§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Armed Forces Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
§ The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 49.
435| Division No. 135] | [10.01 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Hawksley, Warren |
| Amess, David | Henderson, Barry |
| Arnold, Tom | Hind, Kenneth |
| Ashby, David | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Holt, Richard |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Batiste, Spencer | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Bellingham, Henry | Hubbard-Miles, Peter |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Hunter, Andrew |
| Blackburn, John | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Body, Sir Richard | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Brinton, Tim | Knight, Greg (Derby N) |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Lang, Ian |
| Carlisle, John (Luton N) | Lilley, Peter |
| Carttiss, Michael | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Cash, William | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Chapman, Sydney | McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) |
| Chope, Christopher | Major, John |
| Conway, Derek | Malone, Gerald |
| Coombs, Simon | Marland, Paul |
| Cope, John | Mather, Carol |
| Couchman, James | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Merchant, Piers |
| Dicks, Terry | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Dunn, Robert | Newton, Tony |
| Durant, Tony | Pollock, Alexander |
| Eggar, Tim | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Powley, John |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Raffan, Keith |
| Favell, Anthony | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Forth, Eric | Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Freeman, Roger | Rowe, Andrew |
| Galley, Roy | Ryder, Richard |
| Gregory, Conal | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Griffiths, Sir Eldon | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Ground, Patrick | Sims, Roger |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John S | Speed, Keith |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Spencer, Derek |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Stanley, Rt Hon John |
| Harris, David | Stern, Michael |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Stradling Thomas, Sir John | Walden, George |
| Sumberg, David | Watts, John |
| Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman | Whitfield, John |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Wolfson, Mark |
| Thompson, Donald (Calder V) | Wood, Timothy |
| Thorne, Neil (Ilford S) | |
| Thurnham, Peter | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Tracey, Richard | Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and |
| Viggers, Peter | Mr. Peter Lloyd. |
| Waddington, David |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | Lamond, James |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Livsey, Richard |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Loyden, Edward |
| Bermingham, Gerald | McNamara, Kevin |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Madden, Max |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | Maxton, John |
| Clay, Robert | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Michie, William |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Nellist, David |
| Dalyell, Tam | Parry, Robert |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I) | Patchett, Terry |
| Deakins, Eric | Penhaligon, David |
| Dewar, Donald | Pike, Peter |
| Dixon, Donald | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Dormand, Jack | Redmond, Martin |
| Eastham, Ken | Skinner, Dennis |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Wallace, James |
| Foster, Derek | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Winnick, David |
| Hardy, Peter | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Haynes, Frank | |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Howells, Geraint | Mr. Chris Smith and |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Mr. John McWilliam. |
| Kirkwood, Archy |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill, as amended (in the Select Committee), again considered.
§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. BerminghamAs I was saying, before the commercial break that we have just had, the purpose behind the probing questions that lay between paragraphs 412 and 464 was to ascertain the real position. At the risk of repeating what is to be found in the report, after a series of questions to various Members of the Ministry of Defence from myself and various other hon. Members, we eventually reached a point where Mr. Facer was answering the questions.
It appears that there are five offences under the various Army Acts which can be summed up as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We began by seeking to probe what was meant by "the enemy". But it appears that we have no definition of that. The enemy appears to be anybody who opposes a soldier. That means that he can be a civilian. It took us a little probing finally to establish that.
We reached the point where we found that if a soldier is opposed and gives aid to the enemy, it did not really matter whether we were in peace time or at war because it then turned out that "being at war" meant anything. We have not had an official war since 1945, but we have had many disagreements. In Northern Ireland at present we have an enemy. Apparently, we have had an enemy in various other parts of the world. We can even have an enemy in the United Kingdom. But we do not have to be at war.
436 We began to prove the next aspect of this little matter. We found out that if a soldier is opposed he therefore has an enemy and if he gives aid and comfort to that enemy he may be guilty of one of the five offences. If he is, the court can then sentence him to death.
