HC Deb 25 February 1991 vol 186 cc692-703
Mr. John Patten

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 32, line 32, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 36, and insert 'a child or young person ("the relevant minor")'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 115.

Mr. Patten

The Government believe very strongly that parents have the single most important responsibility for ensuring that their children grow up to respect the law. Just before Christmas, the Home Office conducted a public opinion survey through the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I could have been knocked down by a feather by the results, which showed, that with regard to preventing crime, the general public point the finger not at the Government, the police or schools, but at parents. The survey showed that 53 per cent. pointed the finger at parents. If we had conducted such a survey five or 10 years ago, there would have been a completely different response. There is a considerable sea change in the country. The Government have recognised it, and we are doing all we can to use that considerable change in public opinion away from the dated and outmoded concepts of the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr. Dicks

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the amendment does nothing else, it concentrates the minds of parents about their responsibilities and about where their kids are while they sit around with their feet up watching television?

Mr. Patten

My hon. Friend is right. Nothing brings that home to me more sharply than the police telling me that, in 1988, 8,000 events happened that would otherwise have been crimes committed by children aged nine and under, who were therefore below the age of criminal responsibility. Some of those events were quite serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has it game, set and match on the basis of that statistic.

The responsibility of parenthood begins when children are very young and it continues until they are on the edge of maturity and of becoming responsible adults. That parental responsibility for children's behaviour does not cease when children get into trouble—quite the reverse. It is precisely because their children have got into trouble that parents should become involved. It is then that the firm hand or the quiet word can make all the difference.

Clause 48 ensures that parents are involved at what is inevitably a very difficult time for their children. For those under 16, we believe that it is correct that courts should have a duty to ensure that parents are involved, by binding them over. Many 16 and 17-year-olds will also need a firm hand and guidance if they are to succeed in keeping out of trouble. However, many will be living independent lives, and it would not be right to suggest that parents should take responsibility for their behaviour.

Clause 48 states that there is no cut-off point between being a child and being an adult. Some people mature at different rates between the ages of 16 and 17. There are tough, yobbish, thuggish 15-year-olds and wimpish 16 and 17-year-olds who deserve to be treated like children.

The proposal in clause 48 complements the other proposals relating to 16 and 17-year-olds. Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 strengthen those provisions further by removing inconsistencies in drafting which, I should be the first to state, were identified by the hon. Members for Huddersfield, (Mr. Sheerman) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I seem to be paying compliments to Opposition Members who are absent this afternoon.

In Committee, the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish mentioned several important matters which should be reconsidered. The hon. Member for Huddersfield argued that the distinction that clause 48(1)(b) makes between 16 and 17-year-olds living at home who are in full-time education and 16 and 17-year-olds who are not, is artificial. A 16-year-old who is living at home but is not in full-time education may be equally or more in need of parental guidance than a 16-year-old living at home and in full-time education. Although the subsection was simply intended to take account of the practical limitations of parental influence over young people who live at home, I accept that the link with full-time education is, perhaps, artificial. I should not want to include in the Bill provisions that inadvertently encourage young people to leave school, home, or both at the same time.

6.30 pm

I also share the concern expressed by the now absent hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, who explained how linking the power to bind over a parent to the age and circumstances of the offender might allow a devious-minded 16-year-old to get around the provision by delaying conviction proceedings. That is why the Government have decided to table amendments Nos. 114 and 115, which would achieve the desirable end of empowering the court to bind over the parents of any 16 or 17-year-olds, when they consider such action helpful and sensible. The court would remain under a duty to do that where the child was under 16.

The amendments deal with two of the fears expressed by the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish, and will further improve the provisions regarding the sentencing of 16 and 17-year-olds and the encouragement of parental involvement. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Randall

I am grateful to the Minister for his compliments about the way in which Opposition Members made proposals. He made some nice comments about the Opposition's ability to argue rationally in Committee.

The amendments remove the absurd proposal that parents of 16-year-olds living at home and in full-time education can be bound over to prevent their children from offending. The inconsistency is that parents may be held responsible for young people who have stayed on in full-time education and who live at the parental home, and may be bound over to exercise proper care and control over the young person. However, if a young person is over 16 and is in work, is unemployed or has left home, the parents cannot be held responsible. Clearly, that is absurd.

