It will be no surprise to the House that more than 60 right hon. and hon. Members have made clear their wish to speak in this important debate, and there may be even more. I wish to call as many hon. Members as possible. In the interests of fairness, I propose to balance the rights of Privy Councillors with the claims of other hon. Members.
I therefore make two pleas. I ask that contributions should be brief—perhaps even very brief—so that as many Members as possible may be called, and I ask hon. Members not to come to the Chair to assess their chances. That could well prove to be counter-productive today.
It may also be helpful if I outline how today's debate will proceed. After the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) has moved the motion, there will be a general debate on the motion and the amendments. My selection of amendments has been published. I shall not call on any hon. Member formally to move an amendment before the conclusion of the debate, when, in accordance with the Business of the House motion, there will be an opportunity to vote consecutively on amendments (e) to (i) and, if appropriate, on amendment (j). After that, I shall put the Question on the motion as amended or not amended, as the case may be.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, in fairness to Back Benchers. Since the last Parliament, there has been a changeover of some 25 per cent. of Members. I seek your assurance that the new voices in this House, as well as the old, will be given the opportunity to put their views.
Order. I am very surprised that an hon. Member with as much experience as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) should make that suggestion to me. I shall seek absolutely to balance the opinions held in all parts of the Chamber.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although some of us put down amendments that have not been selected, we understand your point about your selection of amendments. We welcome your point about no preference being shown to Privy Councillors. However, it is well known that many in the Cabinet are opposed to the reintroduction of hanging. Some of them have an important responsibility for this matter in part of the United Kingdom. Will you take that into account, Mr. Speaker, and call those members of the Government, because the Home Secretary does not speak for the whole Cabinet?
I beg to move,
That this House favours the restoration of the death penalty for murder.
Tonight, at the end of this debate, we in this House, on an individual, personal and free vote, have to reach a decision that can only be described as agonising. It is a decision that must touch the conscience of us all, whether we are for or against the reintroduction of the death penalty.
I should like to thank the Government for giving the House time to debate this important matter. This is a momentous debate. It is an important subject and the debate is outstandingly important because it may very well be the last chance that this House will have to decide the important question whether or not capital punishment for murder should be reintroduced. Furthermore, the debate is important because of the intense public interest and concern that it raises. It is important because it appears to have dramatically divided opinion in this country. That division of opinion disturbs one, because it is not difficult to see serious and reasonable arguments on both sides. Finally, it is important to those of us who believe—as I hope all hon. Members believe — that it is the inescapable duty of the State to protect its citizens in the most effective way that is available to the State from unlawful violence and death by murder.
The Royal Commission on capital punishment which reported in 1953 described murder as the gravest of all crimes. It describes capital punishment as the gravest of punishments for the gravest of all crimes. I am sure that very few hon. Members would doubt that the retributive element which would be involved in the reintroduction of capital punishment is important. It seems to me that what is even more important is the question whether or not capital punishment could, by its deterrent effect, reduce the number of murders that would be committed in this country if it became part of our law once again.
It is said that there is no evidence of this deterrent effect. I understand that, during the past week or so, when this debate has been raging outside the House, it has been said that there are no statistics to which one can point. However, in 1953 the Royal Commission came to the conclusion that the deterrent effect of capital punishment was stronger than that of any other punishment available for murder. It is only right, at the same time, that I should say that there is no convincing statistical evidence. Of course there is not. How could there be?
Let us imagine the two different situations. If there is no death penalty to frighten the criminal, he may go out with a gun and kill. On the other hand, if there was a death penalty, the same person would calculate the chances of being arrested, charged, convicted and ultimately brought to the point of sentence knowing that it could be the death penalty, and would conclude that he would not take the risk and would not, therefore, use a gun or go out and kill. How could that possibly enter into the statistics? That is the point that we must face.
I rely not on statistics — [Interruption] — but on something that we can all understand — the fear of death. That fear has a powerful influence over all normal human beings. It is a fear that can make ordinary, normal human beings behave differently. As Dr. Johnson almost said, nothing concentrates the mind so much as the imminent fear of execution. I submit that nothing is more likely to make a criminal pause before going out with a gun than the knowledge that if he kills with it, he may suffer the death penalty.
The Royal Commission on capital punishment made several forecasts, one of which was that if capital punishment was abolished, there would be an increase in the number of homicides and violent crimes. As we all know to our cost, the Royal Commission was absolutely right in its forecast. However, it went on to say that that increase would last only a short time, and in that it has proved to be wholly wrong.
I hope that the House will accept that I am not relying on statistics, but I must point out the figures that have been so well rehearsed. The number of homicides has nearly doubled since the abolition of capital punishment. The number of crimes involving the use of firearms has spiralled horrendously. Indeed, between 1971 and 1981 the number of offences involving the use of firearms rose from 1,700-odd offences to just over 8,000. That must be a matter of concern to everyone.
I do not doubt for one moment, because it is as obvious as the fact that the fear of death can influence someone's behaviour, that it is equally true, as the Royal Commission was at pains to point out, that the fear of death and its deterrent effect varies with the type of murder. I have an unwavering belief, which has not been moved by anything that I have heard or considered over the years, that the death penalty is a deterrent and is one of the considerations that an ordinary criminal would inevitably take into account. It would undoubtedly affect his behaviour if it were part of our law and were applied to the crime of murder.
Of all the categories of crime upon which the death penalty would operate, I submit that those involving the use of firearms would respond most sensitively to the death penalty. Before the abolition of the death penalty, it was comparatively rare to hear of criminals going out armed. Since the abolition of the death penalty it has become—as I have sought to put to the House—a commonplace crime. The inevitable result has been that, instead of having, as we had before the death penalty's abolition, an unarmed police force — the pride of this country and something that we could boast about—we can no longer have, or afford to have, a completely unarmed police force. The spiral of vicious crime goes ever up, with armed criminals going out on robberies and burglaries, and the time is coming, and will inevitably arrive, when we shall have to have a fully armed police force.
I do not want to see that. No one wants to see that. It is the last thing that one wants to see. There is no reason why we should not today take a step that would enable us to fulfil an ambition of mine —to lessen the need to arm the police and ultimately to return to the stage of not having to have an armed police force at all.
The reality is that at present, when an ordinary criminal decides to go out with other colleagues on, for example, a robbery or burglary, he does not hesitate to take the tools of his trade with him. One of those tools is the gun. The gun is not empty, but loaded, with live ammunition, because such criminals are prepared to take the risk, if it comes to it, of using it and killing with it. The risk is calculated before the crime is planned and the rewards today from a successful robbery are so great that criminals think that they can afford to take the chance. After all, what will happen to them? They will be sent to prison for life, if found guilty. On average, that is 10½ years.
What about the police? They are in the front line. I am sure that it has not escaped the notice of the House that
Lord Devlin, one of our most eminent jurists, and a former Law Lord, wrote an article in today's edition of The Times and had this to say about the police:
If the police, who are in the front line, hold strongly that the death penalty is a weapon they need, I think that it is difficult for society to deny it.
I would go further than that and say that in those circumstances it is equally difficult for the House to deny it.
If there is no doubt; or if it is probable that the prospect of the death penalty would deter a criminal from using a gun, and if the effect of the death penalty on the criminal's mind is capable of putting an end to the reign of the gun, and of making it possible for us to relieve the police of the need to carry arms, I submit that the House must consider that with the utmost gravity and care.
That did not happen before, when we had the death penalty. The experience was that the criminal did not go out in that way. Furthermore, if we had the death penalty, the risk of being arrested and convicted of using a gun to avoid arrest and killing somebody with it, would undoubtedly be, as I have said, one of the calculations which in my view and in that of many hon. Members would discourage the criminal from carrying a gun for that or any other purpose.
I must get on.
I conclude by submitting to the House this serious point. The death penalty is not just a unique punishment, as undoubtedly it is. If it were brought back by the House on a vote tonight, it would provide a unique protection for society which the state in its duty to defend its citizens, must be prepared to accept and, in proper circumstances, to use.
It is little more than a year since the House last debated capital punishment, but it is entirely right for us to do so once more. As my Hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) pointed out, public interest in the issue is intense, we have a new Parliament, and concern remains very strong. Not one of us, I am sure, failed to be questioned about our views n this issue during the election campaign. [HON. MEMBERS: "I did."] It is now time for each of us, with as clear sight and open mind as possible, to have a new look and to reach decisions once again.
The tradition has grown up that on such occasions the Home Secretary should do three things. He should analyse the evidence and the arguments for and against the general proposition that capital punishment for murder should be restored. He should review the advantages and disadvantages of treating a number of specific kinds of murder as capital offences. Finally, he should give his own personal views on these matters. I shall today seek to adhere to that tradition.
My first task is to try to lay to rest some prejudices which are all too prevalent in the country and which reflect the strong feelings with which this subject is, understandably enough, often approached. On the one hand, hon. Members who oppose restoration are often portrayed as being "weak on crime" and unconcerned by the rising tide of violence which in modern society puts the most vulnerable sections of the community in fear. On the other hand, hon. Members who favour restoration are often classified, and even vilified, as people who wish to take life and who fail to regard it as the sacred thing that men of every age and faith have accepted it to be. Neither picture is accurate. Both debase debate.
Hon. Members in favour of restoring capital punishment will enter the Lobby tonight because they believe that its application will protect and preserve lives. Hon. Members who vote against it will not in any way be showing their lack of commitment to the fight against crime. They will be disagreeing about means, but not about ends. Moreover, no one should believe or allow it to be believed that restoring the death penalty, whether that in itself is justified or not, could have a decisive impact on the broader battle against crime. However the House votes tonight, it must and will be the Government's task to pursue that battle by every means in their power.
Most of us considering the issue of capital punishment reach a conclusion on the balance of the arguments and evidence, but there are those who are utterly opposed in principle to capital punishment. They believe that the judicial taking of life is absolutely wrong, whatever the deterrent effect and whatever the circumstances. That is a view which I of course respect, although it is one which it is perhaps easier to hold for those not carrying the responsibilities of being a Member of this House. One may doubt whether a Member of Parliament who is truly persuaded that only capital punishment would provide adequate protection for the community has the right to deny his fellow citizens that protection because of his personal conscientious objection.
Most of us, however, do not have an absolutist objection to taking life and instead ask the question: would capital punishment provide society with a protection not afforded by other forms of punishment? That should surely be the paramount consideration, although I appreciate that there are those who are much influenced by the impact which capital punishment would have on the general tone of life in this country, particularly as it is reflected in the media. Others draw comparisons with penal policy in comparable countries in western Europe. I understand those considerations, but in the last analysis there will be many who would feel that if capital punishment genuinely is an effective deterrent it would be our painful duty to restore it, however unattractive some of the consequences would undoubtedly be.
It is at this point that one has to turn to the statistics. We cannot avoid looking at them, but we should be making a great mistake if we expected them to give us an unequivocal answer.
Those who argue for restoring the death penalty rightly point to the sharp rise in homicides since 1960. Between the end of the war and 1960 the number of homicides had shown a generally downward trend. In 1960, the offences initially recorded as homicide in England and Wales totalled 282. In 1965, the year capital punishment was abolished, the total was 325, in 1970 it was 396, in 1980 it was 621, and in 1982 it was 619. There are those who argue that the upward trend starting in 1960 is of no significance as that trend started before abolition. Against that, it can be said that the number of executions actually carried out in the last few years of capital punishment was very small and the deterrent effect might, therefore, if it existed, have been somewhat reduced.
There are, nevertheless, forceful arguments against accepting the rise in homicides since abolition as retrospective proof of capital punishment's deterrent effect. It is pointed out that the rise in crime, particularly violent crime and not just homicide, has been a general phenomenon since the early 1960s. If we compare the 10 years 1963 to 1972 with the subsequent 10 years, we find, for example, that the number of homicides rose by 45 per cent. But the number of other serious offences of violence against the person rose by 49 per cent. The conclusion is drawn by those who point to those figures alone that there is no evidence from the figures of the uniquely deterrent effect of capital punishment.
The position is, I fear, a good deal more complicated as there are two cross-currents which both restorationists and abolitionists must consider if they are to be serious.
First, those who call for restoration must recognise that murder is only the most prominent tip of a massive iceberg of tension, violence and unrest in modern society, the causes of which are only imperfectly grasped. It has always been recognised that most murders are, at least to a limited degree, crimes of passion. In 70 to 75 per cent of cases the victim was acquainted with the suspect. In 1981, almost half the homicide victims were members of the suspects' families, or lived or slept with them, and about half of all homicides arose from quarrels, revenge or sheer loss of temper.
However, those who believe that the comparative increase in the category of "other violent crimes" proves that capital punishment does not deter should pause before drawing that conclusion. One would expect the deterrent effect of the death penalty to apply not only in cases of homicide, but in other crimes during which there was a risk that homicide would be committed. That applies especially to robbery. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde said, it may well have affected the willingness of those involved in robberies to carry guns, and to use them if necessary, to escape arrest. The earliest figures available for robberies involving firearms date from 1969. Between then and 1981 such robberies increased from 464 to 1,893.
Before leaving this matter, I should also mention the evidence from abroad, but I am afraid that that is even more inconclusive than our evidence. Research in the United States has been adduced to support both sides of the argument, but critics of that research have exposed genuine and deep flaws in it. Elsewhere in Europe, no fixed pattern emerges, and complication is added by the fact that, even where capital punishment is retained—for example, in Ireland—it has often long fallen into disuse. Therefore, the statistics and evidence from overseas and from Britain cannot determine whether capital punishment is an effective deterrent. To my mind, the figures show one thing —the serious threat which violent crime in general, and especially wanton disrespect for life, pose to society.
