HC Deb 11 January 1993 vol 216 cc729-40
Mr. Wardle

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 13, line 34, at end insert

`and the making of such a reference shall, accordingly, be regarded as disposing of the appeal'. The amendment is intended to clarify a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) in Committee. When a special adjudicator refers a case back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration because he does not agree that the asylum claim is without foundation, that will be the end of the proceedings on that appeal. The reconsideration will result in a new decision and if that decision is still unfavourable there will be a fresh right of appeal.

Mr. Fraser

I was hoping for an assurance that if a case was referred back, the Home Secretary would not come a second time to a decision that the case was without foundation. It is a common cause for complaint, especially over visitor appeals, that people go to appeal and win their appeal and the matter is then referred back to an entry clearance officer or the home officer. Despite the success of the appeal, the same decision is reached all over again. It seems a double jeopardy that someone launches an appeal against the decision that the case was without foundation, the thing is referred back to the Home Office and the Home Secretary comes to exactly the same decision.

It is a great pity if, as a matter of policy, the Home Office has two bites of the cherry. These people are in considerable jeopardy. They have only two days to appeal. It seems that enough harm is done if the decision is reached once, not twice.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported. with amendments.

Order for Third Reading read.

11.24 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill has been thoroughly considered this evening and it obviously arouses considerable concerns in some parts of the House, which I hope that we have satisfied and answered adequately.

The need for the Bill is demonstrated and when it is on the statute book it will be a substantial improvement on our system for dealing with asylum applications. Despite the controversy over particular amendments, there is a wide range of agreement in most sections of the House.

I think that every hon. Member is agreed that Britain must continue to honour its international obligations under the 1951 convention and to adhere to our long-standing tradition of giving political asylum to people who flee here fearing persecution in their own country. I also trust that there is widespread support for the proposition that we must maintain our improving race relations and improve our community relations. We all know that those relationships are far from perfect, but we have a good record of improvement. In many ways the situation in this country is more satisfactory than that in other parts of the European Community or north America. One contributory factor to that steady improvement is the fact that the host community feels comfortable with present immigration controls.

We all know that in recent years we have faced sudden increased pressures, especially on the asylum front. About five years ago there was a sudden upsurge in the number of asylum applications. With hindsight, I do not think that that was because the world or certain key countries suddenly became more dangerous. For one reason or another there was sudden widespread awareness in the outside world that, because of the international obligations placed upon us to consider each application, an application for asylum was a way to establish residence in this country without satisfying the normal immigration rules.

Just like every other European country, we have experienced a sudden upsurge in applications. We are not alone among European countries in deciding that procedures need to be considered carefully if we are to be able to cope with those added pressures.

I could cover many of the provisions in the Bill at Third Reading, but I shall not do so as we have covered them exhaustively already. Essentially, the policy aim is to adhere to our international obligations, to investigate thoroughly each claim and to ensure that we continue to grant asylum in well-founded cases. To satisfy that obligation, it will help if we have a quicker system to deal with manifestly unfounded claims, to ensure that we turn away from these shores people who might otherwise come in excessive numbers—an important result—and who might impose a burden on our public services by establishing the right to live here when, in reality, they have no legal or any other basis for doing so.

I am sure that the pressures that we have faced during the past few years will not diminish during the coming decade. At times during the passage of the Bill it has been argued that the pressures that we face are not as acute as those faced by other European Community countries. The number of asylum applications to this country is sometimes contrasted with the 0.5 million people who enter the Federal Republic of Germany in one year to claim asylum, which is causing the Germans to reconsider their basic law and to find out what they can do.

