§ '.—(1) Any person (an "eligible person") who in the Great War of 1914 to 1919—
- (a) served in the British Empire Forces,
- (b) was convicted by a court martial of one or more of the offences set out in subsection (2) below or any of these offences together with any other offences, and
- (c) was judicially executed following such conviction
shall be eligible for a pardon in accordance with the provisions of this section in respect of any offence referred to in subsection (2) below.
§ (2) The offences referred to in subsection (1) above are cowardice, desertion, attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting post, violence, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer.
§ (3) An eligible person shall be pardoned of any offence referred to in subsection (2) above if the Secretary of State makes an order to that effect in accordance with the provisions of this section.
§ (4) Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State shall, in respect of each eligible person, either—
- (i) make an order under subsection (3) above; or
- (ii) lay a report before both Houses of Parliament explaining the reasons for his decision not to make such an order.
§ (5) A pardon under this section shall—
- (a) have similar effect to a pardon granted in exercise of the Royal Prerogative,
- (b) be deemed to remove or, as the case may be, nullify any degradations and penalties imposed in connection with the relevant offences, and
- (c) not have any effect on any existing financial rights or obligations of any dependant or of the Secretary of State.
§ (6) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and a copy of any order so made shall be laid before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Mackinlay.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.)
§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 82, in title, line 8, after 'forces', insert
`to make provision for pardoning soldiers convicted of certain offences during the Great War of 1914 to 1919'.
§ Mr. MackinlayMy new clause would require the Secretary of State for Defence to issue pardons in respect of just over 300 soldiers of the British empire forces who 469 were executed in the first world war having been found guilty of offences ranging from cowardice, desertion, sleeping at their post, disobedience, throwing away arms and hitting a superior officer. I believe that pardons are long overdue, and it is my submission that that is the view of the overwhelming majority of the people of the United Kingdom.
If my new clause were incorporated into the Bill, and the Secretary of State took a different view, he would be required to come to Parliament to demonstrate why he considered it inappropriate in each case to issue a pardon. I believe—I am confident about this—that, if there were to be an objective examination of the cases, in a matter of minutes people would conclude that a grave injustice had been done to those men all those years ago.
Why do I say that? All 300 of those men were denied the right of natural justice. They were not given an opportunity to prepare a defence. In many cases, they did not have proper advocates, and none of them was given the opportunity to collect evidence, particularly medical evidence, in support of their defence. Above all, each and every one of those soldiers was denied the opportunity to appeal against the sentence of death. I believe that that is contrary to the rules of natural justice.
For 75 years, it suited the British establishment to keep the documents of the field courts martial under lock and key. They were suppressed at the Public Record Office. When they became available for public inspection by scholars or relatives, it was obvious that there had been a travesty of justice. The British establishment acknowledges that things were bad, but argues that it is too late to provide a remedy. That is not good enough. The documents demand that, as a country, we recognise the terrible wrong done to those men. We need to put the record straight.
The documents show that the decision to find those men guilty was perverse in many cases because there was documentation showing that many of them had been hospitalised because they had been sick and traumatised and were forcibly returned to the trenches.
I am thinking particularly of Harry Farr of the West Yorkshire regiment. I had the privilege of meeting his widow, Gertie Batstone—she married again—in her 99th year. Throughout her long life, that wonderful woman sought recognition for her husband as a brave soldier: a volunteer who endured the trauma of the trenches not just for months but for two years or more. After being shelled, he simply could not go on. He was hospitalised, but was forced to return to the front, and when he was told to go forward, he broke away from his escorts trembling. The "trembling" is documented in the field court martial records. Despite that, that poor man and many like him had to face a firing squad at dawn.
It is time we put the record straight. We spend millions of pounds every year teaching history to our schoolchildren and students, and we need to write that history with clarity and precision, including those s which are uncomfortable for us—this is one of them. We can write the history and put the record straight by granting pardons to those men.
I have written to the Prime Minister about this on a number of occasions, and, with characteristic courtesy, he expressed sympathy, but declined to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen that there should be pardons or that 470 action should be taken in the House. I regret that. His argument was that it is a matter of history, and that we cannot apply our standards to those of 75 years ago.
The principles of English law, that people should have a fair trial, be able to prepare a defence and be able to appeal against sentence, were not invented after 1918. They are the basic principles of English law since long before, and were denied to those men in our century.