I noticed that, every time a concession was made in Committee, the Minister left the Room to allow his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) to deal with it. It is nice to see him conceding such a major argument on which amendments were tabled by the Opposition, but the consequence is that the superb speech that I was going to make on amendment No. 97 no longer needs to be made.

Mr. Patten

That is why I made the concession.

Mr. Randall

It means that I have had to make the speech that I would have made for amendment No. 97 in this debate.

The Minister's concession is good news because it means that we shall not have to debate amendment No. 97.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 115, in page 32, line 39, leave out 'falling within paragraph (a) above' and insert 'where the relevant minor has not attained the age of 16 years'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. Sheerman

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 32, line 41 at end insert— '(1A) In exercising the powers conferred by this section, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—

  1. (a) whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence,
  2. (b) whether exercising the powers conferred by this section would reduce the likelihood that the child or young person himself will accept personal responsibility for his actions,
  3. (c) the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of exercising the powers conferred by this section, as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.'.
The amendment lays down the criteria for binding over parents of juvenile offenders. Although the Labour party takes the subject of parental responsibility extremely seriously, we have different ways of expressing it.

I do not wish to interfere with your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that the Minister's important remarks about hoax calls were rather out of order. However, we agree with him about the wickedness of such behaviour. It is important to make hoaxers realise that the technology now exists to catch them and that increasingly sophisticated telecommunications equipment means that they will be caught and penalised. Stopping young people offending in the first place is far more effective than dealing with them afterwards. The most effective way to ensure that they do not offend is to make sure that they know that the probability of their being caught is high.

Although we believe in parental responsibility, our notion of it is rather different from that of the Government. The amendment lays down the criteria for binding over parents of juvenile offenders. In Committee, the Minister often said that we are having our cake and eating it, because we do not like the clause on parental responsibility any more than we like the privatisation of prisons. When we realise that we shall not win a vote on the principle of an issue, we try to improve the clause and that aspect of the Bill, even though we disagree with the principle. I hope that the Minister does not come back with his tired old chestnut in response to the amendment.

It is important to emphasise that the inclusion of such criteria would go some way toward reducing the serious disquiet that the clause causes to those who work with and sentence juvenile offenders. The clause disturbs expert opinion in the criminal justice system and that is, in itself, disturbing. As we said earlier with reference to Lord Justice Woolf's report, it is important to work with the people who maintain and run the system. If the magistrates, the Crown prosecution service and the magistrates' clerks do not like a proposal, there is little chance of making it a success.

We predict that the clause will be stillborn. It provides that, when a juvenile is convicted of an offence, the court must bind over the parents to take proper care of him and exercise proper control over him unless it is considered that that would be unreasonable. The parents would be bound over in a specified sum up to £1,000 and, if the child re-offended, the parents woulld be liable to forfeit that amount. In effect, a binding over amounts to a suspended fine. Binding over requires the parents' consent, but the clause empowers courts to fine parents who refuse to be bound over, which renders the idea of consent entirely academic. It is a strange piece of legislation—a sort of Catch 22. I could think of a ruder expression, which I probably should not use because it might be unparliamentary. If someone does not obey the legislation, he has the right to protest, but he will have to pay anyway. The parents will always have to pay.

Magistrates are extremely concerned about the possible effects of the clause and the Magistrates Association has made known its strong opposition to the proposal. In its comments on last year's White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", the association referred to the harmful effect these proposals could have in hastening a breakdown of family relationships". It continued: Parents may feel that they are being punished twice for one offence of their child". It is sad that we in the House can easily become divorced from the reality of parenting which is not normal, but marginal. As a student of economics many years ago, I was interested in the marginal concept. We made judgments on marginal utility and marginal demand. When dealing with the criminal justice system, it is important to remember that it impacts most on the marginal family that is just holding itself together with a little bit of luck and making its way through a crisis.

The Minister and the Government have not realised—but magistrates and probation officers do—that to fine parents in many of the families of which we are talking this evening could be the last marginal straw in breaking up that family. That may not concern the Minister, but it concerns the Opposition. We do not want legislation that destroys families instead of binding them together. We do not want more children being forced to live rough in London rather than staying at home because the feeling within the family has become so bitter that they leave home. The clause would help to do that.