Because the world remains a dangerous and turbulent place and because it is easier to travel, we must expect that ever greater numbers of people will want to come to this country to improve their quality of life. I feel no resentment at that. I am convinced that if I were young and single and living in some destitute third-world country, I might regard coming to the United Kingdom to establish a different future for myself from that which I could expect to enjoy in a third-world country as a legitimate aspiration. There is a part of me—as there must be of most Members of Parliament that would like to satisfy vast numbers of those aspirations, but common sense tells us all, as it tells the majority of the British public, that we cannot accommodate flows on the scale that would follow from such a widespread and indiscriminate acceptance of entry into this country of people from poorer countries.

The 1951 Geneva convention was meant to set bounds to the right of asylum. Political asylum still means what it has always meant—the right to refuge, from a well-founded fear of individual persecution. The systems in the Bill provide a better and more sensible way to deal with that, they protect against fraud and provide a quicker way to determine all the difficult cases that are near the border line, which need to be determined with some expedition.

I therefore commend the Bill to the House. I believe that once it is in place we will see a marked improvement in our ability to deal with all the worrying pressures upon us. We will continue to discharge our obligations under the convention and in general in a humanitarian and sensible way. The Bill will enable us to do that in a practical manner.

11.29 pm
Mr. Blair

The Bill has been vigorously opposed by the Opposition for good reasons. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friends who served on the Committee for some 59 hours, which I am informed is more than twice the time spent on the same Bill when it was put to the House before the election.

Such scrutiny of the Bill has been necessary because of the huge strength of feeling not just in the House but outside against some of its provisions. Many of its elements are thoroughly objectionable. The procedures for shortening the time in which applicants can appeal against refusal of asylum have been condemned, not just here but throughout the land, as unfair and arbitrary. Many of the rules reflecting on the credibility of applicants seem to bear little relation to the reality of their position as asylum seekers. In particular, as we learnt from earlier debates, the removal of the right to appeal from those seeking visitors' visas is a measure without any justification—no justification was put forward for the abolition of those rights.

People who come here for a wedding, funeral or to pay a last visit to an elderly relative will have their right to appeal against refusal of entry taken from them. Last year, almost 2,000 such appeals were allowed. Injustices will mount up in the future and it is no surprise that this provision has caused deep and lasting offence within the Asian and other ethnic minority communities. As was pointed earlier, not once was that provision put before the people in an election manifesto; it was concealed before the election and introduced afterwards.

We do not take exception to the detailed provisions of the Bill alone, but to the ethos and prejudice that underlie it. We take exception to the assumption that asylum seekers should be treated as bogus until shown to be genuine. We take exception to the assumption that those from Pakistan or India who wish to visit their relatives will not feel the same sense of injustice and outrage as we would were we to be denied the right to visit our relatives in another country.

That prejudice, which runs throughout the Bill and which was the unspoken sentiment behind the entire deliberations of the Committee is nasty—worse than that; it is calculated. It is part of a design to play up this issue not for any interests of the public or the country, but simply for the interests of the Conservative party which sees that political capital can be made out of it. We saw that in debate after debate. The Home Secretary may have been fairly moderate on Third Reading, but hysterical claims were made earlier when isolated cases of fraud were used to construct an entire argument to provide that the current system is subject to wide-scale abuse.

An attempt has been made to portray anyone who has opposed the provisions on the ground of natural justice as someone who is advocating an irresponsible or open-door policy for immigration. All that has been done in the knowledge that those who will be most affected by the Bill will be of a different race or colour. I cannot believe that that is irrelevant to the way in which the Bill has been handled. This is a matter which arouses alarm among some of the population and which is designed to arouse the most virulent type of nationalism among others. An attempt has been made to pretend with varying degrees of crudity that those who seek to enter this country do so from the worst of motives rather than the worst of circumstances. Some elements of the debate may have been more elevated than that, but in several respects we have witnessed a fairly distasteful exercise—an attempt, under the guise of making necessary regulations, to stir up passions and prejudices that were better left dormant.

