HC Deb 21 January 1992 vol 202 cc228-39

'. The following paragraph is inserted after the second paragraph of section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971— No rule relating to asylum, or change in such a rule, shall have effect until the statement of that rule, or change in a rule, has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Darling.] Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Darling

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

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 22, at end add—

'(3) The Secretary of State shall from time to time lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or of any changes in the rules, laid down by him as to the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act, such rules to be known as the Immigration (Asylum) Rules, and the Secretary of State shall consult with, and have regard to the views of, the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in drawing up such rules.'.

Mr. Darling

Perhaps I may make two preliminary points. The new clause, together with amendment No. 1, bears upon the rules. Perhaps the Bill is unusual in that it depends on the Lord Chancellor's rules of procedure and the immigration rules to make it work. It was not surprising, therefore, that in Committee there was much discussion about the rules, as a result of which changes have been made.

My first preliminary point is that it is extremely unfortunate that the revised rules—there are substantial revisions both in the procedure rules and in the immigration rules—were made available to members of the Committee only at 1 o'clock this afternoon. It follows, therefore, that my remarks may stand to be corrected, as I may have missed some points that I did not see in the comparison that I was able to make between the old rules and the new rules between 1 o'clock and 3.30 this afternoon. That is unfortunate. There is a duty on hon. Members to scrutinise legislation before it is passed into law. Fortunately, there is an opportunity in another place further to examine the rules as they bear upon the Bill.

My second preliminary point—the Minister might he more cheered by it—is that substantial concessions have been made by the Government. I regard that as a tribute not only to the argument that took place in Committee but to the substantive pressure that was brought to bear on the Government by the many agencies, organisations and individuals outside the House who were concerned at the Government's original proposals. Some of them, including the author of the article to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred, played their part in making the Government think again.

I do not believe in unnecessarily using words such as "climbdown", "U-turn" and so on—I would not go that far. However, it is fair to say that the Government have brought forward the Bill in a hasty manner. Our debate about legal aid demonstrated that the Home Secretary and the Government had not fully thought out the implications contained in the Home Secretary's statement on 2 July last year, let alone in the Bill itself. It is noticeable that the trumpeting that took place last summer and last autumn, particularly at the Tory party conference, has not been repeated today because the Government know that they have had to change their mind on a number of significant points. We shall still seek to divide the House because, despite the many concessions that the Government have made, the Bill remains flawed in one or two essential respects.

I shall deal briefly with the various papers that the Minister has been good enough to make available to members of the Committee. I assume that they are available to other hon. Members as well. I refer first to the Lord Chancellor's draft rules relating to procedure. The first concession that the Government have made—it is extremely welcome and it attracted much comment—was that applicants seeking leave to appeal now have 10 days to do so rather than the ridiculously short period of two days provided in the original rules. Paragraph 29 of the new draft provides that time limits in general may be waived, I think, on cause shown. That is an extremely welcome concession. It will undoubtedly remove some of the injustices that we feared would occur with individuals having only two days in which to lodge their appeals.

6.45 pm

Equally, I very much welcome the Government's change of heart with regard to oral hearings, up to a point. It is now provided quite clearly in paragraph 9 that hearings will be determined orally in two quite specific circumstances. However, there is still no right of appeal for applicants as such. There is only an entitlement to apply for leave to appeal. When leave to appeal is granted, an oral hearing follows, but there is no right to an oral hearing when arguing the point of leave to appeal. The two things are, of course, quite different.

I am pleased that the original paragraph 5(7) in the original rules, which required that the special adjudicator should grant the applicant leave to appeal unless he was satisfied that the applicant did not have an arguable claim for asylum, appears—at least from my preliminary reading at lunchtime time today—to have been dropped. I make that point because we argued strongly in Committee that, when considering whether an applicant has an arguable claim, it would be necessary to assess matters of credibility. Therefore, the Minister's point in response to the hon. and learned Member for Burton was crucial when considering the terms of paragraph 5(7) of the old rules.