None the less, many people will be inclined to take a view on the matter from their knowledge of human nature rather than from the figures. Some will feel that, even if most murders are unpremeditated and undeterrable, there must be a significant proportion where the decision to kill has been made on a more considered basis, and that for such murders at least the awesome threat of death to which my hon. and learned Friend referred must be a unique deterrent. However, such a viewpoint cannot be proved to be correct.
One's instinct may tell one that it is likely that capital punishment is a deterrent for at least some potential murderers, but many will take the view that instinct is an insufficient basis for a general reintroduction of capital punishment. Moreover, many people will be much influenced by the knowledge that, on occasion, there have been convictions that were subsequently proved to be wrong. The risk of error in inflicting a penalty that is, by its nature, irreversible, can never be removed, and if one is considering restoring a punishment that has not existed for nearly 20 years, and where there can be no conclusive proof of the deterrent effect, that must be a relevant consideration.
Each Member of the House will balance in his own way the factors that I have tried to outline in as fair-minded a way as I can, but I shall vote against the general proposition that capital punishment should be reintroduced for all murders.
Some of the factors to which I referred are also relevant to the specific categories of offence mentioned in the amendments to the motion. There are also considerations specific to those categories. Three of the categories of murder for which capital punishment is proposed in the amendments are based essentially on the distinctions drawn in the Homicide Act 1957. It is worth recalling how the Act became law and why it was subsequently repealed, because this relates to the merits of the categorisation now proposed. By 1949, there was widespread unease, especially in Parliament, at the use of capital punishment for all types of murder. Reprieves were granted in about 40 per cent. of all cases in which a person was sentenced to death. In 1949, the Royal Commission to which my lion. and learned Friend referred was established. It reported that it could not find suitable distinctions to justify the introduction of degrees of murder. None the less, the Homicide Act 1957 attempted to do just that.
It is often said that the categories of capital murders established in the Act created anomalies, which ultimately led to its repeal. That is true, but there were two sorts of anomalies — those which are inherent in any such a categorisation, and those which the skilful drafting of legislation might hope to overcome. Both are important, but the first anomaly is more important. Although attempts can be made to single out from other crime murders that are especially prevalent, or that are believed to be more deterrable by the death penalty, the problem remains that any such differentiation, when put into practice, is likely to lead fairly quickly to growing feelings of injustice. There will soon be cases outside, whatever criteria are chosen, that are felt to be more grave than those within them. Public outrage was, and is, no less great in cases of murder in which knives are used, often in the most brutal way, than in cases where firearms are used; in cases of child murder by strangulation rather than murder by shooting; and in cases of appalling ferocity rather than cool calculation. Would distinctions drawn primarily on the basis of the assumed prospect of deterrence be more acceptable to the public now than they were in the past?
The second anomaly was in definitions and borderlines. Definitional difficulty, and the borderline cases to which they give rise, need not be regarded as providing overwhelming objections, but they are real and important and the House should not ignore or minimise them.
Of the amendments on the Order Pacer, by far the most vulnerable on that score is the one which proposes the death penalty for murder in the course or furtherance of theft. Experience of murder trials before abolition confirms that, as does the experience of hundreds of cases that have come before the courts since abolition. Application of the death penalty could depend on the slenderest evidence as to when, how and whether a theft, possibly even a minor theft, had taken place. For that reason, it could be argued that the deterrent effect of this provision would be great. The increase in the number of robberies and burglaries is deeply disturbing, but it is certain that no category of capital offence would cause more public debate and questioning as the details of individual cases came to the fore. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner).
Some may argue that the difficulty could be resolved by making the death penalty non-mandatory, leaving it to judges or juries to decide its applicability. The objection to that is that it would introduce subjectivity into the judicial system in the areas where, for reasons of deterrence and equity, that is least desirable. Many would have grave doubts about the wisdom of conferring such a discretion on either judge or jury.
Several amendments relate to the death penalty for the murder of policemen and prison officers. As Home Secretary, I have a special responsibility to ensure that the police force and prison officers are supported and protected. The debt that we all owe them for their courage and commitment in upholding the rule of law should never be forgotten.
First, with regard to the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), the task of the prison service has certainly become more difficult and dangerous over the years, with officers being put increasingly at risk of violent assault from a prison population that has become more dangerous because of its size and of the type of prisoner within it. During the past 40 years, two prison officers in England and Wales have been murdered while on duty—one in 1948 and the other in 1965. On such, thankfully slender, evidence it is difficult to make a judgment about the effect of, or need for, the death penalty in the case of prison officers.
In practice, the police are more affected by this debate than is the prison service. The case for the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is based on two propositions. The first is that the police are at greater risk from attacks by violent criminals than any other group and therefore deserve the special protection that the death penalty might give them. The second is that their position as the upholders of the law entitles them to that special protection. There can be no doubt that the police are at risk, and there has been an increase in the number of police officers on duty who have been the victims of homicides. In the years since abolition, 28 police officers have been killed in England and Wales in the course of their duties. In the comparable number of years previously, 12 were killed, which is by any standards a shocking increase.
Against that we must set the fact that the risks extend beyond the police, as they would be the first to recognise. Security guards, bank clerk and postmasters are examples of people who face risks similar to those faced by the police. I think that, in practice, it is difficult to say that the circumstances in which capital punishment has a deterrent effect are likely to occur more frequently in the case of murder of police officers than other groups.
That brings me to the second argument: the special position of the police. It is an argument which I respect, but I note that it is not one which the Police Federation in its letter has chosen to make, and I think that it is right. In individual cases of murder, where the victim was trying to prevent the commission of a crime, I think that the public's sympathy is wide and comprehensive. It does not extend just to the police. It extends to the security guard, the bank clerk or the bystander who "has a go". There is a considerable risk that singling out a particular category of victim would in practice, as opposed to theory, over a period prove difficult to sustain. I do not believe that it would be widely understood when the murderer of a police officer was hanged and the murderer of a citizen who was helping the police, possibly at the same time, was not. I shall therefore not vote for those amendments.
However, I should add that, since 1965, 16 adults have been convicted of the murder of police officers. Most of them have been subject to a recommendation by the trial judge that they should serve a minimum sentence, and that recommendation has ranged from 15 to 30 years. None of those 16 prisoners has been released. That should be a clear indication of our attitude towards murderers of police officers. I shall ensure that cases where no minimum recommendation has been made are treated in substantially the same way as those where such a recommendation was made. The expectation must be that all such murderers serve at least 20 years, and that some may never be released.
The next category of murder to be considered, covered by the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), is of murder by shooting or causing an explosion. The number of serious firearms offences has increased sharply. Doubtless that is why this category of murder has been singled out. However, it does not follow that the balance of the deterrent argument is necessarily different for that category. Moreover, from the point of view of the gravity of the offence, it is difficult to see why a murderer who has shot his victim should be regarded with greater abhorrence than, say, a poisoner.
Finally, the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), proposes the death penalty for murder resulting from acts of terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland powerfully put the case against restoration [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] — in a statement outside the House, which I am sure that all Members will have read. He naturally concentrated on the effects of capital punishment for terrorist murders in Northern Ireland, and pointed out that the vast majority of convictions for terrorist murders had been in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend recognised, as I do, that it would be very difficult indeed to have one law in Great Britain and a different one in Northern Ireland. He points out the present readiness of terrorists to put their own lives at risk, and the value to the IRA of the creation of martyrs. He reports the view of senior police officers that if capital punishment were introduced convictions would be more difficult to secure. He also points out the risk of violent disorder and acts of vengeance in the wake of executions. Finally, he draws attention to the problems posed by the fact that terrorist trials in Northern Ireland are conducted without juries. The House will undoubtedly give full weight to all that someone with the experience and authority of my right hon. Friend says in these matters.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that in current circumstances there is no prospect of an early return to trial by jury in Northern Ireland. Nor would it be politically acceptable to have murder trials of Irish terrorists take place on this side of the Irish sea. The object must be to give the fairest hearing to the accused. If capital punishment were introduced, one way in which it has been suggested that that object could be fulfilled would be through trial by a judge with assessors, or by three judges.
However, I hope that I may be allowed to look at the problem from a somewhat different perspective, taking into account terrorism more generally, whatever its origins. The truth is that in Great Britain the threat is not only from Irish terrorists. No one, of course, could forget, for example, the horrific attacks perpetrated in Hyde park and Regents park just a year ago this month, when 11 soldiers were killed and 59 people were injured. Those crimes were brutal, callous, cowardly and indiscriminate —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but since 1977 in Great Britain the number of terrorist bombing and shooting incidents attributable to non-Irish groups has almost equalled the number of Irish-related attacks in the same period. Non-Irish terrorists have killed 11 people in that time — but, it is said, capital punishment would do nothing to deter terrorists.
I have already indicated, I hope quite plainly, my general reservations about the balance of the deterrence argument, but I would not go so far as to accept, as has sometimes been suggested, that terrorists are uniquely immune from deterrence. It is certainly true that one will never deter the true fanatic, and some will positively seek martyrdom. However, not all terrorists are fanatics or prepared to kill themselves by going on hunger strike. We should never, even unconsciously, accept the terrorist's vision of himself as an inflexible, high-minded freedom fighter, unconcerned with the consequences. That is not true of those who are bribed, bullied, or lured to commit murder. It may well not be true of those who are knowing and assisting parties to the deed, but do not detonate the bomb themselves. It is not true in communities where the thug and criminal slip into terrorism through the pursuit of gain. In such cases the deterrent argument is neither weaker nor stronger in relation to terrorist murders, than in the case of other murders.
We are told, however, of the risk of reprisals. To this must be added the risk of hostage-taking and other forms of serious disorder. I do not seek to deny or minimise any of those risks, but there is always such a risk in taking any effective action to curb terrorist violence. The terrorist is at war with us. He will take whatever action he can to defeat us. The question is whether we are to be stopped from doing what we think is right by those threats and that blackmail.
Those who favour capital punishment for terrorist murders do not, for the most part, found their case on its deterrent effect. They do so because of a very fundamental belief about the nature of terrorism and the appropriate response to it. Since time out of mind, it has been recognised that violence against the state poses a threat utterly different in character from crime against individuals. The law of treason, for example, though archaic and practically unused in peacetime, still uniquely preserves the death penalty. Acts of terrorism are crimes against civil society as a whole. While all crimes break and challenge particular laws, and may shatter the lives of individual citizens, terrorism deliberately seeks the overthrow of law itself. Its aim is to subvert the legitimate insitutions of democratic government. It attempts to shake the will of the majority to uphold the integrity of the state.
That is why there will be many people who favour the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist murder on grounds quite unrelated to the deterrent argument. Those who take that view are not thirsting for revenge, but they regard it as the duty of the state to signal its total and absolute repugnance for those who commit crimes that undermine its very foundations. There can be no clearer or more decisive a demonstration of that repugnance than to reserve the ultimate penalty, capital punishment, for those who commit such crimes. It is for those reasons that I shall vote tonight for the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist murders.
Finally, let me say a word about what may follow this debate. The House will, I hope, agree with the way in which the amendments allow hon. Members the fullest opportunity to express their views and vote on them. [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, if the House votes for the restoration of capital punishment for any category of offence—[Interruption.]
If the House votes for the restoration of capital punishment for any category of offence, the Government will provide drafting assistance for a private Member's Bill designed to give effect to the expression of opinion of the House and will provide time for the Bill to be debated.
The legal and practical problems that would have to be resolved are numerous and formidable and there would be many further controversial decisions to be taken. If the House so wishes, those problems can be resolved and those decisions can be made. The first step is to take the central decisions of principle which the House is debating today.
I begin by making my position absolutely and, I hope, unequivocally clear. I am wholly and irrevocably opposed to the reintroduction of capital punishment. I am opposed in principle, because I believe that to legislate for the judicial execution of a man or woman held in the state's safe custody would be a reversion to barbarism. We would, in this country, become the only Western democracy where the state possessed and exercised the right to kill as judicial punishment. Nothing can justify savagery of that sort.
A reversion to such a practice would debase and, in the literal sense of the word, demoralise us all. My profound hope is that with our vote tonight we shall reject capital punishment decisively and lay the whole subject to rest —[HON. MEMBERS: "Never."]—because I must tell the House that I feel no pride in living in a society where newspapers publish the memoirs of superannuated hangmen, print drawings reconstructing the execution cell and give details about the noose, the rope and the drop.
It is because I want to put the whole morbid preoccupation behind us that I welcome the Government's decision to hold an early debate on the subject. I hope that after tonight's decision we shall be able to discuss crime and punishment in a great deal more rational fashion than it has been discussed during the past month or five weeks. I say "more rational" because of the violence that is done to logic by many of the claims that are made about the deterrent effect of capital punishment in murder and in a multitude of other crimes.
Later, I want to examine the claim that hanging would, were it reintroduced, reduce the murder rate and affect the number of crimes of violence committed in every category. Before I do that I want to deal with some other aspects of the debate, merely pausing to welcome warmly the Home Secretary's assertion that if capital punishment were reintroduced it would not make a comprehensive change to the incidence and pattern of crime in Britain. Too much of the debate during the past six weeks has asserted quite the opposite and in a moment we must deal with the evidence for the two conflicting judgments.
Before I do that I want to repeat, because I want the House to understand my position clearly, that even were there evidence to demonstrate that capital punishment was a deterrent—such evidence does not exist—I should still believe hanging to be wrong. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that some people will argue, have argued, and no doubt will argue again this afternoon that hanging as retribution is right in itself and that in our society one can justify, shall I say as a matter of principle, the taking of a life of a man or woman who has himself or herself taken a life.