It will not be Members of Parliament who suffer once the Bill is enacted: it will be those who are least able to defend themselves and in the poorest condition to withstand some of its provisions—those most vulnerable to racial sentiment. I do not believe that that can possibly help good race relations in this country. The way in which the Bill is presented and the sentiment that underlies it do not merely make it objectionable in its provisions and unjust and arbitrary in its operation but reflect discredit on the Government who have introduced it.

11.35 pm
Mr. Maclennan

The Bill reflects no credit on the Home Secretary or on the Government who have introduced it. It was conceived before the election in circumstances of political exaggeration. It was designed not to deal with an administrative problem that was out of control but to suggest that the party of government had a peculiar concern about the prospects of the people of Britain being faced with uncontrollable immigration if the party or parties of opposition were to gain office.

The then Home Secretary flagrantly stirred up racial animosity. In introducing this Bill, the present Home Secretary has, in large measure, fallen heir to a Bill designed by his predecessor—whom the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, decided should not continue in office. The present Home Secretary has compounded this unacceptable measure's ugly face by including clause 9, which enjoys little support among any of those concerned about race relations in Britain and which some of the Conservative Members who are most closely involved in these matters find distasteful at best and certainly unnecessary.

It is also an indication of the futility of our legislative process, particularly after the dominance of one party in government for well over a decade, that it has proved almost impossible to obtain any significant amendment to the Bill, even though those who have to deal with the problems of those seeking asylum and immigration agree, almost unanimously, that the Bill is misconceived. That has been true notably of those parts of the Bill that deal with the housing of asylum seekers. Local authorities, social work departments, voluntary agencies and all those agencies to whose advice the Government pay lip service have been united in saying that the Bill would work injustice and place intolerable administrative burdens upon the local authorities.

The Bill limits due process. If we had a decent constitution, the curtailment of rights of appeal would be unlikely to pass muster in the courts. But we do not have a proper constitutional system for dealing with these matters. We have to rely upon the sense of virtually all-powerful Ministers who cannot be shamed even by the more sensitive members of their own party into conceding the most modest amendments. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.

11.39 pm
Mr. Madden

As a member of the Standing Committee on both asylum Bills, I have listened for many hours to Ministers seeking to justify the legislation. They have lamentably failed to do so, not only throughout those two Standing Committees, but again tonight. We heard nothing from the Home Secretary or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary or their predecessors to justify the legislation. They have been unable to call in aid any objective evidence or the views of any reputable organisation or individual to justify the legislation. I very much hope that the other place will defeat parts, if not all, of the Bill. If that is not the case and the legislation becomes law, and if, because of the unrealistic appeal rights given to those seeking asylum in this country, even one man or woman is sent back to torture or death, the responsibility for that will fall squarely on the Government.

The Bill's antecedents lie in the planning that was carried out by this Administration in 1982–83 when careful decisions were taken to restrict entry into this country, predominantly by black and Asian people, whether visitors, those seeking settlement, those coming for marriage or those seeking asylum. Almost every year, more and more restrictions have been introduced by legislation or by administrative action. Each year a few more rights have been chipped away. The Bill has substantially accelerated that process.

I very much regret clause 9, which did not form part of the original Bill. As has been said, I believe that that action was deliberately taken to avoid the embarrassment of criticism during a general election. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who had the courage of his convictions and voted against clause 9. I have not had an opportunity of checking the voting list, but I suspect that a number of other Conservative Members who serve constituencies with substantial numbers of black and Asian constituents know the heartache that clause 9 will cause. It will divide families, and cause considerable concern, anger and resentment in the homes of many black and Asian constituents throughout the country.

There is no justification for the abolition of that right of appeal. That abolition sends out a signal to those people settled in this country, in some cases for two and three generations, that they are not welcome here or trusted, and that their relatives and friends are not even to be given the right to visit them in this country. Feelings will run deep.