We then reached the rather interesting point in the discussion as to how we could sum all that up. I asked Mr. Facer question 464:
But it is possible at this moment in time, even though we are in a peacetime situation, for a British serviceman to be sentenced to death for one of these five offences if the offence occurs either in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, Belize, Gibraltar—anywhere where there is a British serviceman currently stationed, and he is liable for one of these five offences, if the court sees fit, to be sentenced to death?Mr. Facer, for the Ministry of Defence, replied, "That is so". It would appear that a court martial can sentence any British serving soldier to death anywhere in the world for one of those five offences.10.15 pm
We were then told in Committee that that would not happen. We asked why and were told that it was not the policy to execute anybody. Soldiers could be sentenced to death, but it was not the policy to execute them. The question naturally then came from me and from others: if it is not the policy now, who makes the policy? We established that it was the Government of the day. Therefore, if the Government changed their mind the sentence of death could be imposed in peacetime on a British serving soldier.
We then asked why and whether that had been done since 1945 and were told no. We then asked how it was known that it was a deterrent — what evidence was there. The reply was that since 1945 we have been able to do it, but we have never done it and it is not our policy to do it, so it must be a deterrent. We suggested turning the question the other way round. If, since 1945, it had been the policy not to do it and it had not been done, was there any evidence that it was a deterrent? We were told no, and the person who said no we never saw in the Committee again, I think because he gave us the wrong answer and let the cat out of the bag.
The truth is that the Ministry has no evidence to support the contention that the Army, which is full of volunteers, should be subject to a different form of legislation, punishment and control from anybody else. There is no justification for the position and there is no evidence to support the position—there is nothing. But, because we have been executing soldiers since they first marched across the face of the world, we have to carry on having this, and the Army has to have its death penalty for these five matters. It must be able in peacetime to string up by the neck until he is dead a soldier who, when he is asked to oppose a civilian group of people, and actually agrees with them and goes and joins them, is committing an offence which is punishable by hanging. That is an appalling situation.
Parliament has said time after time since the 1960s in respect of terrorism and many other matters that it will not hang men or women, yet the Armed Forces Bill retains the right — without evidence to support that retention, without justification, without any reason that we could ascertain in the Committee—and wishes to continue to retain the right, to hang. I ask the Minister why.
When we reached the stage in Committee at which amendments were tabled—and I drafted the amendment 437 on this Section—I did not attend the meeting for the reasons that I have already given earlier tonight. We were so muddled in that Committee that I had walked out and made my position perfectly clear over the vote on the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who wanted to give evidence to the Committee that it would not hear. When this was moved, we were defeated on straight party lines and the hon. Member was muzzled. I walked out at that stage. I stood by my decision not to take any further part in the proceedings and I did not attend the amendment sessions. Each of the amendments to the report falls according to straight party lines.
I said earlier that Select Committees are meant to be about the exchange of ideas. I felt that it was pointless to continue to attend meetings of the Committee. Therefore, I am bringing the arguments that I would have used in the Select Committee on to the Floor of the House. I make no apologies for taking time over it. It is an issue of principle and of conscience. Why should a soldier who volunteers to risk his life in the service of his country face any different form of justice and punishment from that which is faced by evey other citizen of this land? It is not right. If this House believes that it is a barbaric and ancient punishment that is best consigned to the history books, why should it be retained on the statute book for service personnel, even though the Ministry of Defence says that it is not its policy to use it?
Every five years we have the opportunity to try to bring the armed forces into line with the rest of the nation. In about 25 minutes from now, I suspect that, along party lines, we shall lose this new clause. If we lose it, it will be a tragedy. We shall have to wait another five years before we are able once again to seek to remove it from the statute book, just one more trace of our ancient past which does not do us much credit—the execution of human beings.
I accept that many hon. Members will disagree with me on equally strong points of conscience. I understand and respect their point of view. However, I ask the Committee to accept that this clause is moved very much in line with the thinking of many hon. Members who believe that the death penalty serves nobody well and ought not to remain in the Acts which govern the armed forces.