Indeed, the Prime Minister, in a television interview during the general election campaign—which I suppose was in part the genesis of the debate—seemed to he saying that some murders were so hideous that execution was an intrinsically appropriate response — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— seemed to be saying that some murderers deserved to die. [HON MEMBERS: "Quite right."] There is no moral or philosophical justification for that view. It is a cry for revenge, and nothing except revenge. I do not believe that the House of Commons should, and I pray that the House of Commons will not, write such a primitive instinct into the laws of Great Britain.
The call for the execution of those who commit the foulest murders — a phrase that is often used—raises another issue which the House must face. If we are to have capital punishment at all, I suppose that it is better that it should be prescribed for only a very limited category of murder and murderers. But if we dc that, we have to accept the problems of definition, problems so great that men and women will be hanged as a result of the interpretation of their behaviour, as a result of judgments about their motives—interpretations and judgments that will outrage the country.
I intend to spend a good deal of the time at my disposal dealing with terrorism, but, in relation to the problem of definition, the Home Secretary must understand that if there is to be capital punishment for terrorist murders, the chaos, confusion and anguish that will be caused in obtaining an appropriate definition will put the entire law into disrepute. Let me give the Home Secretary a simple example from Northern Ireland. If we were to return to capital punishment for terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland, after that law came into effect post offices in Northern Ireland would be robbed and, I regret to say, postmasters would be killed as part of such robberies. It would be the duty of somebody—we shall come to that as the debate continues—to decide whether that robbery was carried out to give funds to the IRA or whether it was intended to take the money south to the Curragh and put it on a horse. Does the Home Secretary believe that a man's life should be determined by such a definition? Those gross anomalies aside, the supporters of capital punishment always argue their case in terms of cold-blooded premeditation, calculated wickedness and ruthless terrorism — all phrases used during a broadcast in which I took part yesterday.
If the death penalty is to be directed to such categories, and to such categories alone, it will be reintroduced for appreciably less than one quarter of all the murders carried out in the United Kingdom. It will not be reintroduced for murder by the mentally sick. It will not be reintroduced for murder by the suddenly deranged. It will not be reintroduced for murder by the unbearably provoked—often the family murders to which the Home Secretary was right to draw our attention. If capital punishment is to be brought in as a deterrent, we are talking about the prospect of it deterring about one murder in five at the most, giving the argument every credit that is possible. It will not deter four fifths of murderers. Even those most passionately committed to capital punishment do not want capital punishment to cover those categories, and four fifths of murders are motivated by a passion which does not allow the consequences to be considered.
Even if the deterrent claim can be justified, its effect on the murder rate in Britain will be neglible. Indeed, I go on to say — I have said it in the House on many occasions and I must say it again today—that there is much evidence to support the view that the hanging lobby has done a great disservice to law and order in Britain by campaigning for capital punishment as if it were a real, quick and certain remedy for all forms of violent crime. By talking about hanging as if it would deter everything from terrorism to armed robbery—
Why does the right hon. Gentleman keep referring to hanging? What we are debating today is capital punishment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"]—and he knows that as well as anyone else.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard some of my hon. Friends say that his intervention is an irrelevance. They are only partly right. I assure him that in a moment I want to consider the suggestion, which I thought he would not make, but others less experienced might, that somehow the entire process could be made more morally acceptable by shooting, gassing or injecting. In my view, that would not change the moral implications by an iota.
Before I do that, I want to complete the point that I was making. By talking as if capital punishment were the sure and sovereign cure for all our problems of crime, the hanging lobby has diverted us from the steps which we should have taken. They are less spectacular, less newsworthy, less likely to attract newspaper attention and provoke headlines, and could have made a more peaceful society in Great Britain.
Sir Robert Mark, writing in The Times and The Sunday Times, made the same point. He said that we should concentrate on the certainty of detection and conviction and that hanging was, by and large, an irrelevance. Time after time the hanging lobby repeats the old remedies and the venerable prejudice that capital punishment deters. I tell the hanging lobby what every informed person knows —that there is absolutely no evidence to support the view that capital punishment is in itself a deterrent.
If we compare abolitionist and retentionist countries and countries before and after abolition, we find that there is no evidence to prove that execution reduces the murder rate or reduces crimes of violence. The Home Secretary said as much today, and his predecessor put the figures into proper perspective when, rather more robustly four years ago, he said:
the only sensible conclusion to reach is that their evidence is inconclusive." — [Official Report. 19 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 2047.]
If the deterrent case is to be accepted, if we are to vote for capital punishment as a deterrent, we at least ought to be sure that it deters. If we are to hang men and women by the necks until they are dead, we ought to do it on more than a hunch, a superstition, a vague impression or the anecdotes that follow Rotary Club lunches. Unless there is some positive proof that hanging deters, the case for hanging cannot be made even by its most sophisticated proponents.
They cannot provide that case. I must provide for them the other statistic, of which we are certain. Had hanging not been abolished in 1964, at least five innocent men would be dead today. That seems to me, and to almost all the people who have commented on the facts, the only statistic about which we can be sure in this entire debate.
Two minutes ago the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) asked why I talked about hanging. I know that there are some people—I am sorry to hear that he is one, if that is the category in which we find him — who want an alternative form of execution. I hope that anyone who talks airily today of the alternatives will answer some of the questions about how they might be used.
A year ago the then Home Secretary urged all supporters of gassing, injections or firing squads to read the Gowers report on the alternative forms of execution. That report shows that all the alternatives to hanging are equally macabre and corrosive to a civilised society. The capital punishment lobby must not hide behind the pretence that there is some decent alternative to the rope and the long drop. I ask them to read—
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the gallows in Wandsworth prison are still in working order, that they are kept there to hang people who have committed crimes of treason, violent piracy or arson in the royal dockyards? Is not the very presence of those gallows, which are kept in working order, an insult to a civilised society? Will he and others in the House support the abolition of capital punishment for those crimes as well by voting for the manuscript amendment which I and the hon. Member for—
I agree that in a truly civilised society we would be against capital punishment in any form, including for the most recherché and esoteric of crimes. However, today we are debating, not the theoretical possession of that punishment for use on occasions that will never arise, but the practical reintroduction of capital punishment in the real world for real crimes. It is important to concentrate on that. We must not shelter behind the idea that there is an alternative to hanging which makes judicial execution more acceptable.
The fact is that it is not the method of execution that degrades society, but the fact of execution itself. We must concentrate on that. Anyone who believes that there are better ways to do the thing decently might—I make an unusual request for me—read today's copy of The Sun. That newspaper describes the whole sordid, degrading, dehumanising process of judicial execution. It makes it clear that it is not the method that counts, but the decision to take a life that demoralises us all: it is the act of judicial execution itself.
I quote The Sun because I do not believe that it is possible to overstate the importance of that newspaper's leader today. We all know that the Bar, the Bench and the bishops are against capital punishment. They are all formally against captial punishment. They can be scoffed at as members of the liberal, enlightened establishment, but even The Sun's most bitter critics have never accused it of coming into that category. Yet today that newspaper describes hanging as
turning a civilised society into a brutal and brutalised nation.
I am happy to pay my tribute to The Sun for putting the position so firmly and succinctly.
That judgment must be true if we merely—"merely" is an inadequate word—restore capital punishment for terrorist killings. The hon. and learned Member for Fylde, with his characteristic honesty, speaking on the radio last Sunday, said that this was the proposition on today's Order Paper which it was most difficult for the supporters of capital punishment to justify. That is right, because the proposition is based on blind prejudice rather than cold logic. It is all the more disturbing, therefore, that the Home Secretary will vote for that amendment tonight.
It was not clear from what the Home Secretary said whether he proposes that execution for terrorist murders should be the punishment in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole, or whether capital punishment should be introduced for Great Britain alone.
The Home Secretary says "Both". That enables me to make a point that is central to the debate. He can tell us that when we talk about terrorist murders there are other forms of terrorism and that he wants to take action against them. He knows, if he is as honest as he wishes to be, and normally struggles to be, that when we debate terrorist murders in the House and outside, by and large we think of Northern Ireland and the effects on Northern Ireland. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary two questions: is he really coming to the House to propose, and vote for, executing men who have not been convicted by the jury system? Is that what he proposes should happen in Northern Ireland? Perhaps, as the afternoon goes on, the Home Secretary will tell us whether in 1983, in a civilised, democratic society, he is proposing that men who have not been convicted by their peers should be executed. Merely to describe the proposition is to show that it is wholly unacceptable, I wish to make three further points, all of them concerning Northern Ireland. Having asked the Home Secretary one rhetorical question and received not so much an inadequate answer as no answer at all, I must ask him a second question. Does the Home Secretary realise that by introducing such a proposal he will concede one of the IRA's most passionate demands — that its crimes be treated differently from other people's crimes? It is a long-established principle in this country that the man who shoots a soldier should not be treated in any different way from the man who knifes a bookie's runner and steals his cash. We have always argued that two horrible crimes cannot be given different legal or judicial treatment because the man who commits one of the crimes claims that he is doing it for some special reason or from some special motive.
The IRA wants that distinction to be made. If the Home Secretary has his way, we will for the first time in our law distinguish between terrorists and common criminals. That is madness in terms of the Northern Ireland prospect. Hanging such men will mean that by their deaths they will make a far greater contribution to the cause of Republican violence than they would have made by-their lives. In the eyes of thousands of Irishmen who now despise terrorism and detest the killings, suddenly the British Government will become the instrument of violence and the oppressor.
When I last said that to the House, one Conservative Member said that the martyrs would be not the hanged IRA terrorists, but their dead victims. The problem is that it will not be seen that way in the IRA recruiting areas. Nor will it be seen as a deterrent among the IRA. The Northern Ireland terrorist has virtually no concern for human life, the lives of his opponents, the lives of innocent bystanders, or even the lives of his own supporters. Terrorists have persuaded men to die on hunger strike— indeed, they have terrorised them with threats against their families if they abandon the hunger strike. In future they will organise, glory in and, worst of all, benefit from the execution of their members. It is absolute madness to provide them with such a weapon.
The Home Secretary warned us about various visions of terrorism and asked us not to accept the terrorist on his own definition of his character and conduct—and nor do I. But I ask the Home Secretary not to take comfort in the sentimental notion that all bullies are always cowards. The people with whom we are dealing in Northern Ireland are certainly vile, but weak and undertermined they are not. We must not pretend that they are something out of a Boy' s Own Paper story. They must be dealt with in the most effective way, and judicial execution would be to play into their hands.
I conclude as I began, by making it absolutely clear—
No. I am sorry, but I must conclude so that the right hon. Gentleman and others can make their speeches.
I conclude as I began. Were all the practical or pragmatic arguments against capital punishment not to apply, I should still resist its reintroduction. Supporters of capital punishment insist on comparing the crime rates before and after abolition, as though abolition itself had created a more violent society. The truth is something different. Violence has grown within our society during the past 25 years for many reasons. To legalise violence in the way proposed would make Britain not a more peaceful nation, but one in which violence had been accepted and institutionalised.
I very much regret the misuse of statistics that we have heard during the past six weeks, and will undoubtedly hear again today, but there is one other point that I regret even more—indeed, almost resent—and that is the suggestion that abolitionists think only of the perpetrators of crime and not of the crime victims. The victims, the potential victims and the relatives of the victims are, like the rest of us, men and women who will benefit most by living in a decent society where violence is loathed and rejected. That loathing must be directed against all violence—by the state as well as by individuals. By killing murderers we become too like the murderers themselves. The whole community is lowered to their standards. For that reason I shall vote against the motion and all the proposed amendments. For that reason I say with great pride that I believe that all right hon. and hon. Members in the Labour party will do the same.
I wish initially to address myself to the general question of capital punishment. I think that my position is well known to all hon. Members. For more than 20 years I have been opposed to capital punishment for all crimes of homicide, and I have always voted against it. I intend to do so tonight. My position is not only as strong as it ever was; it has been confirmed in recent years.
For nearly 20 years capital punishment has been abolished in this country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), who moved the resolution with great restraint and wisdom, wishes to change the status quo. He and those who support him must prove that it is necessary, in fact vital, to change the status quo. The onus of proof rests with him and his friends. When the House judges the issue and votes tonight, it should ask itself whether the proposer of the resolution and his supporters have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it is vital to change the status quo.
In my judgment—and I say this with great respect for my hon. and learned Friend whom I have known for many years—he has not proved 'his case. He said quite frankly that he did not intend to rely on statistics. The Home Secretary rightly said the same. If they did, they would have to explain why the increase in homicides began long before the abolition of the death penalty and why the increase in ordinary crimes of violence has been many times greater than the increase in homicides. It is that factor which has produced attention in the public mind. The growth of lesser crimes of violence has been so great that the public has deduced that the only answer is to deal with homicide by capital punishment. That is a confusion in the public mind. A great deal rests upon us to remove that confusion.
My hon. and learned Friend did not introduce the question of retribution and revenge, although it was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I was saddened to hear murmurs in some parts of the House that appeared to support retribution and revenge. Quite frankly, from any moral viewpoint, I find revenge completely unacceptable. I do not believe that it is for the House to decide whether there should be revenge—[Interruption.] If some of my hon. Friends want revenge, I hope that they will say so and also state their position on other issues that they consider require revenge. It is not for the House or for Parliament to decide retribution either. That lies elsewhere at other times. That is why I cannot accept either of the arguments of revenge or retribution.
My hon. and learned Friend said that our purpose must be to secure the safety of the people of this realm to the greatest possible extent. That is the task of Government both externally and internally, and I agree with him entirely. The question at issue is whether the restoration of capital punishment will improve the security of the people of this realm. That issue remains unproven.
My hon. and learned Friend said that that is a matter of judgment. It is. Others would say that it is a matter of instinct—indeed that has already been said—but in my view the judgment, if it is in favour of restoration, is wrong. This is far too great a matter to rest on instinct. We need more substantial reasons than just instinct for changing the status quo.