It is nonsense to say that it is merely a matter of history. I am not seeking pardons for soldiers executed in the Crimean or Napoleonic wars. These events occurred in our century. Every November, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and many of us go to the Cenotaph and other war memorials to pay our respects to those who died in wars in this century.
I hope that it will be taken in the correct spirit when I say that Her Majesty the Queen Mother still goes to the Cenotaph, and she is of this century. She mourns the death of many of her contemporaries, as well as her late brother who died in the first world war. As long as there are first world war veterans alive—there are still a few thousand—as well as their widows, and sons and daughters, it is relevant to us. It is not too late to provide a remedy.
I appeal to the Secretary of State to reflect on this. Service men and women and those who have endured hardship and suffered from shell shock in subsequent conflicts share my view that it would be a matter of pride for our generation and the House if we were to conclude this matter by granting pardons. It might mean that we could draw a final line across a century that has been full of trauma and great distress. Some of those events were triggered in the summer of 1914 and, in some senses, are still with us today in s of central Europe—hopefully, they will conclude soon. It is time we recognised that we have the capacity and the duty to respect those men as brave British soldiers who did their best in the most difficult circumstances.
Lord Moran, famous as the doctor of Winston Churchill—the Minister's grandfather—was a physician in the first world war. In his memoirs, he referred to the bank of courage that each man and woman has. He said that one draws on that bank of courage, and that eventually none is left. He said that the men who suffered combat stress had often demonstrated immense skill and courage and endured terrible hardships, including sleep deprivation and lack of food, and that eventually they could not go on.
We must recognise that it is now appropriate for the Government and the House of Commons to say that those were brave British soldiers and should be recognised as such. Those who would have been their dependants require it, and, albeit late in the evening of their lives, their comrades in arms who still survive from the first world war will derive great satisfaction from knowing that at last the nation has exonerated their colleagues.
A couple of weeks ago, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who fought at Passchendaele, passed away. I greatly regret that he could not have been here tonight to hear me and the rest of the debate. I remember a relatively recent conversation with him in which he spoke about the horrors of Passchendaele, and said that he supported my campaign to have the pardons granted. He said that it went to the heart of his Christian belief in compassion and forgiveness, but at the word "forgiveness" he paused and added, "If forgiveness is appropriate." Those were brave 471 men who had done their best and who did nothing wrong. It is time that the Members of the House of Commons joined together in honouring them.
I do not know whether it is true that Conservative Members may be subject to some kind of Whip, but I still hope that tonight they will feel that this is where we exercise our consciences, and that the Committee can act as a fulcrum and focal point for the nation's will—and I hope that they will support me in the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. WilkinsonWe all admire the immense compassion of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and greatly respect his motivation and the feeling with which he spoke. None of us can fully comprehend the horrors of service in the great war; it is deeply imprinted on the conscience of the nation.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that the House of Commons can retroactively pass such a provision, however noble the motivation. Each generation of service men and women has to carry out its service of duty to the Crown according to the service Acts that appertain at the time. That is why we are debating the Armed Forces Bill today, to bring service discipline into line with contemporary morality and the ethos of the nation as a whole.
How, in all equity, can we exonerate those men, many of whom were probably wrongly convicted, but some of whom may have been rightly convicted? How can we do that without a full appreciation of the circumstances—and without a full realisation that examples had to be made, and perhaps on occasion martyrs had to be made, to ensure the discipline and cohesion of whole units?
How can we single out that group of service men for exoneration, when, through the generations and the centuries, many service men have been executed for apparent dereliction of duty? Sailors in Nelson's Navy were keel-hauled or whipped to death with cats-o'-nine-tails. That does not look very fine or appropriate today, according to our codes of discipline and behaviour, but it was necessary for Nelson's Navy, to secure the victories it won. If we remember the mutinies that took place in the French army in 1917, we may conclude that on occasion such measures may have been unpleasant necessities.
I marvel that, in the circumstances, only 300 men had to be executed. So many will have been shell-shocked and traumatised beyond all rational behaviour, but according to the exigencies of the service of the day, their commanders had no choice if their units were to be effective and lives were to be saved. Much as I admire the motivation of the hon. Member for Thurrock, I urge the Committee not to accept his new clause.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)As one who has a personal connection with 1915 and Gallipoli—my grandfather was involved—I am extremely angry about the speech that we have just heard by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). There is a simple response to what he said about retrospection. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) 472 mentioned Lord Houghton, and when the retrospection arguments were put to him, Lord Houghton said one thing: "I was at Passchendaele."