Today more than a thousand people from this country, predominantly black and Asian people, expressed their anger at the abolition of the right of appeal against a refusal to grant a holiday in this country. They fear their fears have been reinforced by some of the expressions used by the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary today—that there may well be more to come. Will those seeking settlement applications in this country be fingerprinted? Will other rights of appeal on applications to enter this country be abolished? Is it the beginning of the slippery slope towards more restrictions and more difficulty?

Those involved look to the European Community. As has been said, it is possible in theory for 300 million EC nationals—predominantly white people—to enter this country without a visa, establish a business without any recognisable assets and have their parents, grandparents and children up to the age of 21 come to join them without any difficulty. Given that such people are not obliged to apply for permission to enter or for visas of any kind, the sense is created that there are two sets of citizens in this country: first-class citizens, who are predominantly white, and second-class citizens, who are predominantly black or Asian. The thrust of this legislation, which the Home Secretary is steamrolling through the House tonight, intensifies the feeling that there are indeed two such classes of citizen.

If we are to unite and overcome the great difficulties affecting race and community relations in this country, we should not pass such legislation. We need only a one-clause Bill to introduce an effective right of appeal for all a system that will lead to applications being dealt with quickly and fairly, which is what Ministers say that they want. Such a right would help the general public. If Ministers really want to help them, there is no need for this Bill. All they need to do is inject more money into the system, providing more officials to deal with the applications.

There is no reason why applications for political asylum cannot be dealt with in six months, or 12 months at most. I do not seek to defend or justify delays of up to five years. Someone who came to see me last week had put in an application that has been considered now for five years. There is no justification for that, but we do not need the Bill to remedy it. We need a Government that is anxious to provide justice and efficiency, not a Minister who accuses those of us who are concerned with such matters of wallowing in compassion.

11.46 pm
Mr. Corbyn

I deeply regret the fact that the Bill has reached Third Reading. We saw off the last attempt to introduce such a Bill, with the onset of the general election, but now another Bill has returned to us.

There is enormous opposition to the Bill outside the House. Despite the attempts by newspapers to whip up support for limiting rights to political asylum in this country, considerable numbers of people have expressed concern and signed petitions when they have seen asylum seekers from former Yugoslavia, Zaire, Somalia and other countries denied entry. More than 6,000 people have signed a petition to be presented to the House tomorrow, supported by the Refugee Council. Large numbers of people are deeply worried about turning our backs on people who seek safety within our shores.

People are also worried about the barbed wire barrier constructed around western Europe to limit the numbers of people seeking safety here. In response to the racist and fascist attacks in Germany, the response has not been, as it should have been, a wholehearted attack on the fascists. Instead, the system which grants people political asylum has been blamed for the rise of the far right. People should read the history of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s and recognise what appeasement did then and what the appeasement of fascists and racists will do now.

The Bill has implications for democracy, too. Increasingly, decisions are being taken in secret by the Trevi group of Ministers, not in open debates in Parliaments. The Bill has implications for local authorities, which are expected to become the agents of the Home Office in dealing with refugee matters. It has implications for everyone's civil liberties because it will enable children to be fingerprinted merely because their parents or guardians have brought them here to seek political asylum. It will sweep away the right of appeal against totally erroneous decisions by immigration officers. It is surely a basis of democracy that anyone who makes a decision affecting others should be subject to challenge. People should have a right of redress, but the Bill will take it away.

The introduction of a visa requirement for transit passengers travelling through British airports is an extension of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. That Act stops people seeking political asylum in this country and those people are primarily from Sri Lanka. The visa requirement for transit passengers will stop people in transit at airports such as Heathrow from approaching an immigration officer and seeking political asylum. The effects are quite appalling. There are obvious commercial effects, but I am more concerned about the effects on the rights of asylum seekers.