I come next to the point which in recent years I have found more and more worrying and more and more impressive. I refer to condemnation by mistake. I find it impossible to accept a penalty that is irreversible when it is so apparent that a number of mistakes have been made. One of my hon. Friends said on the radio that if no one else is prepared to hang people he is quite prepared to do the job himself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] I ask him a rather different question. Because of his views, is he prepared to be hanged by mistake? I am not asking my hon. Friend to reply on the spur of the moment. I shall let him give due consideration to the problem before he finally makes up his mind.
I wish now to deal with the specific amendments on the Order Paper about the restoration of capital punishment in particular cases. In this respect, I emphasise what was said by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and in great detail by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about the Homicide Act 1957. I agree with everything that my right hon. and learned Friend said about that. The Homicide Act 1957 was largely shaped by Viscount Kilmuir as Lord Chancellor. I was involved as the Chief Whip of the Government of the day in trying to bring together those who felt strongly about capital punishment and the abolitionists. The Government wanted to lift the problem out of the constant battle in the House of Commons and try to get public support for a final position. That Act lasted for only eight years. It failed, as the Home Secretary said. It failed because the general public was not prepared to support an Act—nor was the judiciary for that matter—which said that one kind of murderer was worthy of the death penalty and that another kind was not; that if a public figure was shot crossing Trafalgar Square that was a matter for the death penalty, but that if a man poisoned his wife that was a matter between the two of them and did not deserve the death penalty.
There is a basic lesson here about trying to pick out particular aspects of homicide for the death penalty. I believe that the public would quickly say "Yes, if there is to be a death penalty, is not such and such a case also worthy of it?" That is the fundamental argument of principle against trying to select particular aspects of homicide as justifying the death penalty.
If there is to be a selection, I regard the case for the selection of terrorism as the weakest. If murder of the police or prison warders were to be selected, I think that the public would say that those people have a rather better chance of looking after themselves than they, the innocent public. Terrorists present great problems. I think that the Home Secretary is underestimating the determination of terrorists in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, quite regardless of death, to carry through their purposes. Even if one is dealing with Arab terrorists, one finds that very few of them are paid marksmen. If they are paid marksmen, they will weigh up the risks against the penalties. If money is what they want they will take the risk. Therefore, I cannot see that the argument for capital punishment for terrorists is a powerful one.
I come now to the definition of terrorism, the importance of which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will not underestimate, as he glossed over it this afternoon. If there is to be the final capital penalty for terrorism, there is the problem of judges and juries deciding whether a person is a political terrorist. There has been criticism in the Province of attempts to deal with the IRA on the basis that its members should, when arrested, be treated as political prisoners, and it has been said that that is an immense mistake. Exactly this definition, as has so rightly been pointed out, would have to be made permanently for capital punishment if the amendment were agreed. I do not believe that one can gloss over the issue of defining terrorism or of how a jury and the judge would handle it.
Even more important — as the Home Secretary emphasised—is that there is no hope of returning to jury verdicts in Northern Ireland. One will not persuade a jury to convict if there is the death penalty. My right hon. and learned Friend then referred to a judge and perhaps two assessors. But is the Northern Ireland judiciary in favour of dealing with IRA terrorism by a judge and two assessors? I cannot believe for one moment that the judiciary would accept that. I lived through all the problems of 1970 to 1974 and have been back to Northern Ireland many times since. I know the views of the people there and, leaving aside the impact on the IRA, I cannot believe that our judiciary or the Northern Ireland judiciary would be prepared to deal with these cases with an assessor sitting on each side.
Therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already said, it is out of the question for practical reasons to apply capital punishment there. But we cannot punish terrorist murderers on the mainland by imposing the death penalty if we do not do so in Northern Ireland. The number of cases here is comparatively few—a few Arab and other terrorists—but from the public's point of view, let alone all the other considerations, it is impossible to deal with an Arab terrorist who shoots the Israeli ambassador in one way but to deal with the same crime differently in Northern Ireland, which most people consider to be the home of terrorism. Amendment (e) therefore is entirely impractical.
I am astonished—I must not say that—I was taken unawares by the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary argued as he did. His argument did not seem to deal with any of the basic problems of making terrorism a separate capital crime. Other European countries have had great problems with terrorism—for example, the Federal Republic of Gennany and the Italian Republic. They have dealt with those problems not by bringing back capital punishment, but in other ways, largely by effective police action and by reducing the status of the terrorists so that they could not gain public support. The same is true of the Netherlands. I do not support the argument that we of all European countries should have to reintroduce capital punishment to deal with terrorism.
I conclude with these points. First, we must consider what changes there have been over the past 20 years. One change has been the immense growth of the media—television, radio and the press — and the almost complete removal of privacy. The media's impact in rousing public feeling on the occasion of an execution would be many times what it was in the days before the abolition of capital punishment. One cannot encourage a deeper feeling for the spirituality of man when he is being influenced all the time by the media dealing with executions in that way. That in itself is a powerful argument against capital punishment.
When one considers what has happened in the few states of the United States that have restored capital punishment, one realises the growth in the influence of the media over the past 20 years. It is seen in the horrifying stories that appear before, during and after an execution, especially when men plead for death, which shows that death is not for them a deterrent. I believe that the impact on people is terrible.
Secondly, I am sure, having listened to these debates for 30 years, that the constant emphasis on capital punishment is preventing us from giving real attention and real resources to the problems of crime in a modern democracy. The Government have done a great deal. At one stage criminals had much greater resources than the police. They had better radio facilities, modern communications, such as the use of motorways and other technical devices as well as more up-to-date firearms. The police have now caught up a great deal. We must recognise that if we really are to tackle the per al problems of the country we must turn our attention to that, instead of automatically saying that the answer is hanging and flogging.
I hope, therefore, that this debate can settle it for this Parliament and for many years to come. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde is right about that — he said that it might be the last time Parliament would vote on the issue—then I warmly support the fact of him having put the motion forward—though I want to see it defeated—I hope for the last time.
I can claim to speak with a certain amount of experience. When one first comes into the House, one faces many pressures in relation to the way in which one should vote. This has therefore become an early test for many of the victors in the recent general election. My career in the House, covering 33 years, has not been entirely without controversy. I think back to debates on Suez, the abolition of resale price maintenance, the European negotiations, the war in the Middle East, the whole reform of the trade union movement and, for more than 20 years, the abolition of capital punishment.
I can say with honesty to every person who has had the privilege of entering the House that, having said clearly where I stood, and having explained to my constituents why I took up the position that I did, they have accepted that as being the right of their Member of Parliament. I hope that that will always be the case. It is the basis of the British constitution; we are not mandated, we cannot be mandated, by a selection committee, by a constituency committee or by the public as whole.
This is the occasion, above all, when we must use our own judgment. I hope that tonight every hon. Member, and particularly new hon. Members, will feel free to use their judgment. I do not believe that the case for the reintroduction of the death penalty has been proved and I therefore urge the House to reject the motion and all the amendments.
The speech of the Home Secretary—a speech similar to two on this subject which I delivered from the same position during the 1970s—left me bewildered. He began by setting out the good, clear, reasonable test of saying, "Let us judge the issues by the test of public safety. Let us, in a way, put old prejudices behind us and look at it afresh from that criterion"—and on the whole I would be prepared to go along with him on that—but he then proceeded, coolly and rationally—and to me persuasively—to destroy the case for capital punishment on all the amendments but one—and then he came to terrorism.
As soon as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did that, he galloped through — as a sort of tribute to differing views in the Cabinet—a catalogue of the case put forward by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and proceeded to face none of the issues invlvoed in that case. He elided off into some general asseverations in which he completely deserted the test of public safety and the rational approach which he had previously applied. He went on to say that terrorist crimes had to be viewed with such repugnance, because they were crimes against the state, that we should not apply those rational tests but should use the final supreme penalty without regard to whether it would work or increase public safety.
There are enormous dangers in that approach. It implies that other crimes, however bestial they may be, are not regarded with the same repugnance. That is a dangerous view to take. It also means that we are moving away from looking at the matter clearly and cooly, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman started by doing. He made a good speech to begin with, but it was fatally flawed and so it became a sorry performance at the end of the clay.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot get away with not answering the questions to clarify his position which were put to him by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and which I shall repeat, because, if he does not answer them, I must tell him, as somebody who has twice occupied his office and spoken from the Dispatch Box in very similar circumstances, that he will be neglecting his duty to the House as Home Secretary.
I shall deal, because it is the essence of the matter, almost exclusively with the terrorism aspect, and I come immediately to the two points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman must answer. First, the vital issue is whether the supreme penalty—if that is what one is to call it — is to be used in Great Britain only or in Northern Ireland as well.
I remember that in a debate in 1974 the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science put forward the extraordinary proposition that it should be used in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland. I say "extraordinary" because the nature of the threat in relation to the population is, on the record, 600 times as great in Northern Ireland as it is in Great Britain.
It is, therefore, an extraordinary proposition to say that it is a uniquely valuable deterrent but that we should use it where the threat is relatively small and not use it where the threat is 600 times greater. There could be no possibility, no basis in logic or morals, of doing that.
If, in the United Kingdom as a whole, including Northern Ireland, it were to apply, how would we obtain convictions? As we know, trials for terrorism in Northern Ireland are by the so-called Diplock courts, judges without juries, because it is almost impossible to get jury convictions for terrorism in the Province. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that one could hang a man or woman—
Is the Home Secretary saying that, for the first time for centuries, one could hang a man or woman in a part of the United Kingdom without a jury trial?
Those are the two points on which we must have the clear view of the Home Secretary. Let me make the questions absolutely clear, so that there is no question of his dodging them. Is he proposing that the death penalty should be used in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Will he therefore abolish the Diplock courts and, if so, how would he hope to get convictions?
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not find it possible to get the answers that he seeks from my speech. Had he listened carefully he would have heard them. However, I am happy to deal with the matter in this way, though it is slightly curious that he should find it necessary to make allegations of an unfounded kind about whether or not one is prepared to answer his points.
I made it clear that I did not think it was possible to distinguish between Great Britain and Northern Ireland for these purposes. I also made it clear that I fully recognised the difficulties in relation to convictions by jury in Northern Ireland and that I did not expect that to be restored. I spoke of one possibility that had been mentioned—not by me, but by those who favoured this course — namely, that trials in Northern Ireland for offences of a capital kind should be conducted, not by a single judge but by a judge with assessors or by a panel of judges.
It was not unreasonable of me to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to clarify that, because I do not think it was clear from his speech to any hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying, having clarified one point totally and satisfactorily, that there would be no distinction on either side of St. George's Channel. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is also saying, and this is less clear—
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be so impatient. He is floating a possible idea and not submitting a clear proposition. He has no idea whether the procedure of a judge and assessors would work, and he has no idea whether the judiciary would accept it. However, he is proposing that in the peculiarly delicate circumstances of Northern Ireland there should be hanging—as I have said, this would be for the first time for centuries—without trial by jury. That is one of the most extraordinary propositions that a Home Secretary or any other Cabinet Minister has ever put before the House.
That is a relevant question, but it would probably be better if the hon. Gentleman were to put it to the Home Secretary in his own speech. I do not think that the system which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed would work. If we are to have capital punishment for terrorist crimes, and if we are to extend that to Northern Ireland, we shall have to return to trial by jury in Northern Ireland. That will result almost certainly in terrorists being hanged occasionally, with the most dangerous repercussive effects. The majority of terrorists would be acquitted and be free to carry on their nefarious trade.
I have no doubt that the dangerous repercussive effects of judicial killing for terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland, or in this country, would be there, and strongly there. That is why Viscount Whitelaw, as he now is, abolished it in 1972. His reasons are set out in the statement that he put before the House in that year. Those reasons have convinced everyone, with the exception of one individual, who has had any responsibility in Northern Ireland over the past decade or so that many innocent lives might be endangered by employing judicial killing.
I had to deal wth hunger srikes, including the hunger strike of the Price sisters, and I was enormously aware of the dangers, which cannot be remotely underestimated. The Price sisters were two girls who threatened to kill themselves. If the issue had been whether they were to be killed on the gallows, think how much more explosive the position would have been. Is there a balance between a dangerous repercussive effect and a deterrent effect? None of us is moving in a realm of absolute certainty, but that seems a particularly difficult case to argue in terms of terrorists, especially Irish terrorists.
A hunger strike that will lead to death is an immensely powerful and obvious example that is present in all our minds, and so I shall not weary the House with it. However, no one can pretend that being an Irish terrorist is to have a safe occupation. Irish terrorists kill themselves by the hundreds, and always have done. In the psychosis of Northern Ireland terrorism, death is very much the basis of the trade. No doubt the primary desire of terrorists is to deal it out to others, but on the whole they are willing for it to be part of their grisly trade. The position of the funeral in the mythology of Irish terrorism is an eloquent tribute to that.
There are some who will say that those considerations apply only to the hard core of fanatics. They acknowledge that by hanging we might create a few perversely triumphant martyrs, but argue that the essential supporting baggage team would be deterred. I do not agree with that argument. For example, we cannot hang landladies who provide safe houses. We cannot hang mothers who shelter their sons. We cannot hang women who shelter their husbands. We cannot hang boys of 13, 14 or 15, and they would be increasingly involved in terrorism. No one is suggesting that we would do so and we must not pretend that we could. There is no question of the House or the country doing that. That being said, do not let us pretend that we can deter the baggage train. Do not let us pretend that we can do something that we cannot. Let us not deceive ourselves that we can create a great weapon of deterrence, only to face the humiliation of seeing it break in our hands.