However, it would appear that in the new rules paragraph 5(7) is not replicated in its original form. If that means that there is a different onus on the special adjudicator, it is to be welcomed. As I have said, that point will require further consideration—I hope that it will be in another place—because I have not had an opportunity to consider whether in the fine print of the rules there is some further qualification.

The amendments to the Lord Chancellor's procedure rules are welcome. I am sure that those who have brought pressure to bear on the Government will be pleased that some changes have been made.

On the draft immigration rules and the revision that was published today, again substantial concessions have been made, although questions remain. When considering credibility, the first thing that has to be said is that, in the original rules, the Home Office had to consider a number of factors such as the failure of an applicant to apply for asylum immediately on his arrival in the United Kingdom, whether false representations were made, and whether—it is an important point—documents were destroyed, damaged or disposed of. We cited the example of the Kurd fleeing Iraq, who would not have arrived in this country with proper travel documents because he would never have got out of Iraq if he had had such documents. I am pleased that the Government have now included an important caveat, which is that, if no reasonable explanation is adduced, such matters may affect an applicant's credibility; in other words, it appears that the applicant for asylum has an opportunity to explain why no immediate claim was made or why the documents were destroyed or damaged. That concession is important.

It is important to note that the interpretation of the rules will be crucial. Although the Minister has published a guide to the Home Office procedure—I am bound to say that it is more like a tourist guide to the Home Office rather than a detailed examination of the standing orders—I hope that, once he has a final draft or the actual standing orders given to those who interpret the rules, he will make them available. Although the changes that the Government have made are very welcome, or at least appear to be so, the interpretation will be crucial.

The point is important when one examines the new paragraph 6(d) which deals with those applicants for asylum who undertake any activities in this country which might be calculated to enhance a claim for asylum. The Minister and the Home Secretary graphically painted a picture of someone who had never any intention of applying for asylum but who, deciding that this was the best avenue for extending leave to stay in the country, would appear in front of the television camera, denounce the Government of the country from where he came and then seek asylum.

The Government have now changed the paragraph to qualify it to the extent that the behaviour must be inconsistent with previous beliefs and behaviour. That is welcome, but I should like the Minister to tell us how we judge whether it is inconsistent. It is clearly a matter of judgment. Any of us who have even a modicum of experience of these matters will know that much depends on the individual officer in deciding whether such and such an expression might be consistent with beliefs.

For example, I might hold very strong beliefs about something but might never say anything about it. Then one day I am moved for one reason or another to make a public utterance. Someone judging me could say that I had never said anything in the past about these things, whereas I could have said things privately or things that had never come to public notice. It would, therefore, be helpful if the Minister could let us know what guidelines for interpretation are to be applied to the provisions of that subclause.

Equally, I am pleased that the blanket statement that the actions of anyone who appeared to act on behalf of an applicant could be held against the applicant has now been removed, and it is clearly stated that it has to be the actions of anyone acting as an agent. However, one or two problems remain, one of which I would like to deal with.

I am not certain whether the influx of Albanian refugees or those who purported to seek asylum in Italy is likely to be replicated in the United Kingdom because of our geographical position, but the same thing may happen on a small scale: we have had experience of groups of 10, 20 or 30 applying. I am concerned that paragraph 9 of the revised rules still seems to provide that an assessment can be made of one individual and the outcome of that assessment will determine the applications of the rest of the group. That does not seem to me to be desirable, but, rather, fraught with dangers. It is one of the flaws that the Government must tackle. Presumably these draft rules will have to be further revised because they must be approved by the House, but I should like the Government to think about that.

Similarly, on the question of the third-country cases, the Government have made an improvement in the original provision, but there is still this concern about the interpretation of a safe third country.

I have not dealt exhaustively with these rules because it is impossible to do so on Report, but 1 thought it right to highlight some of the problems which I expect and hope will be addressed in another place.