I hope that no hon. Member will ever have to seek political asylum. Millions of people who lived under oppressive regimes and sought safety and asylum in various parts of the world are now venerated as a good part of history. When the history of the 1980s and 1990s is written and people read that those who tried to escape from tyrannical regimes were denied entry to Britain, our history will be seen as just as infamous as the histories of countries in western Europe in the 1920s and 1930s that refused asylum to Jewish people who subsequently perished in the gas chambers. The issue is as serious as that, and the Bill is part of a process of turning our backs on oppression and its causes, perhaps because we make too much money from selling arms to regimes which use them to kill their own people.

Cheap remarks have been made about those of us who supported the right of Viraj Mendes to stay in this country. I remind hon. Members who made those remarks that in the year after he was deported back to Sri Lanka, after being in this country for 16 years, 60,000 illegal killings occurred in that country. The British high commissioner was expelled from Sri Lanka a year later because he had the temerity to criticise the human rights record of its Government. Could anyone say that Mendes was sent back to a place of safety? He had to live in hiding for more than a year.

We oppose the Bill. If it is passed, I hope that the House of Lords will amend it in a way that makes it virtually useless. I hope that the campaign for decency, civil rights and the right of appeal will continue. Above all, I hope that the campaign for genuine internationalism and understanding outside the House will continue. I hope that we shall stop turning our backs on people who plead for our help and support and a place of safety. We have had enough newspaper campaigns and racist remarks in support of the Bill. I hope that future campaigns will operate differently and that we can look forward to a world based on humanity and sanity rather than one that closes doors on people who need help.

11.52 pm
Mr. Piara S. Khabra (Ealing, Southall)

I spoke on Second Reading and voted against the Bill. It is a sad day when Conservative Members are forced against their consciences to support the Bill. The legislation will have its worst effect in my constituency because many people from the Indian sub-continent come here to stay with relatives. They do that for various reasons.

In the past this country has provided natural justice and people had recourse to the courts for mistaken decisions. That fundamental right is being taken away and that is against this country's history and traditions and its natural justice. The Bill is evil and immoral. I have opposed it and I shall oppose it again.

The Secretary of State knows that, when I last went to India, I was able to see Sir Nicholas Fenn, our high commissioner. I was given the opportunity to see some of the officers working in the British high commission in New Delhi. I am sure that they are not happy about the Bill. They did not want to spell out why they were not happy, but they knew that until now, if the entry clearance officer made a mistake, those involved could go to a court of law to test his decisions.

I am not happy about the Bill. It will affect the position of many Tory Members of Parliament in the next election. I know that during the last general election campaign many Ministers visited constituencies with a large number of Asians. Many Tory Members, who have thousands of Asians and black people in their constituencies, know that they now have potential political foes. I know that promises were given to the Asian communities and lies were told to the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can rephrase that.

Mr. Khabra

I can put it this way. Untruths were told to the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order as long as he is not saying that anyone has told lies in the House.

Mr. Khabra

The Conservative party is the party of family. It believes in family unity. Family members should be able to meet each other in this country. A false promise had been made. People were not told the truth. Conservative Members should take note of the fact that in the next election—perhaps the council elections in 1994, or the elections for the European Parliament—their party will not be spared. They should consider their position. I know that many of them are already searching their consciences and they should have the courage of their convictions and vote against this wicked, evil Bill. I oppose it and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 243.

