friends continue to work together in the common interest. We shall demonstrate that the way in which we disagree is far less venomous and lasting than the way in which the Opposition disagree.

I wish to make it plain that those who are responsible for the police service in Britain, whether the staff associations—all three of them—or the chief officers, are at one in being wholly opposed to any form of discrimination. I am careful to use the phrase "any form of discrimination". The oath of office and the pride of the police is that they are required to treat all citizens as equals before the law. Yet tonight, for the first time, we are saying to the police that they shall treat one group of citizens differently from the way in which they treat others.

We are approaching an extremely serious position in the police service. I choose my words carefully. Having worked closely with eight Home Secretaries, of both political parties, I have on two occasions only felt it right to utter a friendly but serious warning about the position in the police service. One was under the Prime Ministership of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), when I said that the pay problems were causing a drop in morale, that there was an exodus from the service and real doubt whether the police could maintain their position. More recently it became necessary for me to say to Opposition Members that some of the things being done by their police authorities, notably to the special branch and the special patrol group, could put at grave risk the maintenance of the public law of Britain. Tonight, I have to say the same to my right hon. and learned Friend. I have not known a time when the police service has felt so let down by its friends.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

Why cannot my hon. Friend, with all the authority that his position commands, point out to the police that they have never in their history had a Government who have supported them more staunchly? Why cannot he point out to those concerned that they have nothing to fear from tonight's amendment?

Mr. Griffiths

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I was about to come to that point. Before doing so, however, I remind the House that the police service is being attacked from the front by stones, air guns and petrol bombs, of the pickets and from the rear by irresponsible statements in Labour-controlled police authorities. At the same time, they have been faced by a publicly-financed campaign, notably by the GLC, to denigrate the police. Police morale is therefore a sensitive matter, and in those circumstances, for our Government to place on the statute book the notion that the police have a greater propensity to be racially prejudiced than any other group is to take a risk that we shall live to regret.

10.45 pm

I come to the point rightly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). After the events of the past few days when the police have been deeply worried about this amendment, their main reaction has been one of disbelief. The chairman of the Police Federation told my right hon. and learned Friend today that his feelings, when he heard what the Government were proposing, were feelings of disbelief. He had every reason to feel that, because no Government have done more for the police than this one, whether over pay, equipment, money for police recruiting, powers in the Bill or in the way that my right hon. and learned Friend, his predecessor and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have invariably stood up for the police when they have come under attack. The police are grateful for that. All the more reason why the Police Federation was so astounded when it appeared that the Government were going to lend their authority to the Scarman amendment.

The police have also been taken completely by surprise. The record in the two Houses of Parliament is that when the Scarman proposal was first put forward in his report after Brixton, the matter was considered by my right hon. Friend Lord Whitelaw, who was then Home Secretary, and following representations which I and the Police Federation made to him it was then placed before the Police Advisory Board. That is not made up just of police staff associations. It includes the local authorities, many of which are controlled by the Labour party. Having considered the Scarman proposal, the police advisory board unanimously advised the Government to reject it. That unanimous opinion carried with people such as Lady Simey, the Labour leader of the Merseyside police authority.

In the first Standing Committee, the House had to consider the same words that we have before us tonight, and that Committee was advised by the then Minister of State, the present Attorney-General, that we must under no circumstances carry the amendment. Subsequently, when we came to the second Standing Committee, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recommended that we reject the Scarman amendment, and the Whip in Committee who caused us to vote it down was my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). So on two separate occasions the Conservative party has been whipped by the Government into rejecting the Scarman amendment. The Conservative party is now apparently whipped into accepting it. Is there any wonder that the police are surprised? They are astonished at what has happened.

All of us here, of course, know perfectly well what has happened. My right hon. and learned Friend made no bones about it. He does not like the amendment, but he said that the Government were defeated in the House of Lords and we have to put up with it. Yet he knows well that throughout the past week or so the House has been regularly rejecting Lords amendments, for example, on the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill and many other Bills.

My right hon. and learned Friend has had to consider three Lords amendments to this Bill. One was the amendment about whether the police should stop and search in uniform; the second was the exclusion of evidence, and the third was this one.

What I find surprising is the judgment made by the Whips in the House of Lords that their Lordships would accept two overrides from the House of Commons but not three. My right hon. and learned Friend decided that since he could not reject all three without their Lordships becoming irritated, he would reject the police out of uniform and the exclusion of evidence amendments, but he would not reject this one.