The Minister has also been good enough to have published the proposed procedure for dealing with asylum applications. The more I read it, the more it appeared not to be guidelines that would be issued to the immigration officers and the Home Office staff who will deal with these things but more the sort of glossy publication that one might find as a guide to the Home Office and how it works. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked for this to be made available and he may have something more to say about it.

One thing struck me in paragraph 9 which has some bearing on a later group of amendments dealing with housing: it still makes the point that there may be some delay before asylum applications reach the asylum division and are recorded, and that has some bearing on whether an individual ought to be housed under clause 3 of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to talk about delays which are, in some people's view, endemic in the Home Office and which, when they affect an individual, are a serious matter.

Something also ought to be said—because it has a direct bearing on the terms of this amendment—on the political asylum questionnaire that the Minister has made available. I had the opportunity of looking at one of these, perhaps in a slightly different form, when I visited terminal 3 at Heathrow a couple of years ago. My only concern is that the questions are fairly general. When I watched an officer going through an applicant's form with him, he stuck rather rigidly to the questions; where one answer came up that did not quite fit in with the question, the officer said, Well, the question does not say that so we'll just put 'Yes'.

Mr. Peter Lloyd

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will appreciate that the immigration officer is filling in a preliminary questionnaire to get some basic facts down, not as a member of the asylum division staff who is assessing a case. I just want to make sure that the hon. Member is distinguishing who he is talking about, because the immigration officer has a limited task which is to get some basic facts down.

Mr. Darling

I apologise. I was using the general term. I was surrounded by immigration officers that day. He was, as I understand it, a member of the asylum division. If the Minister doubts it, I am afraid that I did not ask him to identify himself with name, rank and number, but I was led to believe that that is what he was. I confess that my attention was more taken up with the form itself and with the exchange of questioning between the "officer", if I might call him that, the interpreter and the person seeking asylum.

The central thrust of our complaint about the immigration rules—I suppose that it goes to the heart of one of our objections to the Bill—is that, contrary to what was said in the press release when the Bill was introduced, there is no right of appeal; in fact, the right of appeal has been taken away from in-country people. The only thing that remains is the right to seek leave to appeal; that remains in the rules, as I understand it. There is no oral hearing to be allowed, which is something that we argued for when arguing for leave to appeal.

For that reason we believe that the rules are fundamentally flawed, but, as I indicated at the start, and having entered the caveat that I must enter in case I am faulted later—that the opportunity to look at these rules was substantially less than we should have liked—it appears that the Government have accepted many of the criticisms that were levelled at them, and even if I had any doubt about that from my reading of the rules I think that my assertion would be greatly supported by the fact that the Home Secretary is not proposing to speak on the Bill. That speaks eloquently of the extent to which the Government have changed their minds since the Bill was introduced last year.

Mr. Peter Lloyd

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and the House did not have the revised draft rules earlier. I produced the original draft rules in time for First Reading. They have been revised extensively in the light of what was said in Committee and other comments upon them and because of our own desire at the Home Office to make them clearer. This is a further draft, and I have no doubt that there may be further changes after discussions in another place and that we shall not get to a final draft until the rules are laid before the House in the normal way, when there will be the opportunity for the House to take a decision on them.

I am almost reluctant to mention new clause 4 because the hon. Gentleman said little about it. However, it would require a change to the rules relating to asylum to be approved by both Houses before those provisions could come into effect.

It would be unthinkable for the House not to have sufficient opportunity to debate and, if it so decides, to reject any changes in the asylum rules. That is why the Immigration Act 1971 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement of any changes in the immigration rules, leaving the House 40 days in which to debate them and, if it so desires, to reject them. If the House rejects the changes, the Secretary of State must lay before the House a statement making further changes. That provides an opportunity for the parliamentary scrutiny of changes to the rules while always allowing changes to be made quickly, where necessary. I shall make only the basic observation that since September 1990 there have been nine different changes in the immigration rules, but the Opposition have asked for debates on none of them.