§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)Even according to the exigencies of the time, the decisions to kill those 300 men were savage. We are not talking about something that happened long ago in history. My father fought in that war, and it was a cruel and bitter experience that left him a broken man for the rest of his life. Two things that were available in great quantities during the first world war were alcohol and tobacco, and it is not insignificant that my father died of lung cancer at the age of 43.
When we consider the 300 deaths, we know that other armies did not find it necessary to kill their own soldiers, and they had equally heroic war records. It is right that we in the Committee should try to do a little, even if it is only symbolic, to undo the terrible injustices that were committed in the name of the House and of the sovereign of the day. We should support my hon. Friend's new clause and do a little to absolve the House and our country of the guilt of those 300 deaths.
§ Dr. GodmanWe have heard a disgraceful speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). My late father, who was awarded the military medal for what was defined as "bravery in the field" on the western front in 1917, always deeply deplored the actions of the appallingly arrogant officers who sent deeply traumatised young men to their deaths. Let us all vote for the new clause.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was lacking in compassion, and I was quite surprised that he should have made such a speech. A few yards from here, there is an equestrian statue of Lord Haig, who was one of those who sent millions of young men to their deaths, often needlessly. Such people were honoured for what they did, yet they are the sort of people who should be arraigned before the High Court of Parliament, even today. Remembering what was done, the hon. Gentleman should show some compassion and support the new clause.
§ Dr. ReidI have sat through many defence debates, and have had many discussions with the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and I have great respect for him and for his integrity, but he may come to regret what may have been loose phraseology in his speech today. We are talking about something that happened this century, not about Trafalgar in 1805. The idea that serving British soldiers should be shot "pour encourager les autres" is anathema to the British tradition, and it should stay that way.
I recall that, in a small museum in the Falkland islands, I spoke to people who contrasted the relationship between the British officers and men who fought together in extremely difficult circumstances with the relationship between the Argentine officers and their men, who had suffered so much throughout the battle. Conscripts were forced into the freezing sea for 15 hours at a time in the sights of their commanding officers' guns "pour encourager les autres", and starved for days in foxholes while their officers had chocolate and brandy. If that was 473 ever the British way, surely it is not the British way now. We must remember what these people were going through.
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)I have the highest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but will he place clearly on the record whether he believes that the picture that he paints of the Argentines in the Falklands can also be applied to the British officer corps during the first world war? If that is his view, there really is a profound divide across the Committee on this matter.
§ Dr. ReidIt was not I who wrote the book "The Donkeys". It was a former member of the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported—indeed, a former Defence Minister. He wrote the book based on the perhaps trivial but penetrating quip that the soldiers in the British armed forces in the first world war were "lions led by donkeys". In one afternoon—before tea time—on the first day of the assault on the Somme, 50,000 British soldiers died. That is equivalent to the entire front line of our armed services today. Such killing went on day after day, month after month.
Someone made mistakes, but that is not the issue. Mistakes are made in war, and I have the highest regard for the military traditions of the officer corps of the British armed forces. What my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was speaking about with passion were not the mistakes that can be made even by the brightest general in the fog of war, but injustice.
Injustice within living memory should not stay unremedied. Hon. Members, particularly those who support the armed forces, must realise that the bond that binds the United Kingdom as a nation is the contract between the present and the past. Dead those men may be, but the sons, the daughters and the grandchildren of those who received a medal in the first world war are still proud to display it. The stigma of an execution and the accusations levelled against a grandfather must be borne by the families of those who were executed.
This is a piece of enabling legislation. It does not require us to pardon if we cannot do so. It obliges us, after three quarters of a century, to repay the debt of honour that this House surely owes to some of those men who fought and died—some, tragically, by the bullets of their own armed forces—to save this country. If we do not discharge that debt of honour now for the past, we can hardly demand it of our service men and women in the future.
§ Mr. SoamesI am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the points made in the debate. I recognise the strength of feeling that this issue raises in the House and with members of the public.
It is impossible not to have the deepest sympathy for those men and their families. The war was fought in appalling conditions and many of those involved endured terrible suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an important speech. His uncle fought at Gallipoli, was wounded seven times in the first world war, and was awarded the croix de guerre.
One should not seek to encourage the introduction of a competitive aspect to the debate. Every family represented in the Committee will have had those who, in previous 474 generations, suffered the most appalling losses and gross tragedies. The Somme, Passchendaele and Vimy ridge all left a trail of destruction and sadness, that will never be obliterated from the history of this country.