Irish terrorists may be the primary problem, but the problem does not end there. One of the last acts of judicial execution in western Europe was carried out in Spain, where five terrorists were executed in October 1975. What was the deterrent effect? Nine policemen were shot in the following two weeks. I am convinced that hanging or any other form of judicial killing for terrorism would increase public danger rather than increase public safety. I do not go as far as that in respect of the amendments, but the case in favour of them is unproven.
I, too, have had responsibility for the police. We all have a great regard for their exposed position. I am convinced that if the police were to De singled out for protection and girl bank clerks who resisted armed robbery were not, public-police co-operation would be damaged. That co-operation is crucial to the success of the police in the front line in the fight against crime.
If we look back over the history of the capital punishment controversy, I think the House will agree that the Bentley case, a police shooting case, was one of three cases to drive nails into the case for capital punishment and led to its abolition in the mid-1960s. In my two periods as Home Secretary I was concerned with it least 10 cases of capital conviction. There was no capital punishment in all of them, because the sentence did not exist throughout my time as Home Secretary. However, hanging took place in some of the 10 cases where the convictions were either clearly wrong or where there was a lingering flicker of doubt. There were only 186 capital convictions in the 20 years after the war when capital punishment existed, but the ratio of doubt to certainty was too high. The finality of the punishment is too great for the certainty of human judgment.
I hope that the House will vote clearly and consistently on all the propositions before it. There are some who might say that it would not matter if one or two votes went in contrary directions, but if proposed legislation were framed in that way it would never pass through Parliament. I certainly do not think that it would if the Home Secretary had responsibility for drafting it. That may be a tempting proposition for those who, like myself, do not wish the majority of the Government's legislative programme to pass through the House, but it would not be good in general. It would be bad for the Government's position, bad for Parliament, bad for the integrity of the law and bad for the protection of the public. Let us settle the issue in all its aspects, and let us do so now. We are a new Parliament and we have all been in recent contact with our constituencies. Presumably we have all made our views clear on these issues—certainly I have. Let us give a clear answer to the motion and all the amendments.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a debate on a private Member's motion, so presumably there will be no Government reply. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) raised two most important questions on which the House must know the view of the Home Secretary before it can make a judgment. The first question has been answered, but we do not know the answer to the second one about Northern Ireland and what judicial process, without a system of trial by jury, the Home Secretary recommends should be used before the death penalty is imposed. Will there be an opportunity for the Home Secretary to speak again in the debate to make that vital position plain?
There are many in the House who are both more experienced and more eloquent than me, so I intend to be brief.
I shall vote in favour of the return of capital punishment. In doing so, I should like to challenge two of the criticisms that were made, one by the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who seemed to imply that all the morality in the debate was on the other side. It is not. The other criticism that is frequently made is that those of us who support capital punishment are seeking vulgar popularity and playing to the gallery. Some of those people may glory in this horrible and gruesome business, but I am not one of them.
For me, to vote in favour is to vote with great sadness. Had I been in the House in the 1960s I would have voted for abolition. At that time, it seemed to be a humane act, a great and wise act. I wish that it had worked. Suppose that since then crimes of violence had declined in number, weapons had become almost unknown in crime and the number of murders had become minuscule. By standing the figures on their head in that way, we can see what terrible things have been happening in society.
Reference has been made to the number of murders, but whether someone dies is a matter of circumstance—whether he is near a hospital or the surgeon is skilled enough. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly drew attention to the overall level of violence. I have the report of the chief constable of the county of Derbyshire for 1982, which covers my constituency. Derbyshire is a pleasant and attractive area. By no means could it be said to have the problems of our great cities, including Glasgow. Last year there were four murders, three of which were cleared up. There were two manslaughters, both of which were cleared up. Recently there were two nasty murders in Derbyshire. The level of violent crime in Derbyshire has been rising steadily. Since 1978 — in other words, in the five years for which we have figures —the level of violent crime has gone up by 18·5 per cent. In 1982 it had risen 5·5 per cent. since 1981. That is the tragedy of our society today.
Something is wrong. We seem to have become a lawless and dangerous society in which brutality no longer shocks but becomes commonplace, and in which the carrying of weapons of all kinds in the furtherance of crime has become an every-day matter. From many people there is the cry that something must be done. Our sense of natural justice is offended. My sense of natural justice is offended by the feeling that there is no appropriate response. Why should decent citizens go in fear of their lives? If the abolition of capital punishment has anything to do with it or is in any way to blame, and if any criminal sees its disappearance as condoning his activity, its return may help to reverse that trend.
I accept that the return of capital punishment alone is not enough. It is what the philosophers call necessary but not sufficient. Other action is urgently needed. I would support reform of the shotgun laws, the Bail Act 1976 and other measures, but capital punishment is seen by many as an essential element in the return of a firm approach to deal with crime and the criminal at the worst and most evil edge of our society.
Therefore, the death penalty would be a deterrent to all violence, just as its absence has been seen as condoning it. A successful vote for its return would state more clearly than anything else that we could do our abhorrence of violence and its results.
I well understand the deep feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I appreciate the emotion that underlay her words, but the issue must be decided not by emotion or feelings and not even by instinct, but as a result of a careful, objective and dispassionate analysis of the facts. That is the way in which the House should proceed. It is the way in which the House has proceeded in the past.
There are strong moral arguments against the reintroduction of capital punishment, but apart from them the practical arguments against the reintroduction of hanging are powerful and overwhelming. Capital punishment is inappropriate as a penalty and ineffective as a deterrent. Those who commit the overwhelming majority of murders in a family or domestic circumstances in a spasm of emotion or a fit of rage or as a result of mental instability are not likely to kill again. In fact, most of them commit suicide shortly after they have committed the murder. In any event, they are not susceptible to an act of deterrence. The penalty would be inappropriate and ineffective for most murders.
Therefore, we have to search for other categories of offenders for whom capital punishment might act as a deterrent. It is at this point that the debate becomes absurd and riddled with anomalies and totally indefensible injustices. For example, two of the amendments suggest that capital punishment should be available for the murder of a policeman or prison officer in the course of his duty. I do not wish to minimise the importance of the job carried out by policemen or prison officers, but I cannot accept that their lives are any more valuable than the life of a sub-postmistress or a security guard. I cannot even accept that they are in greater danger of death or disability than, for example, miners or construction workers. The evidence does not suggest that the return of capital punishment for the murder of policemen or prison officers is likely to act as a deterrent. The figures for the deaths of those two categories of individuals have not substantially changed since the Homicide Act 1957. The average is that, every year since 1957, there have been no murders to two murders of policmen, with the exception of two years.
The same consideration applies to the suggestion that capital punishment should be available for murders by shooting or explosions. Neither I nor my constituents can accept that they are any more despicable a means of killing people than a slow death by strangulation, garrotting or cutting someone's throat. The same considerations apply to murder during a theft. Why is a murder in the course of theft more horrendous, despicable or shocking than murder in the course of rape? Why is it more shocking than the murder of a child? Of course it is not.
What hon. Members who support the motion and its amendments are asking is that we erect a hierarchy of murder and establish a scale with the more despicable murders at one end and the least repugnant at the other end. It is not possible to do that and if it were it would be indefensible and invidious. Those considerations apply most powerfully and convincingly to the suggestion that we reintroduce capital punishment for murders carried out in the course of terrorism. I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that that is the least defensible of the amendments.
It is extraordinary and amazing, as the right hon. Member almost said, that the Home Secretary should suggest in a convoluted way and without substantial logic, evidence or experience that we should vote for the return of capital punishment for terrorism. Such an action is most likely to cause more innocent lives to be lost. It would be utterly unacceptable for a man's life to be taken judicially without the unanimous verdict of a jury. With a jury, it would be difficult if not impossible to obtain and sustain a conviction.
In any event, terrorists are by their nature unlikely to be deterred by capital punishment. They risk their lives every day that they carry a bomb or fire a weapon. They risk their lives to the extent that 229 of them have been killed while committing terrorist actions in the past 14 years. In 1981, another 10 took their lives by a long slow, agonising and painful process. Such men are not likely to be deterred by the thought of a British Government taking their lives in cold blood by judicial means. For the Government to do that would be to make martyrs and heroes of them. That would be utterly unacceptable to the British people.
We all know what happened as a result of the deaths of the 10 hunger strikers. We know of the sympathy that was wrongly aroused for them throughout the world and the enormous sums of money that poured into the IRA's coffers from Britain and especially the United States because 10 terrorists chose to take their own lives slowly. If that can happen, how much worse would it be if the British Government were seen to be taking those lives after a long, considered, and calculated assessment of the evidence? The consequences would be horrendous in terms of the taking of hostages and reprisals on the lives of innocent people.
The Home Secretary is wrong, as are those who support amendment (e), to suggest that, by reintroducing the death penalty for acts of terrorism, we would reduce terrorism or the number of innocent lives that are lost. Exactly the reverse would be the case. Those hon. Members who might be attracted to amendment (e), not least because it has been given official approval by the Home Secretary, must weigh carefully whether such an act is likely to lead to more rather than less violence and more rather than fewer deaths. I suggest that more innocent lives would be lost. For those reasons and many others, I ask hon. Members not to be beguiled by the Home Secretary's erroneous arguments.
There are powerful arguments against following the Home Secretary's suggestion. There are also strong arguments against the reintroduction of capital punishment for any of the other categories. The debate is a side show. What we are discussing is irrelevant to the real problems. The real issues are unemployment and the serious rise in serious crime. We should be addressing ourselves to those issues. We delude ourselves if we believe that by passing any of the amendments or the motion we shall solve any of the real problems or make any significant contribution to the reduction, which we all want, in serious crime. In any event, the return of capital punishment is another Victorian practice that is favoured by the Prime Minister that the country can well do without.
For once, I can agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) when he says that these issues should not be decided on emotional grounds. I agree agree with him and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that we are discussing ally one part of the much wider subject of crime and punishment and that it is one which sometimes obscures the other issues. However, that does not in any way detract from the fact that on its own this is a subject of immense importance to the House and the country.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that decisions on this issue are entirely a matter for individual judgment. But from there I part company with him and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. My judgment is that the ultimate penalty should be part of the armoury of weapons with which the state should be equipped to protect its citizens from the risk of being murdered. In that judgment there is none of the morbid preoccupation of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke, and which seemed to characterise so much of what he said—and so much of what the tight hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said. Nor is there the least element of a thirst for blood or revenge in my decision. I have formed the view which I shall now try to express by having listened in the House over the years to hours and hours of what I have always thought to be some o of the best debates we have, in which hon. Members speak independently from their heads and their hearts.
I have reached my conclusions on two practical grounds. First, I believe that the ultimate penalty is a deterrent. I entirely accept that there is no way in which to prove that absolutely but, heavens above, there is nothing new about that. Many things proved in court to the complete satisfaction of either the judge or the jury on much less than absolute cast-iron evidence. One does not normally get it. We have to approach the point in a practical way. No punishment deters everyone. Prison does not deter everyone. It ought to deter many people whom it does not deter, but I have not the least doubt that it does deter many people. Of course, the ultimate penalty does not deter, for instance, those who take the risk of killing quite deliberately. There are quite a lot of them. Nor does it deter the person who kills in a moment of passion. But I do believe that there must have been a substantial number of people who were deterred from killing, the thought having gone through their minds, by fear of the penalty.
The police gave us cogent evidence on this. In the early days during the debates about abolition, they said that the sophisticated up-market gangs who went for the big stuff would dismiss any of the gang who put a pistol in his pocket, because they knew the risks and how quickly a gun can be used even though its use was not intended, and how easily the entire gang could become liable to the death penalty. The police told us that if we removed that sanction such gangs would carry guns. They have been proved right. What we were told, what has happened and the logic of the argument impresses me. There is no way in which to measure deterrence but I am convinced, having listened to the arguments for many years, that the death penalty was and would be a substantial deterrent. In my view, those who are at risk of being killed, and those whose duty it is to protect them, are entitled to demand of the state that it includes that deterrent in its armoury.
When I explain my second reason, I dare say that some people will accuse me of talking about retribution and revenge, but I am not. There are some killings that are so evil and deliberate that the only appropriate punishment —if we still think in terms of punishment, and I do—and the only form of expiation of sins—if we still think in those old-fashioned terms, and I do—is the exacting of the life of the person who took life.
Of course, I recognise the difficulties and the arguments put forward equally sincerely by others. I have considered those arguments over the years as carefully as I can. The possibility of mistakes is the most serious and places a heavy burden on those who have to administer the law when there is the ultimate penalty to ensure that there is no mistake. I recognise too the difficulty of identifying in which cases the penalty should be used, but here I differ in my conclusion from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I shall vote for all of the categories not because I want to see the death penalty in all of them but because I think we have first to decide the question in principle, and then get down to the identification of cases to which it is to be applicable. Once the principle has been decided, that second stage is of enormous importance.
I also recognise that questions must arise about the form of execution and its humanity or inhumanity. However, I think that the opponents of capital punishment too often overlook something. We are talking about taking life, but which is worse — leaving the State to take life in a humane way or to take somebody's life over 30 years, locked up in a cell with no liberty and disintegrating?
I see a sneer from a Member opposite but I ask hon. Members just to think about this. In these debates we have heard how, after 10 years in prison, a human being begins to cease to be a human being, disintegrates and becomes a cabbage. Those who say that execution is inhumane must not draw the line there, but in espousing the alternative, locking somebody up for their natural life, must accept the inhumanity of that too.
While my right hon. and learned Friend is on this point, will he give us the benefit of his advice on, and knowledge of, a suggestion recently made that murderers who are particularly evil frequently take the lives of their fellow citizens while in prison and also those of warders and prison officers?
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not develop that but it is something that has become more common since the repeal of capital punishment. Somebody in prison for the whole of his life has nothing to lose. However, I shall leave that point for others to develop, as I wish to be brief.