Division No. 108] [11.58 pm
Adley, Robert Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Churchill, Mr
Alexander, Richard Clappison, James
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Amess, David Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ancram, Michael Coe, Sebastian
Arbuthnot, James Colvin, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Congdon, David
Ashby, David Conway, Derek
Aspinwall, Jack Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) Cormack, Patrick
Baldry, Tony Couchman, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Cran, James
Bates, Michael Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Batiste, Spencer Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Beggs, Roy Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Bellingham, Henry Davis, David (Boothferry)
Bendall, Vivian Day, Stephen
Beresford, Sir Paul Deva, Nirj Joseph
Biffen, Rt Hon John Devlin, Tim
Blackburn, Dr John G. Dicks, Terry
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Dorrell, Stephen
Booth, Hartley Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Boswell, Tim Dover, Den
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Duncan, Alan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia Duncan-Smith, Iain
Bowden, Andrew Dunn, Bob
Bowis, John Durant, Sir Anthony
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes Dykes, Hugh
Brandreth, Gyles Eggar, Tim
Brazier, Julian Elletson, Harold
Bright, Graham Emery, Sir Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Browning, Mrs. Angela Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Burns, Simon Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Burt, Alistair Evennett, David
Butler, Peter Faber, David
Butterfill, John Fabricant, Michael
Carlisle, John (Luton North) Fenner, Dame Peggy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Fishburn, Dudley
Carrington, Matthew Forman, Nigel
Carttiss, Michael Forman, Michael (Stirling)
Cash, William Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Freeman, Roger Madel, David
French, Douglas Maitland, Lady Olga
Gale, Roger Malone, Gerald
Gallie, Phil Mans, Keith
Gardiner, Sir George Marland, Paul
Garnier, Edward Marlow, Tony
Gill, Christopher Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Gillan, Cheryl Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Merchant, Piers
Gorst, John Milligan, Stephen
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW) Mills, Iain
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) Moate, Roger
Grylls, Sir Michael Monro, Sir Hector
Hague, William Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom) Moss, Malcolm
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Nelson, Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith Neubert, Sir Michael
Hanley, Jeremy Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Hannam, Sir John Nicholls, Patrick
Hargreaves, Andrew Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Harris, David Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Haselhurst, Alan Norris, Steve
Hawkins, Nick Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hawksley, Warren Oppenheim, Phillip
Hayes, Jerry Ottaway, Richard
Heald, Oliver Page, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David Paice, James
Hendry, Charles Patnick, Irvine
Hicks, Robert Patten, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Pawsey, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test) Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) Pickles, Eric
Horam, John Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Hordern, Sir Peter Porter, David (Waveney)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) Powell, William (Corby)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) Rathbone, Tim
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Redwood, John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) Richards, Rod
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) Riddick, Graham
Hunter, Andrew Robathan, Andrew
Jack, Michael Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jenkin, Bernard Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Jessel, Toby Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine Sackville, Tom
Key, Robert Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James Shaw, David (Dover)
King, Rt Hon Tom Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Knapman, Roger Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knight, Greg (Derby N) Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Knox, David Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine) Soames, Nicholas
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Speed, Sir Keith
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Spencer, Sir Derek
Lang, Rt Hon Ian Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Legg, Barry Spink, Dr Robert
Leigh, Edward Spring, Richard
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Sproat, Iain
Lidington, David Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Lightbown, David Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Steen, Anthony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Stephen, Michael
Lord, Michael Stern, Michael
Luff, Peter Stewart, Allan
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Streeter, Gary
MacKay, Andrew Sumberg, David
Maclean, David Sweeney, Walter
McLoughlin, Patrick Sykes, John
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher) Waterson, Nigel
Taylor, John M. (Solihull) Watts, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) Wells, Bowen
Temple-Morris, Peter Wheeler, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) Whitney, Ray
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) Whittingdale, John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm Widdecombe, Ann
Thurnham, Peter Wiggin, Jerry