7 pm

Mr. Darling

To be fair, and for the benefit of those who follow the proceedings in this place, may I point out that many changes to the immigration rules are minor and uncontroversial? I am sure that the Minister will recognise that it is only when matters of substance need to be debated that we request and get debates. Changes to the immigration rules may involve adding or deleting a country from a list, which is not always a worthy reason for detaining the House for an evening's debate.

Mr. Lloyd

That is perfectly right and that is what I would have gone on to say, but the hon. Gentleman has put it very well. I wish, however, that he would talk more about his new clause, which requires that there should be such a debate before any changes could be effected. The Opposition were, of course, right not to press for debates on minor matters, but they are introducing provisions that require a debate before any changes can be effective. They have the opportunity to ensure that there is a debate within 40 days of the introduction of any such changes.

I turn now to the hon. Gentleman's questions about the further revisions to the rules of procedure and to the immigration rules themselves. I am glad that he is pleased with the changes. I do not want to undermine his satisfaction and, because he was generous to me, I shall not argue with him much about the fact that fundamental changes have been pressed upon us and that he does not intend to press us as far as his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) by suggesting that there has been a climbdown. When he reads the rules, he will see that, in principle, they remain as they were before, except in areas on which we specifically consulted.

I refer to the length of time that somebody has to ask for leave to appeal. That was always a matter for consultation and we have changed the provisions to the 10 working days' requirement. That is the general requirement in the tribunal and special appellate system. The Home Office has sought to explain more clearly in words the original intention that was incorporated in the rules—to explain them more fully in cases where there has been misunderstanding, and generally to make the provisions clearer. In that sense, our discussions in Committee and the comments that have been made by those outside the House, especially the UNHCR, have been helpful.

As a number of areas on which I could comment are covered by later amendments, it would not be sensible for me to take up the time of the House with them now—

Mr. Corbyn

The Minister has sent those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee a consultation draft of the statutory instrument and the immigration rule changes. Although they require some study and application, we have now had them for only a couple of hours. Exactly what procedure does the Minister propose to adopt on the method of consultation? As far as I am aware, consultation has not taken this form previously for Members of Parliament. Is the Minister inviting representations from us now, or is he proposing that, following the representations, there may be a debate on a prayer not to agree the statutory instrument?

Mr. Lloyd

I am publishing them in draft to invite representations and comments from the House either now during the debate or from hon. Members after the debate or from organisations outside the House in an attempt to allow informed discussion in another place. We shall then produce another set of rules—possibly exactly the same, but perhaps containing further changes—that will then come before both Houses in the normal way for their approval. There is time for further representation—

Mr. Corbyn

How much time?

Mr. Lloyd

Not until the legislation is on the statute book, but not very much later than that date, which I hope will be within a limited period. This is not the end of the representation period. If the hon. Gentleman would like to consider the provisions further, he can then let me know his views. He does not need to feel that he has lost his chance or that he need detain the House this evening while he reads through them and cogitates.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central referred to the "arguable claim" and to the fact that the adjudicator would judge, on the papers, whether there was an arguable claim. The hon. Gentleman was pleased that those provisions are not in the latest draft of the procedural rules. However, the paper that is attached to the procedural rules may have come adrift on his copy. That paper suggests that, as I said in Committee, I want to see that description reworded and included in the primary legislation because I believe—[Interruption.] I shall show the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. It is here. So that there can be no misunderstanding, I advise the House that the phrase "arguable claim" has come out of the rules so that it can be included in the primary legislation in a different form.