The Justices' Clerks Society opposed the clause in its comments on the White Paper and cited a number of additional practical reasons for its concern. It said: We oppose the proposals relating to the binding over of parents to take proper care of children and to exercise proper control over them. We foresee protracted hearings where parents refuse to be bound over and it is our view that a fine on a recalcitrant parent would be inappropriate … We also believe that the introduction of the requirement will inevitably lead to more contested juvenile cases, particularly where parents were already subject to a bind over. Even where the offence is admitted or proved, proceedings in relation to whether or not the parent (and if so which one) should forfeit the recognisance will lead to further, often disputed, hearings. Anyone who is familiar with magistrates courts will know that justices' clerks are the most experienced in such matters, spend all their time in courts and give advice to magistrates. They are central to the role of the magistrates courts. I should have thought that the Minister would take more notice of their views. Unfortunately, the clause is driven by the unacceptable right of the Conservative party. I do not know whether the legislation on parental responsibility was made in some hidden, smoke-filled room of the Monday Club—we all know what a disgraceful organisation that is—or by another of the secret right-wing societies in the Conservative party.

6.45 pm

Magistrates already have the power to bind over parents in most cases, but they use it in only a handful of cases a year, because they know that in most cases it will not work. The Minister will have another chance in a moment, but in Committee he adeptly sidestepped my question about why, if the power already exists, magistrates do not use it. Will the Minister come back to explain why our contention is wrong? We believe that the power will not be used and that clause 48 will be stillborn. If the Government continue to pass legislation on the basis of ideology rather than what is good and workable, they will bring the criminal justice system into disrepute. It is bad to base law not on human behaviour, but on political ideology.

We believe that making parents forfeit money will increase the pressure on many families for whom life is already a struggle and penalising parents for their children's actions will cause enormous resentment. Where there is already tension between parents and child, it will aggravate relationships still further, putting young people even more at risk. In all too many cases, that is likely to accelerate the trend for parents to throw their children out of the house and swell the growing ranks of young homeless.

The clause is opposed by organisations representing magistrates, justices' clerks, probation officers and social workers, all of whom fully accept the importance of parental responsibility and are actively concerned to find effective ways of reinforcing it. They are the professionals who care about parental responsibility, not some nice little middle-class group, tucked away and working at a distance from the real problems of our country. It is all very well for the nice, tidy, middle-class minority, but the parents with whom we are dealing are the ones for whom the professionals know the reality is different.

I shall quote from a truly revolutionary, red source, The Times. The argument against the clause was summarised in a leading article on 10 November 1990—perhaps Conservative Members hold their breath—which stated: This is the kind of proposal that makes perfect sense to middle class ministers."— [Interruption.] The nice, middle-class Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not want to listen—I cannot think of anyone nicer or more middle-class.

The Times leader talked about middle class Ministers, who generally leave the taming of adolescence to their children's boarding schools. How true that is. It would be lovely to see some of the Cabinet sending their children to ordinary, public sector schools. The article continued: For, say, the single mother in Brixton, struggling against odds to keep a young person on track, they represent only a threat. Many such parents will be tempted to wash their hands of their responsibilities. Parental influence—the last, best hope of deflecting the youngster from a life of crime—will be removed. The magistrates do not want these powers. Parliament should not force them to have them. The Government have made it clear that they are determined to press ahead with the proposal despite widespread opposition. By accepting the amendment, they could at least reduce the damage that it is otherwise likely to cause families. I make a last plea to the Minister to think again about the clause, because it will help to destroy parents, families and responsibility.

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Croydon, North-West)

I declare an interest as a solicitor. The clause has nothing to do with nice middle-class Ministers, the right wing of the Conservative party or the middle classes, but a lot to do with sound sense. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) has known me for some years and knows that I am on the left of the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman might think that I am one of the soggy ones. I inform him that the clause appeals to the whole range of thinking throughout the country. It is not from a Tory think tank.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) talked about punishing innocent parents. When a youngster commits a crime, I am not even sure whether there is such a thing as an innocent parent. Parents have responsibility for what their children do. Anything that hon. Members can do to reinforce parental responsibility must be welcomed.