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) Wilkinson, John
Tracey, Richard Willetts, David
Tredinnick, David Wilshire, David
Trend, Michael Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Trotter, Neville Wolfson, Mark
Twinn, Dr Ian Wood, Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard Yeo, Tim
Viggers, Peter Young, Sir George (Acton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Waller, Gary Tellers for the Ayes:
Ward, John Mr. Sydney Chapman and
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.
Abbott, Ms Diane Corston, Ms Jean
Ainger, Nick Cousins, Jim
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Cox, Tom
Allen, Graham Cryer, Bob
Alton, David Cummings, John
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Cunliffe, Lawrence
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Armstrong, Hilary Dalyell, Tam
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Darling, Alistair
Ashton, Joe Davidson, Ian
Austin-Walker, John Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Barnes, Harry Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Battle, John Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Bayley, Hugh Denham, John
Beith, Rt Hon A. J. Dewar, Donald
Bell, Stuart Dixon, Don
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Dobson, Frank
Benton, Joe Donohoe, Brian H.
Bermingham, Gerald Dowd, Jim
Berry, Dr. Roger Dunnachie, Jimmy
Betts, Clive Eagle, Ms Angela
Blair, Tony Enright, Derek
Blunkett, David Etherington, Bill
Boateng, Paul Evans, John (St Helens N)
Boyce, Jimmy Fatchett, Derek
Bradley, Keith Faulds, Andrew
Bray, Dr Jeremy Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) Flynn, Paul
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Foster, Don (Bath)
Burden, Richard Foulkes, George
Byers, Stephen Fraser, John
Caborn, Richard Fyfe, Maria
Callaghan, Jim Gapes, Mike
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Garrett, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) George, Bruce
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Gerrard, Neil
Canavan, Dennis Godman, Dr Norman A.
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) Godsiff, Roger
Chisholm, Malcolm Golding, Mrs Llin
Clapham, Michael Gordon, Mildred
Clark, Dr David (South Shields) Graham, Thomas
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Clelland, David Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Coffey, Ann Grocott, Bruce
Cohen, Harry Gunnell, John
Connarty, Michael Hain, Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Hall, Mike
Cook, Robin (Livingston) Hanson, David
Corbett, Robin Hardy, Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy Harman, Ms Harriet
Harvey, Nick Olner, William
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy O'Neill, Martin
Henderson, Doug Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Heppell, John Pendry, Tom
Hill, Keith (Streatham) Pickthall, Colin
Hinchliffe, David Pike, Peter L.
Home Robertson, John Pope, Greg
Hood, Jimmy Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hoon, Geoffrey Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) Prescott, John
Hoyle, Doug Primarolo, Dawn
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Purchase, Ken
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Quin, Ms Joyce
Hughes, Roy (Newport E) Radice, Giles
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Randall, Stuart
Mutton, John Redmond, Martin
Illsley, Eric Reid, Dr John
Ingram, Adam Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Jamieson, David Rogers, Allan
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'slde) Rooney, Terry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) Rowlands, Ted
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) Ruddock, Joan
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Sedgemore, Brian
Jowell, Tessa Sheerman, Barry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Keen, Alan Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) Short, Clare
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn) Simpson, Alan
Khabra, Piara S. Skinner, Dennis
Leighton, Ron Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles) Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Lewis, Terry Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Livingstone, Ken Snape, Peter
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) Soley, Clive
Llwyd, Elfyn Spearing, Nigel
Lynne, Ms Liz Spellar, John
McCartney, Ian Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Macdonald, Calum Steinberg, Gerry
McKelvey, William Stevenson, George
Mackinlay, Andrew Stott, Roger
McLeish, Henry Strang, Dr. Gavin
Maclennan, Robert Straw, Jack
McMaster, Gordon Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McNamara, Kevin Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
McWilliam, John Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Madden, Max Tipping, Paddy
Mahon, Alice Turner, Dennis
Mandelson, Peter Vaz, Keith
Marek, Dr John Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) Wallace, James
Martlew, Eric Walley, Joan
Maxton, John Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Meale, Alan Wareing, Robert N
Michael, Alun Watson, Mike
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) Wicks, Malcolm
Milburn, Alan Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Miller, Andrew Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Moonie, Dr Lewis Winnick, David
Morgan, Rhodri Worthington, Tony
Morley, Elliot Wray, Jimmy
Mowlam, Marjorie Wright, Dr Tony
Mudie, George Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mullin, Chris
Murphy, Paul Tellers for the Noes:
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) Mr. Thomas McAvoy and
O'Brien, William (Normanton) Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.
O'Hara, Edward

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.