Between August 1914 and March 1919, more than 141,000 officers and soldiers were convicted by courts martial for a wide range of offences, of whom 346 were executed. The remainder received sentences ranging from life imprisonment and hard labour at one end of the spectrum, to fines and stoppages of pay at the other.
The new clause does not seek to obtain pardons for all those executed, and I freely acknowledge that. It excludes the 40 service men sentenced to death for mutiny or murder. The vast majority of executions were for desertions, but soldiers were also sentenced for cowardice, quitting a post, disobedience, striking an officer, casting away arms and sleeping at a post. They included men drawn from Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the West Indies, Nigeria, Egypt, the then Gold Coast and China.
Of the 346 who suffered death, 91 were already under suspended sentences. Of those, 40 had been previously sentenced to death for desertion or other offences. One soldier had been sentenced to death on two previous occasions for desertion and, in nine cases, the accused were under two or more suspended sentences.
I do not accept the view that these men were denied a fair trial in accordance with the rules of natural justice. There is sufficient information available to show that the courts martial were properly convened and conducted, and that the decisions of the courts were referred to a higher authority for confirmation in the correct way. There is no evidence that the convictions were unsound or that the accused soldiers were treated unfairly by the standards prevailing at the time. I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock understands that point.
There are no grounds for considering a posthumous pardon where there is evidence to justify the court's findings of guilty and where the court had passed a sentence which was lawful and within its jurisdiction. It is not sufficient to argue that pardons should be granted merely on the grounds that those sentenced to death did not have their sentences mitigated or remitted. There was an alternative punishment to the death penalty, and a majority of those soldiers sentenced to death by courts martial during the period had their sentences commuted.
6.45 pm
Clearly there may well have been cases in which a modern court would not have convicted the accused soldier. Medical evidence as to the state of mind of the individual soldier—whether the offence was desertion, murder or mutiny—may be crucial in a modern court. That evidence is not available from the files, although I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock about the book by Lord Moran and the "bank of courage". Lord Moran was the first doctor to recognise the very serious problems of stress and other disturbances in battle.
I recognise that, with the passage of time, attitudes may change, but I am not convinced that legislation for pardons is the right way to reflect the fact that some people might now disagree with the laws and procedures in force at the time under different circumstances. The files of 89 per cent. of the cases where sentence of death 475 was commuted have not survived. This is unfortunate, since, in isolation, the comments of the confirming officers from divisional and corps commanders upwards to the commander-in-chief in the 11 per cent. of cases where sentence was confirmed, may appear to be harsh. Apart from the desire to set an example—not always spelt out in court martial records—it is clear that an important factor in confirmation was whether the actions of the accused were deliberate.
The rules that applied during the first world war differ from those now governing the conduct of courts martial. However, these soldiers were convicted by a properly constituted court, according to the laws and procedures of the land, of an offence punishable by the imposition of the death penalty. That we do things differently today cannot alter that fact, uncomfortable as it might be for many of us, including the hon. Member for Thurrock. He has waged a good and honourable campaign for those men, and I know that he will not accept that.
This is an issue that does not lend itself to easy solutions, and the debate tonight—although heated—has been restrained and dignified. Perhaps the initial reaction of many of us is to be sympathetic to the sensible campaign of the hon. Member for Thurrock. However, as I have sought to explain, his solution does not seem to the Government to be the most appropriate one, and I must, with regret, ask the Committee to reject the new clause.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 203.