I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Magistrates Association was against the clause. I can speak only anecdotally, but almost to a man, the magistrates whom I have known over the years have said that they wanted stiffer powers to make sure that parents were held more accountable. I have appeared in courts many times as an advocate for youngsters aged 15, 16 or 17. Sometimes the parent will be present in court, and he will be asked, "How do you explain the crime that this 17-year-old committed? He was drinking in pubs and then got involved in violence at 10 o'clock at night." That parent may say, "It's up to him. His own time is his own. I don't bother about where he goes after school." Without a doubt, such a parent should be bound over and held accountable for that offence. Another parent may say, "I thought that my son was at the youth club, because that's where he said he was going." Clearly, it would be unreasonable to punish that parent. The courts will be sensible enough to deal harshly only with parents who display an attitude that shows that they could not care less.

I sometimes wonder whether we should extend parental responsibility to those in loco parentis. What about all the young men and women from all social classes who are at fine boarding schools such as Eton and Harrow? Those schools are in loco parentis during term time. The head teachers should be taken to the local magistrates court if one of their 17-year-olds is caught out on a drunken spree. I say that seriously, because schools take their in loco parentis role very seriously. They should be included in the legislation. We must do whatever we can to reinforce parental responsibility.

Mr. Maclennan

The Government have been at some pains to show that they do not wish to fetter the discretion of the judiciary. They used that argument most powerfully in the debate on the sentencing council but, exceptionally, in respect of this clause, they appear to want to fetter the discretion of the judiciary and to do so in circumstances that are opposed by all hon. Members who have representative roles in the administration of the criminal justice system.

This is a bad clause. Clearly it will be honoured in the breach more than in the observance. It is a bad clause because it removes from the court the right to consider the appropriateness of doing what it may wish to do by imposing upon the court a duty that it must discharge unless it thinks it unreasonable so to do. The amendment would remove the sting of the clause by describing the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to do so. If the Minister argues that there is some discretion, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the wisdom of describing the circumstances in which the discretion should be exercised. There has been considerable debate about this matter, but I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will not seek to trumpet the Government's concern for parental responsibility as being greater than that of hon. Members who take a different view about how parental responsibility is best reinforced.

The House is aware of the importance of parents in minimising behaviour that leads to crime and of the crucial role that parents can play. However, it cannot be right to impose upon parents a duty that excludes the particular circumstances of cases before the courts. If it were right, I do not believe that those who administer the criminal justice system and have responsibility would unanimously believe that the Government have got it wrong.

Mr. John Patten

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) cannot have read the Bill. We are not in Standing Committee—the Bill is being considered on Report. The reference to reasonableness is there for all the world to see. It is on page 32 of the Bill. Clause 48(1)(b) uses the words, to exercise those powers unless satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so". The courts have all the opportunity they need to take into account that which is reasonable and that which is unreasonable.

There is nothing onerous on the courts or on those who come before the courts. Rather, there is a great opportunity, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) in a speech that was not only robust but was founded on his experiences in dealing with such issues in the courts. There is everything to be said for having that binding-over power not to punish but to prevent future crime. That is what we are attempting to do.

To use a phrase that I can remember being used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was Home Secretary, we are trying to ensure that children grow straight rather than crooked. If, by the intervention of the courts trying to encourage parents to take their responsibilities more seriously, children can be prevented from continuing to grow crooked, that is a very good thing. This measure has nothing to do with punishing parents but everything to do with trying to persuade them to take their responsibilities seriously and with preventing future criminality.

Mr. John Greenway

I spoke to a magistrate only the other day in relation to a case in which a child of only 14 was persistently playing truant. The father did not know that the child's truancy had gone on for six months, and it was subsequently discovered that, during those periods of truancy, many minor but nevertheless serious offences were committed. I am absolutely convinced, as is my right hon. Friend, that it is important to confront the parent with the reality of what the child is up to. That is the real benefit of the measure.

Mr. Patten

As my hon. Friend says, this measure brings the parents slap up face to face with their responsibilities. I was interested in the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West that we should bring head teachers face to face with their responsibilities, too. I do not think that that is a matter for this Bill, but it is food for thought for a future Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is very concerned about truancy. We in the Home Office are worried about truancy. If we can deal with the truancy problem more effectively, we can not only prevent offending but bring up children who will perform better and achieve better in school.