The attitude of the police service on this matter is that my right hon. and learned Friend rejected the two matters that affected the law and police operations — I am grateful to him for that — but accepted the one that damages policemen themselves. That is an important distinction, and that is why the police feel so strongly about it.

My right hon. and learned Friend agrees that the amendment remains unnecessary. He does not need to convince any of us of that, because Lord Scarman virtually said that it was unnecessary. He accepts that whenever racial discrimination is found it is stamped on by the most severe disciplinary action. Similarly, Lord Whitelaw made it plain that he was convinced that whenever the problem arose, the police service did its best to get rid of it. I think we are at one that the amendment is not necessary.

The question is whether the amendment is discriminatory against the police and offensive to them. My right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor was in no doubt that it was offensive to the police. He has acknowledged that to me in writing. Nor can there be any doubt of this. When the matter was debated in the House of Lords, speaking for the Government, Lord Elton did not simply say just that the amendment was unnecessary. On the contrary, he took the high ground of principle. The basis of his speech was that it was wrong to change the law of England to create a separate category of people who would have a privilege against the police that was not available to other people.

It is important to quote what Lord Elton said on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend. He said that the Scarman amendment was different in only one aspect from the existing police discipline code, namely, that the discipline code treated the public as a whole and did not extend a specific protection to a specific group from a specific wrong. He went on: What would your Lordships be doing, if, contrary to our advice, you were to proceed with this amendment? What the House would be doing would be to say on the face of an Act of Parliament on the statute book that all members of ethnic minorities, for no matter how many generations they had been settled in this country, were inescapably different from the rest of the community. They must be inescapably different, because conduct towards them and them alone is to be singled out for specific mention in the law. Of uncivil conduct by a white policeman towards a white man in the street, one would be saying, 'Oh that is all right. We can deal with that as we have always dealt with it under the code of discipline'; but of uncivil conduct by a white policeman to a black man, or indeed by a black policeman to a white man, one would be saying by statute that that is different, and must be punished. Those are not my words. They are the words of Lord Elton, speaking on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend. He does not simply say that the amendment is unnecessary. He says that it is wrong, that it is discriminatory and that it distorts the law of England in an improper fashion

One other quotation must be made from Lord Elton's speech. He said: I believe that your Lordships should think twice, and a third time, about making this specific amendment to treat in a different way, where it is committed against a black citizen by a white policeman, something which is already an offence when it is committed by a white policeman against a white member of the public. I do not think that that is the way to write our statutes." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 1984; Vol. 455, c. 1223–1224.] The Home Secretary cannot say that the argument turns on whether the amendment is necessary. Lord Elton's words demonstrate that in the Government's judgment there is the broader issue of changing and distorting the law of England for the first time in a discriminatory fashion.

I remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of what I said at the beginning of my speech. I hope that our differences will be composed and that we shall somehow find ways of working together in the common interests of the police service. But I must also tell him this. From police officers in south Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Merseyside and the metropolitan force in south Wales where they are right up against it, at the sharp end of the pickets, and from police officers who are deeply involved at the moment in the difficult area of terrorism, I have received today messages that alarm me. The police cannot use industrial action to defend themselves, and I hope that they never will. I am one who believes that they should be statute-barred from any strike action and from joining the Trades Union Congress, although some would wish to do so. But the House must never forget that since we bar the police by statute from protecting themselves with industrial action, we have a special responsibility to protect them ourselves.

Not only are the police statute-barred from industrial action, but they can also be disciplined if they try to use any form of political action outside their duties. My right hon. and learned Friend would be the first to recognise that the Police Federation, a statutory body, has one great limitation that is not placed upon other such bodies. It may not go into the industrial arena. Nor can any police officer, where he is attacked under his discipline code, defend himself in a court of law. Other citizens can. The police alone cannot.

Therefore, in those circumstances I believe that the House, having set "up the Police Federation as a statutory body, has a special responsibility to it and its members. And the federation is begging the Government tonight not to place upon it a discriminatory discipline requirement which, in the judgment of the police, will damage police morale, damage their relations with the ethnic communities and make their task of upholding the rule of law and democracy more difficult than any Government should presume to make it for them.

Mr. Kaufman

As we come to the end of the debate, Conservative Members face the problem of whether to support their Government. We in the Labour party face no problem because the issue for us is whether we uphold the principles to which we have adhered throughout the passage of the Bill. When we vote on the amendment, we shall not be voting to uphold the Government; we shall not be voting to uphold a decision of the House of Lords. In the Opposition, we shall be voting in favour of an amendment that we moved in Standing Committee many months ago, an amendment that the Government then rejected and defeated.