Execution in the case of terrorism is perhaps the most difficult part of the problem. Why is it different? First, it is because the acts in question are so often about as evil as one could possibly imagine. What could be more evil than blowing up a group of bandsmen in the park, or in fact worse still, of course, going to the door of a house and shooting the father in front of his children and wife as so often happens? Acts of terrorism are usually among the most evil that one can imagine, but that is not the end of the special seriousness of these acts. The motive for which they are carried out is to terrify people out of what they want to do or into doing what they do not want to do. It is the most direct intervention with the liberty of the subject by the most violent and evil conduct. If we are to have this penalty for anybody, why should we ever think of not having it for those who commit such evil crimes for such atrocious motives?
I have come from looking at three charred bodies and the body of another of my constituents. Those four were brutally murdered today by the IRA. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there are many hon. Members in this debate who seem to be more concerned about the guilty than about the innocent, and that the House owes it to the nation and to the widows and orphans of the innocent to ensure that the murderer is put down and the innocent are allowed to live?
The hon. Gentleman has confirmed by a specific instance what I was saying about the evil nature of so many of these acts. However, I am sure that he will forgive me if I complete my speech in my own way.
Two reasons are given to show why one should not apply the death penalty to those who commit acts of terrorism. One is that we shall make martyrs, but this is the most upside-down argument I have ever heard. If some people are so evil that they will make martyrs of the people who have committed such evil, so be it. I do not believe that any significant number of right-thinking people will glorify such people.
The other and most serious reason given against executing terrorists, and the right hon. Member for Hillhead seemed to be getting close to it, is that we dare not do it because it would create more violence and there would be reprisals. I beg of the House one thing. If the House should reject capital punishment for terrorists, let it be made clear beyond any doubt whatever that it was not fear of reprisals that stopped us from doing it, for if it were to be thought that we were not doing it because we feared the consequences terrorism would indeed have scored an effective and important victory.
I was sorry to hear the intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, (Rev. William McCrea), which seemed to suggest that those who support capital punishment believe that the opponents have no sympathy for the victim and are concerned only with the murderer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who are opposed to capital punishment—I am one of them—feel as deeply and as passionately as anybody else about the victims. There just happens to be a difference of view about what can be done about it.
We should be tough with violent crime. I am the only hon. Member who has introduced a Bill—this was some time ago—advocating that society should have the right of appeal against lenient sentences so that heavier sentences could be imposed on criminals. The Bill was defeated, but my proposal was that society should be able to appeal for heavier sentences, just as the criminal can appeal for lighter ones.
The right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) based his argument on two practical considerations, and I wish similarly to base my case for not restoring capital punishment on two practical considerations. I ask those hon. Members who are in doubt about voting tonight to bear in mind the experience of my constituent, Mr. John Preece, who was convicted of the murder of a woman in Scotland. He was released eight years afterwards when it was discovered that the evidence on which he was convicted was bogus.
John Preece was convicted, not on some vague identification or some uncertain circumstantial evidence, but on the calm, cool, scientific evidence of a Home Office forensic scientist. Could anything be more impeccable than that? That was what the jury thought and convicted him of murder. Later, Dr. Clift, the forensic scientist, was discredited, both as a scientist and as a witness, by the Scottish Court of Appeal. His evidence was totally discredited.
If John Preece could be convicted on such evidence, which appeared to be foolproof, is it not much more certain that other people could be wrongly convicted? If there had been capital punishment when John Preece was convicted, he would almost certainly be a rotting corpse in a prison graveyard now, rather than walking the streets of Stoke-on-Trent.
That is just one example. There have been many more wrongful convictions. The House of Commons should not take it upon itself to impose such a risk, and such a shocking injustice, on innocent people, but that is what we shall do if we vote for the reintroduction of capital punishment.
Furthermore, I do not believe that capital punishment is a deterrent either to those who murder in hot blood or to those who murder in cold blood. By definition, those who murder in hot blood are not responsible for their actions and very few civilised societies accept that they should go to the gallows. Those who murder in cold blood regard death as an occupational hazard. In some cases they regard it as a qualification for martyrdom. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that terrorists will be deterred by capital punishment.
I was horrified by the Home Secretary's comments about the death penalty for terrorists, although not because I have the slightest sympathy for terrorists—either IRA terrorists or any of the other terrorists who come to Britain from all over the world. What will happen if a terrorist is condemned to hang as the result of our vote tonight? Hostages will be taken, and the Government will have to decide whether to go ahead with the execution of that terrorist or whether, in view of the threat to hostages, to back off. The British Government ware faced with that dilemma in Palestine when terrorists captured two British sergeants and the Government said, "We will not give in to blackmail." "Fine" said the terrorists "in that case your two British soldiers will die"—and die they did.
Let us assume that capital punishment is restored and that in a few months' time a terrorist is found guilty and sentenced to death. Terrorists from some countries are really ruthless. They will do the job properly. Let us realistically assume that they kidnap a dozen women and six children and threaten to kill those women and children if the condemned man is hanged. What would we do? No British Government can give way to blackmail, but no British Government could allow the death of 12 innocent women and six innocent children. That dilemma would have been created by those Members who voted for the restoration of capital punishment for terrorists.
I believe that terrorists should be punished very severely, but let us not send them to the gallows. That would only give them what they want and put the British Government in an impossible position. Those are the practical considerations which I would like the House to consider.
The call for capital punishment is a cry from the heart. It expresses an anxiety to do something about the evil of murder, and it must therefore be respected, but it is the wrong solution. It is impractical and does not deal with the real problem, which can be solved only by tackling the root of crime, by improving our police forces and by making many necessary improvements in our urban areas. Capital punishment is a dramatic, flawed and entirely false solution to the problem of capital crime.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) on giving us an opportunity to debate a subject of serious concern to the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom. For many years there have been outbursts from the people that the punishment for crime has been far too lenient. Public outcry has followed the sentences for such crimes as the murder of policemen and prison officers, the rape of women and children leading to their death, and the murder of members of the' general public because of the personal desires of political fanatics. It is small wonder that an estimated 87 per cent. of the total adult population have called for capital punishment to be made available to the courts again and I fully support that view.
During the past few weeks the media have consistently used the expressions "bringing back the rope" or "hanging", and today the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) also used such expressions. There is no reference in the motion to the rope or to hanging or to the method by which capital punishment should be carried out.
The question is very simple. Will the supporters of the motion tell us what alternative method they have in mind? They have carefully sought to negate their arguments by saying that they are not talking about the rope, yet they will not say what they are talking about.
If the hon. Gentleman had waited for a few seconds he would have heard my answer I am confident that the judges and the men and women on the juries would be able to find a sufficient deterrent to fit the crime that had been carried out. I envisage punishment being meted out by people in the courts.
We must consider whether the restoration of capital punishment would be a sufficient deterrent to reduce the number of murders committed in the various categories that I have mentioned. We are discussing not only the criminal who commits solely one murder, but the restoration of the death penalty to deter terrorists who murder for their own political ends.
I am well aware that, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, the word "terrorist" is used mainly in the context of Northern Ireland. Like the Home Secretary, I wish to make it clear that the demand for the restoration of capital punishment for acts of terrorism applies to the United Kingdom. I need not remind hon. Members of the London and Birmingham bombings, the bus in Yorkshire, the pub in Guildford, the bandsmen in the park or the Horse Guards—to name but a few. All those killings, and many others, were carried out by those political fanatics, who kill without any thought for the lives that they destroy or for the misery that they leave with the bereaved families for the rest of their lives.
Those terrorists commit such acts because they are well aware that there is no deterrent that they will have to face if they are caught that will result in their deaths My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that if we restore capital punishment for acts of terrorism that will affect Ireland more than any other area. I remind my right hon. Friend that it was he who presented the case in the House for the setting up of a Northern Ireland Assembly and urged us to vote in favour of it, on the basis that it would be a democratic vehicle to express Ulster's views.
I hope that it has not gone unnoticed by my right hon. Friend that last week the Assembly voted by 35 to 11 for the restoration of capital punishment, to include terrorism. My right hon. Friend set up that Assembly so that it could express its point of view about Ulster. If we say no to the amendment that I have tabled, along with other hon. Members, to the effect that capital punishment should be restored for acts of terrorism, we virtually concede victory to the terrorists.
The whole principle of terrorism, wherever it is carried out, is that by threatening death to members of the public, to police and prison officers, and to men from all services, its perpetrators can influence our political opinions. They therefore use the death penalty as their own deterrent to achieve their own ends. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is so concerned about this matter, why cannot he give us factual information to show that the number of terrorist activities in the Province is being reduced?
What about the man who has committed 20 murders in Ireland and cannot be found? What about intelligence, and the fact that we are unable to detect those who carry out terrorist activities? A man has committed 20 murders in the Province, yet he has not been located. Where is the intelligence service on that?
If it is accepted that terrorism will increase, it must also be accepted that it is high time that we managed to arrest those who carry out such a massive number of murders. It was not outwith the bounds of possibility for the Yorkshire Ripper to be captured, and it should therefore not be outwith the bounds of possibility for a criminal who has committed 20 murders to be apprehended as a result of intelligence work.
Another argument against the restoration of capital punishment for terrorism is that the hunger strikers were prepared to die for their cause, but do not let us forget — as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said—that they stopped at 10. They did so because they believed that the Government would stick to their policy and not give way to their demands. Who could name any one of those 10, with the exception of Bobby Sands? What can be said in truth is that they inflicted capital punishment upon themselves without the necessity of legislation.
If the amendment concerning those deaths that result from acts of terrorism is accepted, that will not suddenly stop the activities of the terrorists in Britain or Northern Ireland. On the contrary, it will give those cowards an additional incentive. But if we approach the matter properly, it will last only for a limited period. At present they have the capacity to carry on undetected, but they do not carry out their heinous crimes every day. If they could blow up the whole Household Cavalry they would do so right away, in one fell swoop. They would carry out bombings every day of the week. However, they do not do so because they want to create the impression that they are gentlemen and only do things now and again to prove their capability. Those terrorists try to create the impression that they are decent people. The concept that such men are brave in their comrades' eyes is bogus when one considers the cowards that they are. They commit their crimes only when they know that there is no chance of being caught or of any harm coming to them. They would carry on—just as the hunger strikers did—only until they reached a stage at which they could call it off, because by that time the deterrent will have been seen to be effective. If their own deaths were assured by their activities they would abandon those activities, because there are only so many martyrs who are prepared to go to their deaths. Those martyrs certainly do not include the leaders. Oh no; they stand back and direct the activities of highly trained fanatics who little realise the risk that they run and who have been brainwashed to think that it is all for the cause.
Those terrorists are trained to inflict the maximum damage without detection. They are trained by the PLO, in Lebanon and in Russia. Their training consists of an unusual political fanaticism. They are the fifth column of world domination by Communism. To them, death is irrelevant, and so their acts of terrorism justify the application of capital punishment that we seek. Cowardice is the character of these beasts and the only way to deter them is to place that power with the courts, to ensure that they will never again have an opportunity to repeat their acts. Such sentences will help to stop murder, but will not necessarily prevent it. There will always be those who act as vicious killers, and until they are caught such killings will continue.
If the House approves the restoration of capital punishment, the thought of the death penalty being applied might strike fear into the hearts of those terrorists. We must put an end to terrorism and to the violence that leads to murder. Those who oppose the restoration of capital punishment have produced all sorts of bogus figures in an endeavour to substantiate their case, but the sad fact is that between 1945 and 1964 there was no increase in the number of offences of murder and homicide that were made known to the police, despite the large increase in other crimes.
I hope that the Howard League for Penal Reform, which challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and me to produce figures for the increases, will note that the post-1964 position showed a substantial rise to a new plateau that was almost double the pre-1964 figure. In England and Wales the average for the five years before abolition was 290, while the figure for the most recent five years is 590. In Scotland the comparable annual figure increased from 35 to 81.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde said that there had been a sharp increase in the number of serious offences involving firearms. The total number of notifiable offences in which guns were used increased from 1,734 in 1971 to 8,067 in 1981. In addition, between 1971 and 1981 no fewer than 29 persons were convicted of homicide who had previously been convicted of that crime.
Those who oppose restoration say that the European Court of Human Rights would not permit the United Kingdom to reintroduce capital punishment. That is not true, because the European Court could not unreasonably delay hearing cases of capital punishment that were brought before it. Article 2 of the declaration excludes national capital punishment from its remit.
It is clearly established, and because of the public outcry should be accepted in that spirit, that capital punishment for terrorism is a unique deterrent. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) mentioned the dastardly act that was committed this morning in County Tyrone, in Northern Ireland, in which four UDA soldiers were killed by a remote-controlled bomb.
I am grateful for the correction. I wanted to get the message home that the four UDR soldiers, who were in a convoy of five vehicles, were killed by a remote-controlled bomb detonated by a terrorist organisation. The IRA is said:to have admitted responsibility. It threatened to take such action on the day of this debate. That not only illustrates its utter cowardice, but should be a sharp lesson to all hon. Members that the Province of Ulster must be protected from those beasts.
The people in that Province are entitled to as much protection as others in the United Kingdom. We would be failing in our duty as elected representatives of the public if we did not take the necessary action to safeguard the lives of our people. If we turned our heads and looked in the other direction, the terrorists would consider that the House was afraid to end the terrible outrages.
The terrorists must not drive fear into our hearts or coerce us into taking a decision adverse to the restoration of capital punishment. We have been elected to govern this country and we have not only the responsibility but othe duty to ensure that terrorist activities are stopped. I hope that hon. Members will support this amendment.