477| Division No. 124] | [6.48 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alton, David | Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Denham, John |
| Barnes, Harry | Dewar, Donald |
| Battle, John | Dixon, Don |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret | Dobson, Frank |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Dowd, Jim |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Etherington, Bill |
| Betts, Clive | Fatchett, Derek |
| Boateng, Paul | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Fisher, Mark |
| Bowden, Sir Andrew | Flynn, Paul |
| Bradley, Keith | Foster, Don (Bath) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Foulkes, George |
| Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Fraser, John |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Fyfe, Maria |
| Burden, Richard | Galloway, George |
| Byers, Stephen | Garrett, John |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | George, Bruce |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery) | Gerrard, Neil |
| Chidgey, David | Godman, Dr Norman A |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Godsiff, Roger |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Gordon, Mildred |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Coffey, Ann | Harvey, Nick |
| Cohen, Harry | Henderson, Doug |
| Corbett, Robin | Heppell, John |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Hill, Keith (Streatham) |
| Corston, Jean | Hoey, Kate |
| Cousins, Jim | Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Howarth, George (Knowsley North) |
| Darling, Alistair | Hoyle, Doug |
| Davidson, Ian | Ingram, Adam |
| Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) | Pope, Greg |
| Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) | Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E) |
| Janner, Greville | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Jowell, Tessa | Raynsford, Nick |
| Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S) | Reid, Dr John |
| Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n) | Rendel, David |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Ross, William (E Londonderry) |
| Loyden, Eddie | Salmond, Alex |
| McFall, John | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Short, Clare |
| Maclennan, Robert | Simpson, Alan |
| McMaster, Gordon | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) |
| Madden, Max | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Marek, Dr John | Spearing, Nigel |
| Martlew, Eric | Spellar, John |
| Maxton, John | Straw, Jack |
| Timms, Stephen | |
| Michael, Alun | Turner, Dennis |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) | Tyler, Paul |
| Milburn, Alan | Vaz, Keith |
| Miller, Andrew | Wallace, James |
| Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Wareing, Robert N |
| Mullin, Chris | Watson, Mike |
| Murphy, Paul | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Wray, Jimmy |
| O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire) | |
| Olner, Bill | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Pickthall, Colin | Mr. Terry Lewis and |
| Pike, Peter L | Mr. Dennis Skinner. |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Couchman, James |
| Alexander, Richard | Cran, James |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) |
| Amess, David | Davies, Quentin (Stamford) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Day, Stephen |
| Ashdown, Fit Hon Paddy | Dover, Den |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Duncan, Alan |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Dunn, Bob |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Durant, Sir Anthony |
| Bellingham, Henry | Dykes, Hugh |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Eggar, Rt Hon Tim |
| Booth, Hartley | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Boswell, Tim | Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia | Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) |
| Bowis, John | Evans, Roger (Monmouth) |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Evennett, David |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Faber, David |
| Brazier, Julian | Fabricant, Michael |
| Bright, Sir Graham | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Fishburn, Dudley |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Forman, Nigel |
| Burns, Simon | Forth, Eric |
| Burt, Alistair | Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Freeman, Rt Hon Roger |
| Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) | French, Douglas |
| Carrington, Matthew | Gale, Roger |
| Carttiss, Michael | Garnier, Edward |
| Cash, William | Gill, Christopher |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Clappison, James | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif) | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Coe, Sebastian | Grylls, Sir Michael |
| Colvin, Michael | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald |
| Congdon, David | Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Hargreaves, Andrew |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Harris, David |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Haselhurst, Sir Alan |
| Hawkins, Nick | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Hawksley, Warren | Rathbone, Tim |
| Heald, Oliver | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David | Richards, Rod |
| Hendry, Charles | Riddtek, Graham |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence | Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm |
| Horam, John | Robathan, Andrew |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk) | Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) |
| Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W) | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) | Sackville, Tom |
| Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) | Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy |
| Jack, Michael | Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford) |
| Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr) | Shersby, Sir Michael |
| Key, Robert | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Soames, Nicholas |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Knapman, Roger | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs) |
| Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N) | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| Lamont, Rt Hon Norman | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan | Stephen, Michael |
| Legg, Barry | Streeter, Gary |
| Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark | Sweeney, Walter |
| Lidington, David | Sykes, John |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Lord, Michael | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Luff, Peter | Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| MacKay, Andrew | Thomason, Roy |
| Maclean, Rt Hon David | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Madel, Sir David | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Maitland, Lady Olga | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Malone, Gerald | Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Mans, Keith | Tredinnick, David |
| Marlow, Tony | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) | Viggers, Peter |
| Waldegrave, Rt Hon William | |
| Mates, Michael | Walden, George |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Waller, Gary |
| Mellor, Rt Hon David | Ward, John |
| Merchant, Piers | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Mills, Iain | Watts, John |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Wells, Bowen |
| Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) | Whitney, Ray |
| Nelson, Anthony | Whittingdale, John |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Wiggin, Sir Jerry |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Wilkinson, John |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Willetts, David |
| Norris, Steve | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Ottaway, Richard | Wolfson, Mark |
| Page, Richard | Wood, Timothy |
| Paice, James | Yeo, Tim |
| Patnick, Sir Irvine | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | |
| Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Pawsey, James | Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin. |
| Pickles, Eric |
§ Question accourdingly negatived.