That amendment was taken word for word out of the recommendation at the end of the Scarman report on the Brixton riots, a recommendation which, when we debated the Scarman report, I, from the Dispatch Box, asked the Government to enact and which the then Home Secretary refused to enact. It is fitting that Lord Scarman himself, when at last given the opportunity in the House of Lords on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, should have moved his own recommendation and secured its incorporation in the Bill.

What has been said on both sides of the House, and by most people on both sides of the argument, is that racialism exists in the police to a lesser or greater extent. That is not in doubt. It is confirmed in the Policy Studies Institute report that was commissioned by the Metropolitan police themselves. It was confirmed in the Scarman report, which was why Lord Scarman made his recommendation in that report. It was confirmed in the Hytner report on the Moss Side riots. It was confirmed and still is confirmed by all of us who represent constituencies with substantial ethnic minorities who bring their complaints to us.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

In view of the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), does my right hon. Friend appreciate how disturbing it is when Members of Parliament who represent cities with large ethnic minorities seek to stir up trouble rather than standing on the common ground on which we all stand, recognising that most of the police do a sterling job but that the exceptions must be dealt with through the amendment?

11 pm

Mr. Kaufman

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) speaks not from a momentary connection with these matters but from 14 solid years' experience of fighting against racialism in the city of Leicester. What he says is confirmed by the commissioner of the Metropolitan police himself. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) seems to imply that supporting the amendment means making unsubstantiated allegations against the police, but only a few months ago Sir Kenneth Newman himself said: The evidence suggests that if you are young and black and live in the inner city, the ties in the law and order contract with police officers are likely to be at their most tenuous." Therefore, that the problem exists is not in any doubt.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Lest there be any doubt, I should make it clear that I have a message from Sir Kenneth Newman stating that in his view it would be a mistake to pass the amendment.

Mr. Kaufman

If that is so, there is a serious inconsistency between Sir Kenneth Newman's views and what he wants to do about them. We should consider that very carefully indeed.

That racialism exists to a lesser or greater extent in the police force is not in doubt. The only question is what the House of Commons intends to do about it. Some Conservative Members have resoundingly said today that we should do nothing about it—some because they do not care and some because they do not want to know.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that to include the amendment in the Bill would be to treat ethnic minorities differently from the rest of the population, and he is quite right. Of course that would be so—because only ethnic minorities are subject to racialism, [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds is subject to racialism, I should be interested to hear about it. Only the ethnic minorities are subject to racialism. Therefore, to take measures against racialism is to ensure that no one in this country is treated differently and that all are treated the same, regardless of colour.

Regardless of our decision today, although I am confident that we shall make the right decision, this issue will not go away. Millions of black British citizens, a large majority of them born in this country, are watching to see what we do. [Interruption.] These things are profoundly noted. Hon. Members who jeer do not have experience of this and do not have daily encounters with members of the ethnic minorities as I do in my constituency. Those minorities are watching to see what the House of Commons believes about racialism in the police force.

Racialism in the police force is different because the purpose of the police is to uphold law and order on behalf of all members of the community. If all members of the community, regardless of colour or ethnic origin, cannot rely on the fairness of all the police, they are lost and have no recourse to justice in our society. If that is what Parliament says to them, it will be saying something profoundly serious and disturbing. Not to carry the original amendment in Standing Committee was bad, but to reject the amendment now that it has been carried in the House of Lords would be a rebuff to the ethnic minorities that would resound throughout the country. Its consequences could be far-reaching. That is why the Government have shown good sense, however belatedly, in accepting the amendment.

When we vote for the amendment we will be sending a signal to the ethnic minority communities in this country that the House of Commons cares and that we have decided to act. Upholding the amendment will be a symbol of Parliament's determination to stamp out racialism throughout our society.

Mr. Brittan

With the leave of the House, I should like to comment on some, though by no means all, of the points raised. First, I should like to say how much I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said what he had to say. I wholly welcome his point about the way in which our party deals with its divisions and then proceeds together on the central purposes on which we are united. As so often with such debates, the purpose and the effect of the debate are not just to enable the House to reach a decision but also to tell the country about the way in which we approach these matters and what we have to say.

One point has been entirely beneficial, and there has been unity on it throughout the Chamber. The police have very understandably and properly expressed their anxiety, both to me and through my hon. Friends who have raised the point, that in not seeking to defeat the amendment passed by the House of Lords we are casting a slur on the police. Those anxieties must have been greatly allayed, if not removed altogether, by what has been said on both sides of the House. Those who are in favour of the amendment and those who oppose it share a common theme—that it is no part of the purpose of any hon. Member, in passing the amendment, to cast a slur on the police or suggest that they are any way particularly prone to engage in the kind of misconduct that we are discussing.