I wish to quote statements made in the House and in the other place during previous debates. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone said during the Lords debate in 1974:
I believe that when we end the day, sooner or later we have to recognise that society has the right and the duty to take human life deliberately on occasion. In our time we have fought two just wars. We recognise the right of self-defence and the right to take human life to save an innocent person by way of defence of that innocent life. In the last resort I believe that. if society refuses in the end to allow this sanction to the judicial process as an ultimate resort, as the least of evils in certain irreducible cases, eventually we shall lose the values which we all desire to defend." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 1974; Vol. 355, c. 809.]
The noble lord may have changed his mind, but his views in 1974 are relevant today. The facts are relevant today.
The late John Mackintosh, a much respected Member of the House until his untimely death, said during the 1975 debate:
We in this House must think carefully before we reject an opinion which is widely spread outside."—[Official Report, 11 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 675.]
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in that debate:
The IRA makes it quite clear that it considers capital punishment to be a deterrent. Why else does it administer capital punishment as the ultimate sanction against those who break its code? … O'Connell, the IRA leader, considered it necessary on the day we debated this subject about 12 months ago to threaten this House with the death of two British soldiers for every terrorist sentenced to death." — [Official Report, 11 December 1975, Vol. 902, c. 666–67.]
His views and those of others that I have quoted should be heeded by any Member who has not yet come to a decision on how he should vote this evening. The public demand action from us and we must not fail them. [Interruption.] It is a sad reflection on the House that such a subject should be treated with levity by Opposition Members.
Finally, let us remember the late Rev. Robert Bradford., who was brutally murdered while helping his constituents. I also ask all right hon. and hon. Members, before they go through the Division Lobbies, to glance at the plaque above the entrance to the Chamber in memory of Airey Neave, who was killed within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster by terrorist activity. If ever there was a case for the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist activity, that plaque symbolises it.
Order. I remind the House that many right hon. and hon. Members who have strong views wish to address the House, and 21-minute speeches will prevent them from so doing.
Until the speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) we heard a succinct review of all the arguments that can be rehearsed in a debate on capital punishment. Inevitably, most were not innovatory and those of us who have been Members of the House for a long time are familiar with them. Indeed, we all have a sense of déjà vu.
I wish to draw attention to one matter which seems not to have been emphasised, but rather under-emphasised, if indeed mentioned at all. The churches have sent us a communication. The British Council of Churches has stated its continued opposition to capital punishment and has given three reasons for it. The third reason includes this statement:
Since some find the thought of execution morbidly fascinating, capital punishment may positively excite a potential killer, and also be unwholesome in its emotional impact on others.
I do not dismiss the experience of the churches in putting forward the proposition that, far from being a deterrent, in some cases hanging is an attraction. That accords with my experience, and there can be few hon. Members left in this House with experience of dealing with those charged with murder while hanging was still the ultimate penalty. I, with many of my professional colleagues, discovered that those bizarre men, who do not possess the rationality that hon. Members sometimes attribute to them, continually resisted our legitimate attempts to save them from the rope. The more we adumbrated reasons why we could persuade the court that a man had acted with diminished responsibility, the more the killer's resentment grew. It became clear that he resented the attempts of his legal advisers to deny him the ultimate victory, as he saw it, which was to have the major part in the macabre theatre of the gallows.
I am not surprised that the churches seized upon that aspect of the matter, because we must take into account the fact that our community has great difficulty in dealing with the problem of masochism. However, in days gone by, because of the identification with the Passion, many would claim that masochism was dealt with therapeutically. Identification with the Crucifixion meant that masochism could be dealt with in a way that did not bring about far more miserable consequences. If some hon. Members doubt that masochism is widespread, they should look at pornography, where they will see spread forth for them the various, although monotonous, details of bondage. The yearning for punishment is extraordinarily deep-seated. If some hon. Members deny what the churches say, or dismiss as extravagant the suggestion that people could yearn for punishment and seek it—those who kill to die—I can give them some statistics. One third of those who commit murder then commit suicide, which means that they pre-empt the gallows or any other punishment. They kill to die. Those who are naive enough to believe that those people would be deterred by the rope are denying the facts. We would be presenting something to' a band of murderers that is likely to excite and encourage them and which, far from containing murder, is likely to increase it.
The type of people who commit murders such as those with which we are dealing are the violent people in our prisons. Anyone who has experience of prisons knows that they are replete with examples of masochism, such as personal mutilation, the cutting off of fingers, and the grotesque use of razors. Those are commonplace to every criminal lawyer. We live in a society that cannot contain masochism and that uses pornography, not religion, to deal with it. Some say that hanging is a deterrent, but it is highly probable that it would be an attraction and would increase, not decrease, the incidence of murder.
Those who deny that are seeking to repudiate an uncomfortable phenomenon. If we examine how convicted terrorists are prepared to rationalise their masochism—to have it elevated to the claim that their acts are socially useful, nationalistic and libertarian, as they see them—we see how readily they die. If we have a culture of martyrdom, where those emphases can be so distorted that terrorists are created national heroes as a substitute for being beatified, we are in dangerous territory.
In common with all Opposition Members who have spoken, and with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I am astonished that a Home Secretary should expound the extraordinary proposition that an offence against the state is more heinous than an offence against a small child. I would understand such theories if they were being expounded in the Soviet Union. I would understand a Home .Secretary, if there is such a character in eastern Europe, elevating the state above the individual so that a threat to the state would demand the ultimate punishment, whereas a threat to a small child could be regarded as something far less. I do not understand the philosophy, and it causes me grave discomfort that a Home Secretary should advance a proposition that is reminiscent of the doctrines of the Soviet Union. It is certainly not reminiscent of the doctrines of a Western country founded on the principle of the sanctity of the life of every human being.
I do not wish to trespass on the House's time, however tempting it may be to discuss how juries would fail to convict if they were faced with the proposition of determining someone's life or death. However many reasons there may be for capital punishment being unproductive, it is my firm conviction from my clinical experience that, apart from the familial and passionate murders—which presumably no hon. Member would wish to be mandatory capital offences — if we move forward in the way that is proposed, we would add to the burden of the community. It is time that this irrelevancy was put on one side. The actiology of crime is not easy to understand, and to discover the roots of crime is difficult. We find it in the conditions in our inner cities and in our dishevelled family lives. The House should be wrestling with those problems, not squandering its time upon an irrelevancy such as this debate.
I am sure that the House was interested to hear the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) say that the reintroduction of capital punishment, far from deterring murderers, would encourage them. I do not agree with that, and I shall return to the matter in a few moments.
First, I want to deal with an aspect of terrorism which was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and to which quite a number of other speakers have referred. I find myself in disagreement with my right hon. and learned Friend in this matter. As the House will remember, I held the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for two and a half years, and the most serious problem then, as now, was terrorism and terrorist attacks. On this side of the Irish Sea many people consider those terrorists to be the IRA, but they include the Provisional IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red Hand Commando, and so on. All the time that I was there—and, indeed, before—convicted terrorists were seeking to maintain and to get Her Majesty's Government to accept that in some way the crimes that they had committed were different from other crimes and should therefore be treated differently. Not suprisingly, in their view, their crimes were less heinous and should be treated more leniently than crimes committed by other people. They started with the protests in the Maze prison, when the prisoners refused to wear prison clothes, and refused to work or to come out of their cells. When the Government paid no attention to their demands, they increased the level of protest and started to smear their own excreta on the prison walls—the dirty protest, as it was then.
During the whole time that I held that office I was supported by my Cabinet colleagues, by, I am glad to say, the whole House of Commons, and, I think, by the overwhelming majority of the British people, in my belief that there was no reason why those murderers, bombers, arsonists and criminals should be treated differently from anyone else who had committed the same crime for reasons that were not political. Finally, they escalated the process and tried what they believed was their ultimate weapon, before which they thought that we were bound to give way—the hunger strike. We did not give way. In spite of an upsurge in violence, as the figures show, and as all can see, and in spite of the pressure that was brought on us from all over the world—not by Governments, but by groups of people — to concede the point, we refused to do so.
We received support from one particularly influential quarter. In October 1980, the Pope visited the Republic of Ireland. He spoke, as he always does on his remarkable overseas tours, to huge audiences. In particular, he addressed a multitude of people at Drogheda. He was not talking about the death penalty, and I do not suggest for one moment that he did. He talked about the principle of which I have been speaking. His view, expressed in three words, was plain: "murder", he said, " is murder." He was saying that there should be no differentiation. His views helped us, not so much in this country, but in defending our position in countries overseas.
It seems to me that it would be difficult for us, only two years later, completely to abandon the position to which we held so firmly. In fact, it would be more than difficult; it would be morally indefensible. One could not have said —at any rate, I could not have said—in 1981, "Of course, terrorist murderers must be treated the same as every other murderer", and then say in 1983, "Oh no, terrorist murderers are different from other murderers". So, in spite of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, I believe that it would be wrong to vote for amendment (e), and I do not intend to do so.
I come now to the penalty itself. As the hon. Member for Torfaen said, the matter has exercised successive Parliaments. More than 27 years ago I made my maiden speech in this Chamber on this very subject. I do not recommend hon. Members to read it because it was not a particularly good speech, but what I said then I still believe now: the only valid reason that can be put forward for the retention—as it was then—or the reintroduction —as it is now—of capital punishment is its deterrent value. I believed then and I believe now that it will deter some potential murderers.
I wish to say two things straight away. First, I cannot prove it. There is no way to prove it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that we have to prove it. We cannot prove it. It could not be proved then and it cannot be proved now. In fact, my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary, when we discussed the matter last year, said that the only conclusion that one could reach from studying the evidence was inconclusive. In my opinion, he was quite right. So one can rely not on instinct, but only on judgment. After all, that judgment, such as it is, is what we are all sent here to exercise on behalf of our constituents.
There is another aspect of the penalty. I said that I thought that it would deter some potential murderers, but it will not deter all. That is certain. It would not deter the man who, in a sudden upsurge of rage and passion, as a result of circumstances which hit him so hard that his normal processes of thought and reason did not work, decided then and there to kill another human being. It would not stop him, because that man would not be thinking in a reasonable way at the time.
Moreover, I do not believe that it would stop terrorist organisations. Their view of death — or the view of some of their members—is somewhat different. Those who are determined to further their cause at whatever cost, even that of their own lives, will not be stopped. There might be a number of people on the margin who would not join so readily if they felt that it might be the end of their days, but it would have precious little effect on the terrorist organisations. That I freely admit.
There is another facet of terrorism, particularly in Northern Ireland. It has been said, and I wholly agree, that it would not be possible for us to operate the death penalty for murder by terrorists under the present system of trials in Northern Ireland. It would be quite wrong of us to place on the shoulders of one judge the burden of determining not only the man's guilt, but the sentence.
Some hon. Members have been rather gloomy during this debate about the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, saying that there could never be trial by jury. I do not accept that. When I held office there, there was constant pressure—not very serious, but pressure nevertheless—from the Opposition— indeed, from both sides of the House—for me to review the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act in Northern Ireland, which controls the operations of the so-called Diplock courts. I did not do that. However, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State has done it. On his behalf, an inquiry is being conducted by an eminent judge into the operation of the Act.
Regardless of this debate today, I would be surprised if my right hon. Friend did not come to the House in a few months' time to recommend changes. I accept that we would have to make substantial changes in the present system before we could operate the death penalty. Tonight we are being invited to say that this House favours the restoration of the death penalty for murder, which I do, but I accept that it could not be operated until the changes have taken place.
There is another point about terrorism, and it is the idea that if one executes terrorists it makes it easy for them to claim new martyrs. So it does. I agree with that, but they can have martyrs when they like. Today is Wednesday and only last Sunday parades were held in memory of the latest of the martyrs—the first of the hunger strikers to die. He was held up as a great and good man who had died for the cause. If terrorist organisations want martyrs they will get them, even if they have to kill their own people to do it.
We should not be deterred from going ahead with what we think is right.
Another point that was mentioned by two or three hon. Members—I think by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) — was that if a terrorist is condemned to die there will be terrible trouble in the form of kidnappings, reprisal killings and all sorts of difficulties. I feel strongly that if we are to be deterred from doing what we believe to be right by the threat that a small number of people—only about 500—will cause so much trouble that it would not be worth while, that would be the road to anarchy. We must never allow ourselves to be prevented from doing what we think is right by the threat of a small number of people to make life impossible for us. I accept that many hon. Members do not agree with me, but that is not a valid reason for doing nothing. Anybody can find an excuse for doing nothing, but a society that does nothing dies.
The right hon. Gentleman is right, but neither I nor, I suggest, any other hon. Member who has argued that there are likely to be reprisals is suggesting that a British Government should be frightened into cowardice by the threat of IRA action. We are suggesting that in such a situation one must assess what course of action is likely to bring about the greatest reduction in the loss of innocent lives. I was suggesting that the reintroduction of capital punishment for terrorism was likely to increase the number of innocent lives that would be lost rather than to reduce them.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, which shows that I misunderstood the purport of his and other hon. Members' remarks. I thought that he was saying that we should not act because it would create too much trouble.
If those two groups will not be much deterred, who would? There are two obvious groups of people who spring to mind who would be deterred by the thought that if they committed murder and were apprehended they would lose their lives. One is the individual who, for whatever reason, sits down and works out that it is to his advantage to kill another person. I say "sits down and works out" because when he does that he takes into consideration all the relevant factors, and this would be one of them.
The other group does the same, and that is the group of people who set out not to kill somebody but to commit some other crime, usually to steal or rob. They plan big, even small, robberies meticulously and take everything into account. I am convinced that in doing so such people must take into account the penalty that they can expect if they commit murder. If we can think of no higher penalty than capital punishment—I cannot—that must act as a deterrent.
If we can save even a few innocent lives—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not seem to think that mattered very much, but I do—is it not our duty to do so? I believe that it is my duty to do that, which is why I shall vote for the main motion tonight.