We had long debates on this issue in Committee. Of course I take into account the views of the Magistrates Association and of justices' clerks as expressed by their national organisations, but there are about 27,000 magistrates in the country, and their views vary widely. Many magistrates strongly support our view.

Mr. Dicks

We are legislators; we protect the public. We do not legislate for the best interests of magistrates, magistrates' clerks, probation officers or social workers.

7 pm

Mr. Patten

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) will recall that, all through the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) kept talking about "the lobby" and holding up and reading from bits of paper which referred to the lobby's views. As my hon. Friend said, we are legislators, and we act in the public interest. We take into account the views of national bodies, which are important, but we must make up our own minds.

Mr. Sheerman

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and I disagreed many times in Committee, especially about his attack on magistrates, which he withdrew. The Minister said that there were 27,000 magistrates and that their opinions differed widely depending on which clutch one talked to. If the measure is so popular, why is not it currently used by magistrates in more than a handful of cases?

Mr. Patten

The present legislation is not drafted in such a way as to encourage its use. We intend to introduce an integrated package of powers along the three particular tracks to which I referred earlier. That package, together with much more training for the magistracy in these matters, will lead to the much greater use of those powers by magistrates courts—and a good thing, too.

Amendment No. 90 is similar in intention to amendment No. 82. My reasons for opposing it are identical to those which I adduced in opposing amendment No. 82. Similar objections arise. I cannot accept the amendment, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 263.