I regret that I have been unable to produce that amendment for debate this evening, but we look forward to introducing it in another place. We shall seek to make it clear that, if the adjudicator believed every word of the case that was put to him by the appellant, he would have to acknowledge that that would be a claim that was at least arguable under the United Nations convention. The adjudicator makes his decision, not on the credibility of the applicant, but on the claim that the applicant has made to him. The adjudicator will say to himself, "Although I may not believe that this looks true and the Home Office is right to disbelieve it, if it looks true, that claim would be arguable under the United Nations convention, so I must have a full oral hearing."

That is how we filter out those manifestly unfounded claims in which there is no disagreement about the fact that the individual has come from a third safe country where his claim would be properly heard, or, as was mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, those cases where by no stretch of the imagination could the United Nations convention cover that claim. I refer, for example, to the case of the woman who sought asylum because she said that her mother-in-law was interfering in her marriage so much that the marriage would break up if she and her husband were not allowed to come here to live. We are talking about a low threshold, but one which the Government believe necessary to filter out the manifestly unfounded claims. In fact, that threshold is much lower than the one that was produced by the Bar Council in the rather eccentric evidence and suggestions that it has sent to me.

Mr. Darling

Perhaps the Minister could tell us from where this information comes. He says that it is from a piece of paper that may have become detached from the papers that he sent us at lunchtime. The issue of what the special adjudicator has to decide is crucial. If the Minister is saying that that information is not in the rules, the draft rules or the Bill, but is on a detached piece of paper, he appears to be falling short of the standards that we normally expect from the Government. On what detached piece of paper is that information?

Mr. Lloyd

I am giving the hon. Gentleman the piece of paper that I have detached, and he may read it. The hon. Gentleman should worry less than he does because the amendment that will be produced from that is not before us today. It will, I am afraid, have to be introduced in another place, but I did not want the hon. Gentleman to think that "arguable case" had simply been dropped from the rules. The Government propose to do what I presaged in Committee, which is to introduce an amendment into the primary legislation that will make it quite clear how low the threshold must be before the adjudicator can refuse the claim to appeal.

The hon. Gentleman raised several other points. On the question of credibility, he referred in particular to paragraph 6(d): that the applicant has undertaken any activities in the United Kingdom before or after lodging his application which are inconsistent with his previous beliefs and behaviour and calculated to create or substantially enhance his claim for refugee status. That, of course, is the kind of question—and there are many of them—that the asylum division has to answer in each case. It has to look at the totality of the claim, what the individual says, and all the available evidence so that it can make a fair decision that takes everything into account.

The rules indicate that these are matters which affect credibility, have always affected credibility and must always affect credibility—not necessarily deleteriously, because if there is a good answer it will explain the point. These matters are inevitably taken into account where the totality of a claim is being considered. It is only fair and honest that this be put down in writing and indicated clearly, and that it should continue to be the case, since some interested individuals, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, do not quite realise that this is the case. We shall be coming later to a number of these points.

I cannot support the proposals tabled by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. He did not give them much support himself. On the rules, I am glad that he is pleased with the changes that have been made. I hope that on further study, when he has had longer to look at them, he will be even more pleased. This is a second draft and we are still open to suggestions and criticisms. My aim is to ensure that the Government's original intentions come over clearly. I believe that the changes that we have made have helped and that the Opposition, although not assenting to them all, have found them more satisfactory. For that I am grateful.

Mr. Darling

I will not argue with the Minister's explanations. It really does not matter why the rules have been changed. I believe that, after further examination, further improvements will be suggested. Many of the changes are welcome, but there is much further to go. Incidentally, I said that I would not use the term "climbdown" with regard to the rules but I would not depart for one minute from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about the Government's change of heart on the legal aid, advice and assistance scheme. That is most certainly a climbdown.

On the question of what constitutes an arguable claim, it is regrettable that the Government's proposals are not contained in the Bill, the draft rules or even the second draft; they are contained in what appears to be a press notice indicating that the Government intend to change their mind on the question. That is extremely unfortunate. It is the sort of behaviour that has dogged this Bill since its heralding in July last year. It appears that the Government have it in mind to make further amendments, some of them substantial. I am glad of that. The longer the Government continue to amend the Bill, the better are the chances that some of the risks that were quite rightly highlighted during the passage of the Bill will be lessened.