§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) did not attend the meetings of the Select Committee to put forward his arguments. He has chosen instead to state them in this Chamber. Therefore, I intend to set out the arguments that would have been put to him by Conservative Members who serve on the Select Committee had he been there to listen to them.
It is important to note that this is hardly a hangover from our barbaric past. Only very specific offences attract the death penalty. They are the result of consideration in this House in 1981 when the then Armed Forces Bill was brought before the House and passed.
Two entirely different situations arise which must be stressed. If civilian types of offence are committed not during the course of hostilities, the civilan law applies to them If a soldier who is not on military duty or engaged in hostilities murders a comrade, he is subject to the normal law of this country and the death penalty does not arise. That does not apply to some of the other armed forces of the world, particularly in the United States. The 438 death penalty applies there in peacetime for offences of murder, felony and rape and particularly, in the case of the Navy, for the offence of endangering a ship.
The situation in this country at present is that only those offences connected with hostilities attract the death penalty. It is eminently sensible that they should and there are very strong policy reasons for their doing so. They are:
Misconduct in action (ie with intent to assist the enemy) … assisting the enemy (ie with intent to assist the enemy, communicating with or giving intelligence to the enemy or failing to make known to the proper authorities any information received from the enemy) … obstructing operations (ie with intent to assist the enemy) … mutiny (ie taking part in a mutiny having as its object the refusal or avoidance or any duty etc against or in connection with operations against the enemy) … and failure to suppress mutiny (ie with intent to assist the enemy, failing to use utmost endeavours to suppress or prevent a mutiny" …All these relate to hostilities. When hostilities occur, each member of the armed forces is responsible for assisting in the preservation of the lives of his colleagues. Failure to carry out his duty, for example, by mutiny, will seriously affect his colleagues and, no doubt, bring about the death of large numbers of them in groupings such as battalions or divisions. So it is essential to maintain discipline in order to save life.
§ Mr. CorbynI have been sitting here all the time.
§ Mr. HindThe hon. Member for St. Helens, South made a point about hostilities and when they arise. When the Falklands war took place, that was not technically hostilities. There was no official declaration of war. Suppose that the soldiers who landed from the Sir Galahad had gone to their death as a result of information passed to the enemy by a serving soldier. We would have been failing in our duty if that had not been dealt with on the basis of the death penalty. Even though there had been no formal declaration of hostilities, they clearly existed.
These offences cover soldiers, airmen and naval personnel under fire from an enemy which is attempting to destroy British forces. These sections are important in strengthening discipline for men under fire. They are special. These categories do not apply to the kind of offence normally dealt with by the civilian code. They are there to protect not only the interests of our country but also the lives of serving personnel.
I can do no better than quote the answer in Select Committee of Lieutenant-General Sir John Chapple who, in answer to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, described the offences which attract the death penalty. He said:
They do require a positive act of treachery, or armed mutiny in one case, which could have a significant effect on our military effort and ultimately, therefore, on our national security and survival. For that reason all these five offences, which carry with them either the words 'with intent to assist the enemy' or 'with the object of avoiding duty against or impending operations against the enemy' are considered by the Ministry of Defence to warrant remaining in being.That is a view that I endorse.It must be borne in mind that the death penalty for these offences is not mandatory. It is subject to the discretion, first of all, of the court-martial. It is subject to the review procedure, the approving officer, and then, in the case of the Army, of the Army Board. There are provisions for 439 appeal to the courts-martial appeals committee. It would have been better if the hon. Member for St. Helens, South had tried to strengthen the provisions for safeguards by suggesting that the courts-martial appeals committee be given the right to consider a sentence, which at the moment it has not got, rather than introducing this new clause which would remove a matter of fundamental policy which is necessary during hostilities.
10.30 pm
The armed services have made clear their policy. The provisions have not operated during peacetime for these offences because that is the policy of the Ministry of Defence, but they have to be there. Because of situations like the Falklands, we cannot change the provisions and say that there must have been a declaration of war.
In those circumstances, I urge all my colleagues to reject the argument that has been put forward and to vote against the new clause.