Division No. 78] [7.01 pm
Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.) Benton, Joseph
Allen, Graham Bermingham, Gerald
Alton, David Bidwell, Sydney
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Blunkett, David
Armstrong, Hilary Boateng, Paul
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Boyes, Roland
Ashton, Joe Bradley, Keith
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Bray, Dr Jeremy
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Barron, Kevin Caborn, Richard
Battle, John Callaghan, Jim
Bell, Stuart Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Bellotti, David Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Canavan, Dennis
Cartwright, John McKelvey, William
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) McLeish, Henry
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Maclennan, Robert
Clelland, David McMaster, Gordon
Clwyd, Mrs Ann McWilliam, John
Cohen, Harry Madden, Max
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Corbett, Robin Marek, Dr John
Crowther, Stan Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Cryer, Bob Martlew, Eric
Cummings, John Maxton, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence Meacher, Michael
Dalyell, Tam Meale, Alan
Darling, Alistair Michael, Alun
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Moonie, Dr Lewis
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Morgan, Rhodri
Dixon, Don Morley, Elliot
Dobson, Frank Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Doran, Frank Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Duffy, A. E. P. Mowlam, Marjorie
Dunnachie, Jimmy Mullin, Chris
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth Murphy, Paul
Eadie, Alexander Nellist, Dave
Faulds, Andrew Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) O'Brien, William
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) O'Hara, Edward
Fisher, Mark O'Neill, Martin
Flynn, Paul Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Fraser, John Parry, Robert
Fyfe, Maria Patchett, Terry
Galbraith, Sam Pendry, Tom
Garrett, John (Norwich South) Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) Prescott, John
George, Bruce Primarolo, Dawn
Godman, Dr Norman A. Quin, Ms Joyce
Golding, Mrs Llin Radice, Giles
Gordon, Mildred Randall, Stuart
Gould, Bryan Redmond, Martin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Reid, Dr John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Richardson, Jo
Grocott, Bruce Robertson, George
Hardy, Peter Rogers, Allan
Harman, Ms Harriet Rooker, Jeff
Haynes, Frank Rooney, Terence
Heal, Mrs Sylvia Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Henderson, Doug Rowlands, Ted
Hinchliffe, David Ruddock, Joan
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall) Sedgemore, Brian
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) Sheerman, Barry
Home Robertson, John Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Hood, Jimmy Short, Clare
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Skinner, Dennis
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E) Soley, Clive
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Illsley, Eric Steinberg, Gerry
Ingram, Adam Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Kennedy, Charles Turner, Dennis
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil Vaz, Keith
Lambie, David Wareing, Robert N.
Leadbitter, Ted Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Leighton, Ron Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Litherland, Robert Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Wilson, Brian
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Winnick, David
Loyden, Eddie Wise, Mrs Audrey
McAllion, John Worthington, Tony
McAvoy, Thomas Young, David (Bolton SE)
McCartney, Ian
Macdonald, Calum A. Tellers for the Ayes
McFall, John Mr. Martyn Jones and Mr. Ken Eastham.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Aitken, Jonathan Fenner, Dame Peggy
Alexander, Richard Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Allason, Rupert Forman, Nigel
Amess, David Forth, Eric
Amos, Alan Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Arbuthnot, James Franks, Cecil
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Freeman, Roger
Ashby, David French, Douglas
Atkinson, David Gale, Roger
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Gardiner, Sir George
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Gill, Christopher
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Batiste, Spencer Goodhart, Sir Philip
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Goodlad, Alastair
Beggs, Roy Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bellingham, Henry Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bendall, Vivian Gregory, Conal
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bevan, David Gilroy Grist, Ian
Biffen, Rt Hon John Ground, Patrick
Blackburn, Dr John G. Hague, William
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Body, Sir Richard Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Hannam, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Boswell, Tim Harris, David
Bottomley, Peter Haselhurst, Alan
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) Hayes, Jerry
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Hayward, Robert
Bowis, John Heathcoat-Amory, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Brazier, Julian Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Bright, Graham Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) Hill, James
Browne, John (Winchester) Hind, Kenneth
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) Hordern, Sir Peter
Buck, Sir Antony Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Budgen, Nicholas Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Burns, Simon Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Butler, Chris Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Butterfill, John Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N) Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Irvine, Michael
Carrington, Matthew Irving, Sir Charles
Carttiss, Michael Jack, Michael
Cash, William Jackson, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Jessel, Toby
Chapman, Sydney Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Chope, Christopher Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Churchill, Mr Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth) Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William Key, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Kilfedder, James
Colvin, Michael King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Conway, Derek Kirkhope, Timothy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Knapman, Roger
Cope, Rt Hon John Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Cormack, Patrick Knowles, Michael
Couchman, James Knox, David
Curry, David Latham, Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) Lawrence, Ivan
Davis, David (Boothferry) Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Day, Stephen Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Dickens, Geoffrey Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Dicks, Terry Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Dorrell, Stephen Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James McCrindle, Sir Robert
Dover, Den Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Dunn, Bob MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Durant, Sir Anthony MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Dykes, Hugh Maclean, David
Eggar, Tim McLoughlin, Patrick
Emery, Sir Peter McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) Madel, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas Malins, Humfrey
Fallon, Michael Mans, Keith
Favell, Tony Maples, John
Marlow, Tony Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Sims, Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) Skeet, Sir Trevor
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mates, Michael Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David Squire, Robin
Meyer, Sir Anthony Stanbrook, Ivor
Miscampbell, Norman Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Steen, Anthony
Mitchell, Sir David Stern, Michael
Moate, Roger Stevens, Lewis
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Morrison, Sir Charles Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Moss, Malcolm Sumberg, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin Summerson, Hugo
Mudd, David Tapsell, Sir Peter
Neale, Sir Gerrard Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Nelson, Anthony Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Neubert, Sir Michael Temple-Morris, Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Nicholls, Patrick Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Thornton, Malcolm
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Thurnham, Peter
Norris, Steve Townend, John (Bridlington)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Oppenheim, Phillip Tredinnick, David
Page, Richard Trippier, David
Patnick, Irvine Twinn, Dr Ian
Patten, Rt Hon John Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Pawsey, James Viggers, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Porter, David (Waveney) Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Portillo, Michael Walden, George
Powell, William (Corby) Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Price, Sir David Walters, Sir Dennis
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy Ward, John
Rathbone, Tim Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Redwood, John Watts, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim Wheeler, Sir John
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Whitney, Ray
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm Widdecombe, Ann
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy) Wiggin, Jerry
Roe, Mrs Marion Winterton, Nicholas
Rossi, Sir Hugh Wolfson, Mark
Rost, Peter Wood, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela Yeo, Tim
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard Young, Sir George (Acton)
Sayeed, Jonathan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas Tellers for the Noes:
Shaw, David (Dover) Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.
Shelton, Sir William
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to