We remain dissatisfied with the rules, particularly on the question of leave to appeal, and for that reason we will press the new clause to a Division.

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

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 287.

Division No. 46] [7.14 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.) Eastham, Ken
Allen, Graham Edwards, Huw
Alton, David Enright, Derek
Anderson, Donald Evans, John (St Helens N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Armstrong, Hilary Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Fatchett, Derek
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Fearn, Ronald
Ashton, Joe Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Fisher, Mark
Barron, Kevin Flannery, Martin
Battle, John Flynn, Paul
Beith, A. J. Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Bell, Stuart Foster, Derek
Bellotti, David Foulkes, George
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Fraser, John
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish) Fyfe, Maria
Bermingham, Gerald Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Blair, Tony Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Boateng, Paul George, Bruce
Boyes, Roland Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Bradley, Keith Golding, Mrs Llin
Bray, Dr Jeremy Gordon, Mildred
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) Graham, Thomas
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Caborn, Richard Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Callaghan, Jim Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Grocott, Bruce
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) Hain, Peter
Canavan, Dennis Hardy, Peter
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Carr, Michael Haynes, Frank
Clark, Dr David (S Shields) Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Clelland, David Hinchliffe, David
Cohen, Harry Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Hood, Jimmy
Corbett, Robin Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy Howells, Geraint
Cousins, Jim Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Crowther, Stan Hoyle, Doug
Cryer, Bob Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Darling, Alistair Illsley, Eric
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Ingram, Adam
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Janner, Greville
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) Johnston, Sir Russell
Dewar, Donald Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Dixon, Don Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Dobson, Frank Kennedy, Charles
Doran, Frank Kilfoyle, Peter
Dunnachie, Jimmy Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Eadie, Alexander Kirkwood, Archy
Kumar, Dr. Ashok Randall, Stuart
Lambie, David Redmond, Martin
Lamond, James Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Leadbitter, Ted Reid, Dr John
Leighton, Ron Robertson, George
Lewis, Terry Robinson, Geoffrey
Litherland, Robert Rogers, Allan
Livingstone, Ken Rooker, Jeff
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Rooney, Terence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Loyden, Eddie Rowlands, Ted
McAllion, John Ruddock, Joan
McCartney, Ian Sedgemore, Brian
Macdonald, Calum A. Sheerman, Barry
McKelvey, William Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McLeish, Henry Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Maclennan, Robert Short, Clare
McMaster, Gordon Skinner, Dennis
McNamara, Kevin Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McWilliam, John Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)
Madden, Max Snape, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice Soley, Clive
Marek, Dr John Spearing, Nigel
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Steinberg, Gerry
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) Stephen, Nicol
Martlew, Eric Stott, Roger
Maxton, John Strang, Gavin
Meacher, Michael Straw, Jack
Meale, Alan Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Michael, Alun Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) Turner, Dennis
Moonie, Dr Lewis Vaz, Keith
Morgan, Rhodri Walley, Joan
Morley, Elliot Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Wareing, Robert N.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Mowlam, Marjorie Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mullin, Chris Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Paul Wigley, Dafydd
Nellist, Dave Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
O'Brien, William Wilson, Brian
O'Hara, Edward Winnick, David
O'Neill, Martin Wise, Mrs Audrey
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Worthington, Tony
Parry, Robert Wray, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry Young, David (Bolton SE)
Pendry, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore) Tellers for the Ayes:
Primarolo, Dawn Mr. Thomas McAvoy and
Quin, Ms Joyce Mr. Allen McKay.
Radice, Giles
NOES
Adley, Robert Bowis, John
Alexander, Richard Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Alison, Rt Hon Michael Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Allason, Rupert Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Amess, David Brazier, Julian
Amos, Alan Bright, Graham
Arbuthnot, James Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Ashby, David Browne, John (Winchester)
Atkins, Robert Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Buck, Sir Antony
Baldry, Tony Budgen, Nicholas
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Burns, Simon
Batiste, Spencer Burt, Alistair
Bellingham, Henry Butler, Chris
Bendall, Vivian Butterfill, John