§ Mr. StanleyAs my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has rightly said, the first and fundamental point is that the death penalty can be applied only where the offence is committed with the deliberate intention of assisting the enemy or, where mutiny is concerned, there is a deliberate attempt to avoid or impede operations against the enemy. Where the deliberate intention of assisting the enemy or avoiding or impeding operations against the enemy is present, there are now only five offences, to which hon. Members have referred, in the service Discipline Acts which would carry the death penalty. Those are misconduct in action, assisting the enemy, obstructing operations, mutiny and failure to suppress mutiny.
The 1981 Select Committee considered those five offences in considerable detail. It accepted that the death penalty should be retained as an ultimate and, of course, discretionary—not mandatory—punishment where there was a deliberate intention to assist the enemy. The 1981 Select Committee asked us to reconsider the definition of the enemy used in the legislation. The Department did that in great detail but, as I explained on Second Reading of the Bill, we came to the conclusion that all the alternative definitions are less satisfactory than the present definition and would be likely to widen rather than reduce the ambit of the death penalty.
In the Department we also considered carefully whether the death penalty should be retained for each of the five offences, and we concluded that it should. The 1986 Select Committee has also examined the issue, taking both oral and written evidence. It has concluded that no change should be made—rightly, in my view.
It must be stressed that the only circumstances in which the death penalty could be applied to service men would be for offences tantamount to the civilian criminal offence of treason where, unlike under service law, the death penalty is still mandatory. Treasonable activity within the ranks of the armed services in war would undoubtedly be a crime of the utmost seriousness. If committed, it would almost certainly lead directly to the loss of the lives of other service men performing their operational duties bravely and trusting in the loyalty of those serving with them.
The armed services were unanimous and clear in their advice to Ministers that it was right to retain the death 440 penalty for offences tantamount to treason, and the Government accepted that advice. If the Opposition wish to press the new clause to a Division, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.
§ Mr. McNamaraThe Opposition regret very much the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has given to his colleagues, because we feel that this is a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said. We feel that there are circumstances and cases, particularly now, in view of the nature of our armed forces at the present time —that they are purely volunteers, that they are unlikely to be people who will go into it against their own wishes—which place them in difficulties. If they crack, it will not be because they are going to commit treason. They will crack because their own individual psyches are being put under enormous stress.
The Minister said that these were offences akin to treason. I think that the Judge Advocate-General said before the Committee that these were offences akin to treachery. If that is so and this is a civilian crime, so be it. Then members of the armed forces, who are, after all, only civilians in uniform, will be subject to that legislation. But in terms of the profession they follow, which is an honourable one, to maintain the security of our nation, these are volunteers, and it is an insult to them that the Government think it necessary to have these provisions in the Army discipline code at the present time.
One thing that worries us in particular is again the Panglossian attitude of the Ministry of Defence to these matters. When we asked the Ministry why it was that in other NATO countries it was not felt necessary to have the death penalty, we got a special supplementary memorandum from the Department on it. Roughly half maintain it, but half do not, and significant among the half that do not are precisely those countries which, like us, have had a lot of conflict, particularly as they have divested themselves of, or in some cases have sought to retain, empire and therefore have been engaged in armed conflict since the war. Countries such as France and Portugal, in particular, which have had tremendous colonial wars, have abolished the death penalty. I cite those two because they are similar in nature and in status to our country.