The amendment singles out the police in the sense that it is the police who are dealt with in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—which is not surprising—but the police are in no sense being treated uniquely. We must remember the comparable provisions obliging immigration officers not to discriminate and the general provisions of the law which act on public officials in a wide variety of ways and a wide variety of Departments, requiring them not to act in a discriminatory way.

One question, then, was whether the amendment represented a slight or insult to the police and singled them out in a unique way. The other main question was about why the Government were taking a different position today from that which was taken in the House of Lords by Lord Elton 10 days ago and which, as I made clear in opening the debate, we have consistently taken. There is no surprise about it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) pointed out, there is no mystery or surprise about it. Under our system of government the other place has frequently inserted into a Bill a provision which the Government have not previously favoured and which it was thought right to accept when it came to this House. There is a difference between deciding to favour an amendment and deciding to remove it once it has been inserted.

Bearing in mind the other provisions that the other place inserted, it is reasonable to say that we have asked the House to defeat the other place on two points because they would impede the police, but that we have not taken the same line on this matter. It is a matter of presentation. Racially discriminatory behaviour is already regarded as objectionable by the police and is an offence under the police disciplinary code. Presentation is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) and others have said that rejecting an amendment from the other place is quite different from not favouring it in the first place.

It is reasonable to talk about signals, presentation and how things will be received. It is not reasonable, however, if, when doing that, we support, permit or defend the insertion of something damaging. When the difference is small, if existent, it is reasonable that the balance of the constitution and presentation should be paramount.

For those reasons, I continue to recommend that the House should agree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. Corbett

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 398, Noes 30.