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Blackburn, Dr John G. Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter Carrington, Matthew
Body, Sir Richard Carttiss, Michael
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Cash, William
Boscawen, Hon Robert Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Boswell, Tim Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Bottomley, Peter Chapman, Sydney
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Churchill, Mr
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth) Irving, Sir Charles
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William Jack, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Jackson, Robert
Colvin, Michael Janman, Tim
Conway, Derek Jessel, Toby
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Cormack, Patrick Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Couchman, James Key, Robert
Cran, James Kilfedder, James
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Day, Stephen Kirkhope, Timothy
Devlin, Tim Knapman, Roger
Dickens, Geoffrey Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Dorrell, Stephen Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Knowles, Michael
Dover, Den Knox, David
Dunn, Bob Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Durant, Sir Anthony Latham, Michael
Dykes, Hugh Lawrence, Ivan
Eggar, Tim Lee, John (Pendle)
Emery, Sir Peter Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Evennett, David Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Fallon, Michael Lightbown, David
Farr, Sir John Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Favell, Tony Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy Lord, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fishburn, John Dudley MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Forman, Nigel MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Maclean, David
Forth, Eric McLoughlin, Patrick
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
French, Douglas McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Fry, Peter Madel, David
Gale, Roger Malins, Humfrey
Gardiner, Sir George Mans, Keith
Gill, Christopher Marland, Paul
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian Marlow, Tony
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Goodhart, Sir Philip Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) Maude, Hon Francis
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Gregory, Conal Meyer, Sir Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Miller, Sir Hal
Grist, Ian Mills, Iain
Ground, Patrick Mitchell, Sir David
Grylls, Sir Michael Moate, Roger
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn Monro, Sir Hector
Hague, William Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie Moore, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Hanley, Jeremy Morrison, Sir Charles
Hannam, Sir John Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') Moss, Malcolm
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) Mudd, David
Harris, David Neale, Sir Gerrard
Hawkins, Christopher Nelson, Anthony
Hayes, Jerry Neubert, Sir Michael
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hayward, Robert Nicholls, Patrick
Heathcoat-Amory, David Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) Norris, Steve
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hill, James Oppenheim, Phillip
Hind, Kenneth Page, Richard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) Paice, James
Hordern, Sir Peter Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) Patnick, Irvine
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Patten, Rt Hon John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew Pawsey, James
Irvine, Michael Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Sumberg, David
Porter, David (Waveney) Summerson, Hugo
Portillo, Michael Tapsell, Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby) Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Price, Sir David Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy Temple-Morris, Peter
Redwood, John Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Valley)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Riddick, Graham Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian Thorne, Neil
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Thornton, Malcolm
Roe, Mrs Marion Thurnham, Peter
Rost, Peter Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rowe, Andrew Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Sackville, Hon Tom Tracey, Richard
Sayeed, Jonathan Tredinnick, David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas Trippier, David
Shaw, David (Dover) Twinn, Dr Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Viggers, Peter
Shelton, Sir William Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) Walden, George
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Waller, Gary
Shersby, Michael Ward, John
Sims, Roger Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Skeet, Sir Trevor Warren, Kenneth
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Watts, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas Wells, Bowen
Speed, Keith Wheeler, Sir John
Speller, Tony Whitney, Ray
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) Widdecombe, Ann
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) Wilshire, David
Stanbrook, Ivor Winterton, Mrs Ann
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John Winterton, Nicholas
Steen, Anthony Wolfson, Mark
Stern, Michael Wood, Timothy
Stevens, Lewis Yeo, Tim
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) Tellers for the Noes:
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian Mr. John M. Taylor and
Stokes, Sir John Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to