It was in reply to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) that the game was given away. He asked whether the maintenance of the death penalty prevented subversion, whether it really operated as a deterrent—question 409:
Surely, if one is recruiting people as volunteers it does not stop one from recruiting people from subversive powers, and if such people are recruited surely there is no proof they are discouraged from being recruited because there is a death penalty?(Mr. Facer.) It is extremely difficult to prove these things, and evidence of deterrence even in other areas tends to be inconclusive.That is pretty good from an Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence when they are spending all this money on Trident; but be that as it may, he went on:I think it would be fair to say we take the view that the existence of the death penalty for these particular offences provides an extra dimension to deterrence which may prevent an act of this kind, which we all hope would never occur anyway; it may make it even less likely than it is. I think that is about all I can say on the subject of deterrence.That, roughly, is all the Committee heard from the Department. They had no evidence. They had not looked 441 at other countries and asked why they had taken it away or why had they retained it. They just sat there, smug and content. It had been around a long time and they thought they ought to retain it.When I was listening to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who spoke in support of retaining the death penalty, I did not feel that we were getting any argument which showed the effectiveness of retaining the death penalty as a deterrent. I thought that he was speaking only in terms of retribution. Retribution may be an argument for maintaining the death penalty, but it is not one that I would accept and it was never advanced by the Ministry of Defence when it was putting forward its case. Its argument was purely and simply on the basis of deterrence.
§ Mr. HindPerhaps the hon. Member would consider that, far from the death penalty being retribution, its deterrence factor in this situation is related to the need to stand by one's colleagues. If there is an option for a person to run away and save his own life in the face of knowing he will lose the lives of many of his colleagues, in such cases it is important to have the death penalty as the deterrent. That is the key to the matter. Retribution is not the essential element: the essence is deterrence.
§ Mr. McNamaraWe no longer have a conscript Army; we have an Army and services of honourable, people who are not likely to crack in that way. If they do crack, it will not be because of cowardice but because of something wrong in their psyche.
It is possible under the existing legislation for a soldier to commit an offence and for it to carry the death penalty. It cannot be a good thing that other people, who are not members of the armed services, can commit the same offence and not be subject to the death penalty.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 113.
442| Division No. 136] | [10.40 pm |
| AYES | |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Loyden, Edward |
| Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Madden, Max |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Maxton, John |
| Clay, Robert | Michie, William |
| Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) | Nellist, David |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Parry, Robert |
| Dalyell, Tam | Patchett, Terry |
| Dewar, Donald | Pike, Peter |
| Dixon, Donald | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Eastham, Ken | Redmond, Martin |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Foster, Derek | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Winnick, David |
| Hardy, Peter | |
| Haynes, Frank | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Mr. John McWilliam and |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Mr. Chris Smith. |
| Lamond, James |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Blackburn, John |
| Amess, David | Bottomley, Peter |
| Ashby, David | Bottomley, Mrs Virginia |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard |
| Batiste, Spencer | Brinton, Tim |
| Bellingham, Henry | Brittan, Rt Hon Leon |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Brooke, Hon Peter |
| Carlisle, John (Luton N) | Major, John |
| Carttiss, Michael | Malone, Gerald |
| Cash, William | Marland, Paul |
| Chapman, Sydney | Mather, Carol |
| Chope, Christopher | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Conway, Derek | Merchant, Piers |
| Coombs, Simon | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Cope, John | Morris, M. (N'hampton S) |
| Couchman, James | Neubert, Michael |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Page, Richard (Herts SW) |
| Dunn, Robert | Pollock, Alexander |
| Durant, Tony | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Eggar, Tim | Powley, John |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Raffan, Keith |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Favell, Anthony | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Forth, Eric | Rowe, Andrew |
| Fraser, Peter (Angus East) | Ryder, Richard |
| Freeman, Roger | Sackville, Hon Thomas |
| Galley, Roy | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Gregory, Conal | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Griffiths, Sir Eldon | Speed, Keith |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Spencer, Derek |
| Ground, Patrick | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John S | Stanley, Rt Hon John |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Stern, Michael |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Harris, David | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Sumberg, David |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Hawksley, Warren | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Henderson, Barry | Thorne, Neil (llford S) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Thurnham, Peter |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Tracey, Richard |
| Holt, Richard | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Viggers, Peter |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Waddington, David |
| Howells, Geraint | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Walden, George |
| Hunter, Andrew | Waller, Gary |
| Jackson, Robert | Watts, John |
| Jessel, Toby | Whitfield, John |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Wilkinson, John |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'field) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Wood, Timothy |
| Lang, Ian | |
| Lilley, Peter | Tellers for the Noes |
| MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) | Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) | Mr. Peter Lloyd. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.