Division No. 477] [11.12 pm
Adams, Allen (Paisley N) Ashdown, Paddy
Alexander, Richard Ashton, Joe
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Aspinwall, Jack
Ancram, Michael Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Anderson, Donald Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Arnold, Tom Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Dunn, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Baldry, Tony Durant, Tony
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Dykes, Hugh
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Eastham, Ken
Beckett, Mrs Margaret Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Beith, A. J. Eggar, Tim
Bellingham, Henry Ellis, Raymond
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Bidwell, Sydney Ewing, Harry
Biffen, Rt Hon John Fatchett, Derek
Blackburn, John Favell, Anthony
Blair, Anthony Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Body, Richard Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Bottomley, Peter Fisher, Mark
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Flannery, Martin
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Fletcher, Alexander
Boyes, Roland Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Foster, Derek
Bray, Dr Jeremy Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bright, Graham Franks, Cecil
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Brooke, Hon Peter Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E) Freeman, Roger
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Fry, Peter
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) Garel-Jones, Tristan
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith) Glyn, Dr Alan
Bruce, Malcolm Godman, Dr Norman
Buchan, Norman Golding, John
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. Goodlad, Alastair
Butler, Hon Adam Gould, Bryan
Butterfill, John Gow, Ian
Caborn, Richard Gower, Sir Raymond
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Campbell, Ian Grist, Ian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Ground, Patrick
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) Gummer, John Selwyn
Cartwright, John Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Cash, William Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Hancock, Mr. Michael
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Hardy, Peter
Chope, Christopher Hargreaves, Kenneth
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Harman, Ms Harriet
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Clarke, Thomas Haselhurst, Alan
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Cohen, Harry Hayes, J.
Colvin, Michael Hayhoe, Barney
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Haynes, Frank
Conlan, Bernard Hayward, Robert
Cook, Frank (Stockton North) Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) Heffer, Eric S.
Coombs, Simon Henderson, Barry
Cope, John Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Corbett, Robin Hickmet, Richard
Corbyn, Jeremy Hicks, Robert
Cormack, Patrick Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Cowans, Harry Hind, Kenneth
Craigen, J. M. Hirst, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Critchley, Julian Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Crouch, David Holt, Richard
Crowther, Stan Home Robertson, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence Hooson, Tom
Cunningham, Dr John Howell, Rt Hon D, (S'heath)
Dalyell, Tam Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Deakins, Eric Hunt, David (Wirral)
Dewar, Donald Hunter, Andrew
Dormand, Jack Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Dorrell, Stephen Jackson, Robert
Douglas, Dick Janner, Hon Greville
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Dubs, Alfred John, Brynmor
Duffy, A. E. P. Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Robert (W Herts) Mudd, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Neale, Gerrard
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Needham, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Nellist, David
Kennedy, Charles Nelson, Anthony
Kershaw, Sir Anthony Neubert, Michael
Key, Robert Newton, Tony
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Nicholls, Patrick
King, Roger (B'ham N'field) Norris, Steven
King, Rt Hon Tom O'Brien, William
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil O'Neill, Martin
Knight, Gregory (Derby N) Oppenheim, Phillip
Knowles, Michael Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Knox, David Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Lamond, James Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Lamont, Norman Park, George
Lang, Ian Parry, Robert
Latham, Michael Patchett, Terry
Lawler, Geoffrey Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Leadbitter, Ted Patten, John (Oxford)
Lee, John (Pendle) Pattie, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Pavitt, Laurie
Leighton, Ronald Pawsey, James
Lester, Jim Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) Pendry, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Penhaligon, David
Lewis, Terence (Worsley) Pike, Peter
Lightbown, David Pollock, Alexander
Lilley, Peter Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Litherland, Robert Powell, William (Corby)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) Powley, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Prescott, John
Lord, Michael Price, Sir David
Loyden, Edward Radice, Giles
Lyell, Nicholas Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
McCartney, Hugh Randall, Stuart
McCrindle, Robert Rathbone, Tim
MacGregor, John Redmond, M.
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) Renton, Tim
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Rhodes James, Robert
McKelvey, William Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Maclean, David John Richardson, Ms Jo
Maclennan, Robert Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
McNamara, Kevin Rifkind, Malcolm
McQuarrie, Albert Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
McTaggart, Robert Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
McWilliam, John Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Madden, Max Robertson, George
Madel, David Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Major, John Rogers, Allan
Malins, Humfrey Rooker, J. W.
Malone, Gerald Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Maples, John Rost, Peter
Marek, Dr John Rowe, Andrew
Marland, Paul Rowlands, Ted
Mates, Michael Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mather, Carol Ryder, Richard
Maude, Hon Francis Sackville, Hon Thomas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Scott, Nicholas
Maxton, John Sedgemore, Brian
Mayhew, Sir Patrick Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Maynard, Miss Joan Sheerman, Barry
Meadowcroft, Michael Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mellor, David Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Merchant, Piers Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Shersby, Michael
Michie, William Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mikardo, Ian Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Silvester, Fred
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) Sims, Roger
Miscampbell, Norman Skeet, T. H. H.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants) Skinner, Dennis
Moore, John Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) Snape, Peter
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Soames, Hon Nicholas
Moynihan, Hon C. Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Speller, Tony Tracey, Richard
Spence, John Trippier, David
Spencer, Derek Twinn, Dr Ian
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) van Straubenzee, Sir W,
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Squire, Robin Viggers, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon David Waddington, David
Steen, Anthony Waldegrave, Hon William
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Walden, George
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) Wallace, James
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) Waller, Gary
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Stott, Roger Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Stradling Thomas, J. Wareing, Robert
Straw, Jack Watson, John
Sumberg, David Wells, Sir John (Maidstona)
Tapsell, Peter Welsh, Michael
Taylor, John (Solihull) Whitfield, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) Whitney, Raymond
Temple-Morris, Peter Williams, Rt Hon A.
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. Winnick, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) Wolfson, Mark
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter Wood, Timothy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) Woodcock, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) Yeo, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston) Younger, Rt Hon George
Thurnham, Peter
Tinn, James Tellers for the Ayes:
Torney, Tom Mr. Tim Sainsbury and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Bendall, Vivian Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Braine, Sir Bernard Montgomery, Fergus
Brinton, Tim Onslow, Cranley
Budgen, Nick Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Carlisle, John (N Luton) Ottaway, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Proctor, K. Harvey
Forth, Eric Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Fox, Marcus Stanbrook, Ivor
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Stern, Michael
Harris, David Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Winterton, Mrs Ann
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) Winterton, Nicholas
Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Tellers for the Noes:
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Mr. Eldon Griffiths and Mr. Peter Bruinvels
Lawrence, Ivan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 274, 275 to 281 and 283 agreed to.

  1. New Clause
    1. cc1108-9
  2. Clause 106
    1. c1109
  3. Schedule 2
    1. c1109
  4. Schedule 3
    1. c1109
  5. Schedule 4
    1. c1110
  6. Schedule 5
    1. c1110
  7. Schedule 6
    1. cc1110-22
      1. cc1111-21
      2. Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69) 6,155 words
      3. cc1121-2
      4. Theatres Act 1968 (c. 54) 111 words
  8. Schedule 7
    1. c1122
Forward to