I gave every attention to what the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) said, but may we return to the basic proposition because that inevitably, clearly and logically embraces all the others? If we believe—some of the Home Secretary's remarks before the end of his speech on the use of the death penalty for terrorists were inclined in this direction—that it is wrong in principle, or wrong because there is no evidence that it would act as a deterrent, to reintroduce the death penalty, none of the categories within the amendments on which we shall be voting tonight can be made an exception to that general principle. That is the logic of the situation.
To go on from that point, the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne and many others have said clearly that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other about how far capital punishment might, if reintroduced, act as a deterrent. There is much evidence to show that it does not act as a deterrent. Indeed, the tenor of the arguments that have come from those who are likely to support the reintroduction of the death penalty tonight, as emerged from the speech of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne, is that there may not be any evidence but that they feel in their bones that it would be a deterrent.
I am sure that such hon. Members would agree that that is not a matter of logic. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a matter of judgment, although judgment based not on facts or evidence but on something that is felt in one's bones. I shall not go deeply into how far capital punishment might be effective as a deterrent for terrorists. Many convincing arguments have already been produced to counter suggestions that it is. I merely want to say that if we are in doubt, as clearly we are, about whether capital punishment can ever be a deterrent there is no factual evidence to support that proposition with regard to terrorists. We have not had sufficient experience since the Homicide Act 1957 and Sydney Silverman's Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. I was privileged to be in the House at that time, although not at the time of the 1957 Act.
We must make our own judgments in this House, quite rightly, but it is interesting that other countries which have come to considered conclusions about dealing with terrorism—for example, West Germany—have decided that the reintroduction of the death penalty would not deter or reduce terrorism. That is why, if we were to vote in what is in my view the wrong way tonight, we would be the only country in western Europe, apart from Turkey, to have capital punishment. That is why — not that we should necessarily be influenced by others—there have been letters from the president of the European Parliament, why the synod of the Church voted as it did, and why the barristers have said what they have. They have judgments too, and I venture to suggest that some of their judgments may be a little better informed than those of some hon. Members from whom we have heard today. I do not include the right hon. Member for Spelthorne.
We must accept and be clear about the fact that there is no difference in our concern about those crimes that it is proposed this evening should warrant the death penalty. There is no lack of concern among the abolitionists who do not wish to see the death penalty restored for matters such as deaths in Northern Ireland and in Hyde park, the murders of old ladies and young children, and for all the horrors with which we are all too familiar at the moment. Nor is there any difference in the concern that is felt about the increasing use of firearms or other manifestations of increasing violence in our society. We should all do ourselves the honour of accepting that we share that concern.
The degree of concern is not the indicator of how we shall vote tonight. What matters is how we approach the use of violence and firearms. I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that—I paraphrase a little—if we get this issue out of the way once and for all, we can begin to approach the problems of increasing violence and find the appropriate solutions. While we are all intimidated by the question whether we should vote in favour of a return to capital punishement, we shall not be able to approach these questions clearly.
We can look at the ways in which we can approach the subject of criminality. We can try to reform people, as we do in many cases, often successfully, and we can seek to deter. One piece of evidence that has never been contradicted is that the most powerful deterrent is the certainty of detection and being brought to trial. That is incontrovertible.
That leads me to the subject of more money for the police, what the police should be doing, and so on. One view is that the so-called preventive penalties should be imposed on criminals. Much importance should be attached to that. The person who is capable of committing violence upon another human being can be cold and calculating, someone who commits a crime of passion or psychopathic. I find it incomprehensible that anyone capable of crimes of violence can be other than, at the very least, deeply disturbed. I cannot regard that violence as being within the framework of normal human behaviour. Whatever the background to the crime, the aim of the preventive approach is to keep such a person safely out of society.
That brings us to the whole matter of sentencing—what is meant by a life sentence, and the kind of institutions in which we should keep people when we believe that they will continue to be a danger to society. A tremendous amount of work must be done if one takes the view that, at the very least, one should prevent people from committing further crimes.
I believe that, no matter how much some of right hon. and hon. Members seek to keep it from themselves, they are motivated by the concepts of relaibution. They are deluding themselves if they think that they are not. Retribution is a primitive instinct stretching back to lextalionis—an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We have heard radio discussions in the past week or so on this matter. It is clear that this is the prime motive for most people, although they do not realise it.
If we deeply abhor the use of violence against the individual, it is morally and philosophically incompatible for society to exercise violence against the individual. If any hon. Members evade that logical proposition, and are tempted to vote in favour of the propositions advanced this evening, they must ask themselves why. Probably the reason is that they have a natural horror of violent crime without appreciating that something subconsciously creates a feeling that it is right that a person who has killed should be killed. That does not make sense. It is not morality. It is not a philosophical basis upon which society should act.
Those who support the reintroduction of the death penalty do not pay enough attention to those who may later be proved innocent of the crime for which they are executed. My right hon. Friend the Member:'or Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned one case. One of my constituents has served several years in prison after being found guilty of murder — a nasty murder. It is now possible that new forensic evidence will prove that he is not guilty. The Lord Advocate knows of the case so I shall not go into detail. If the motion had been agreed by the House it would be too late for that constituent.
If society decides to use retributive violence—that is what it would be because there is no escaping the fact that that is the principle upon which the judgment is to be made, whether it relates to the general proposition or to terrorism or anything else—it is too late to call back a life. If that happens, society, by using violence, will have killed an innocent person.
I shall not give way because I am about to conclude my speech. I have not taken as much time as some Government Members.
I beg hon. Members to vote tonight with an awareness of what motivates them and an awareness of the House of Commons' real responsibility on the issue. I hope that all the proposals will be defeated and that this is the last time that the issue comes before the House.
Order. The House knows that I have no means of controlling the length of speeches, but only 10 Back Benchers have been called so far. That is not very good in a debate of this kind. I appeal for brief speeches. If right hon. and hon. Members could keep their speeches to 10 minutes that would be immensely helpful.
The first duty of the House is not simply to debate what punishment we can place upon criminals. It is also to protect the lives of our people and to safeguard the innocent. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on having, in his first speech, robustly placed before the House his intention to protect the innocent and to safeguard the lives of our citizens. I welcome what he said.
I was in the House when we abolished the capital sentence. We did so largely in the belief that life imprisonment would be an effective deterrent in its place. It has not worked out that way. On the contrary, violence and murder have increased rapidly.
The British public are alarmed. That is why, as they listen to the debate today, I think that they will be less concerned about the problems of those who may be called upon to try, convict and, if necessary, execute criminals and murderers—although those matters are important—than with other grave issues.
The first is the practical question of how we are to prevent the killing of many more innocent people. Secondly, how are we to protect more policemen from being shot down in the pursuit of their duties? Thirdly, can we avoid the death penalty continuing to be imposed, whatever the House may say, by those who, having lost confidence in the ability of the state to protect them, take the law into their hands—as has happened in Northern Ireland—and by armed criminals, and conceivably by armed policemen seeking to protect themselves and society against those criminals? Those are the practical questions that the British public are looking to the House to tackle.
The best speeches this afternoon were made by those who spoke about what they know. I admired the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who spoke for the Liberal-SDP alliance. Both have carried heavy responsibility, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins). I, too, shall speak only of that which I know.
As the House knows, I have a connection with the police service. When the capital sentence was abolished the Police Federation warned the House that it would lead to a dramatic increase in the carrying and use of firearms. That is exactly what has happened. In the year before abolition the number of guns used in crimes in Lendon was 43; last year the number was closer to 2,000. That is a 25-fold increase. Before abolition, when a professional gang planned a job the elder members frisked the younger members to ensure that they were not carrying guns They did so because they knew, to put it in the vernacular, "If you kill a cop we all get topped". It is no longer that way. Today, it is the norm and not the exception for criminals to carry guns when they commit robberies. They do so for the simple reason that they know that their lives are not at risk.
There is also a new balance of risk for the police officer. When a policeman confronts a criminal with a gun, the odds are tilted against him. In that split second when the armed robber must decide whether to pull the trigger and shoot the policeman, the robber knows that if he surrenders he will go to prison for, perhaps, five to seven years for armed robbery. But if he shoots the policeman, he eliminates the witness and greatly improves his chances of getting away with the loot. And even if he is caught and convicted of murder the worst that can happen to him is life imprisonment. With remission, that can mean little more than 101/2 years, though I noted what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the length of sentence served by the murderers of policemen. I do not accept, and I doubt if the House would accept, that the difference between five to seven years for armed robbery and only 10 years for murder is worth the life of a police officer.
There is a further consequence. Whereas, before abolition, unarmed police officers would not hesitate to tackle armed criminals because they knew or they believed that they were protected by the invisible bullet-proof waistcoat of the capital sentence, today even the bravest of policemen hesitates. He often sends for a gun.
What the Police Federation and I predicted when the House abolished the capital sentence has come to pass. We have put an end to the once-proud tradition of our unarmed police force. We therefore face the risk, whether or not we like it, that we have not succeeded in abolishing the capital sentence. On the contrary, it will be administered more and more not by due process of law and by the courts, but by armed criminals and, on occasion, by armed police officers defending themselves and the public.
I wish to deal briefly with terrorism. I declare an interest in that I frequently visit Northern Ireland and have some connection with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I say one thing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He made an eloquent statement—and I respect his judgment—about Northern Ireland, but I find it singular that he should have consulted the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and arrived at conclusions on his advice, while making no attempt to consult the statutory body that the House has set up, the Northern Ireland Police Federation, 100 or more of whose members have died. Their view is the direct opposite to that in his statement. They want the capital sentence and that fact should be placed upon the record.
I say with some temerity in the presence of Northern Ireland Members that not long ago I stood in the ruins of a dance hall in Ballymena where dozens of young people were killed, maimed and blown to bits. I reached one firm conclusion — that it is the victims, past, present and future, who have a far stronger call on Parliament's sympathy and practical assistance than any murderer or terrorist.
I wish also to give one warning to the House. We all know that technology plays an important part in terror. The advance of micro-miniaturisation is tilting the balance in favour of the terrorist and against the security services. There are new micro-detonators which can be secreted in body orifices. Precision guided missiles are also becoming increasingly available to terrorists not only in Northern Ireland but all over the world. I must further warn the House of a new threat—the advance of micro-circuitry that makes it possible for the bomb-maker to plant a device —perhaps 501bs of gelignite—and to blow it up four months later. The possibilities that that engenders for, for example, the ceremony at the Cenotaph, with that kind of technology being available to terrorists, illustrate the magnitude of the risks that we face.
I conclude with one simple point. The death sentence would not deter the terrorist fanatic. I concede that he might even welcome it. The death sentence might have some influence on those who are motivated into terror by a whole ragbag of emotions such as braggadocio, hero-worship, theatricality and so on. But what is certain is that the death sentence can have some impact on the professional assassins who, more and more, in Northern Ireland and internationally do the terrorists' dirty work for them. The professional assassin—the jackal—is, above all, a calculator. He calculates the odds. It is right and moral that the professional assassin who prepares a bomb and places it in a public hall to blow up large numbers of innocent people, and does so for pay in advance, should take into account when calculating his crime the possibility that he, too, might suffer the same capital sentence that he himself imposes on the innocent without due process of law.
It is for that reason, as well as the others given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that I shall vote in favour of the amendment on terrorism and also the other selected amendments.
This debate is about law and order. There can be few Members whose constituents have such a desperate need for law and order as those whom I represent. I live in the middle of the Bogside in the city of Derry, an area so ravaged by violence and so disturbed by extremism that outsiders cannot usually understand how normal life can be possible there. Normal life, as it is understood by most people, is not possible in Derry because there is no law and order, in the usual sense of term. I therefore think that I can understand better than most the yearning for law and order that motivates those who support the motion.
The desire for order is innate in human nature. It is a deep and powerful instinct. It can protect us against chaos and can be the foundation of democracy and freedom. But because those who are lucky enough to have a system of law and order often seem complacent and because those who do not often seem turbulent or cowed into despair, many people forget that no people on earth yearn more for law and order than the deprived, the oppressed and the minorities. If the House does not understand that, it will never understand Ireland, will never understand our awful and terrible history, will never understand that what we all want to stop for ever is terrorism in Ireland.
My people want law and order more than any Member in this House because they need it more than any Member in this House. We must ask ourselves firmly, will the death penalty for terrorism, will hanging Irish terrorists, promote law and order in Northern Ireland or will it destroy law and order in Northern Ireland? That question is central to the debate. It has been made even more central by the remarkable position taken by the Home Secretary today.
It is a central question for other reasons. It is central statistically because far more murders are committed in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in Great Britain. It is central legally because, as has already been said, it would be illogical to introduce the death penalty for Britain alone. It is central politically because the political consequences of hanging Irish terrorists would be so overwhelming as to dominate every other issue in Ireland for the foreseeable future.
Who are the terrorists who would be hanged? An Irish terrorist is a person who for good reasons distrusts British democracy and its application to Ireland and for bad reasons thinks that violence can solve the problems of Ireland. The distrust of British democracy in its application to Ireland is widely shared in Northern Ireland, for good reasons. It is shared by me and I do not have to give lectures on Irish history from 1912 onwards or on the silence of the House between 1920 and 1969 to explain why a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland have a deep distrust of British democracy. Nor do I have to reiterate my opposition to violence because I do that on my own doorstep every day.
As almost everyone has admitted that the death penalty will not deter terrorists, we must ask ourselves what effect the death penalty would have on society, particularly on a society where terrorists flourish because they move among people who, because of their personal experience, are deeply distrustful of Government.
As terrorists are moving in a society that is deeply distrustful of Government and which, in consequence, is deprived of any real sense of security, the effect of the introduction of the death penalty is certain—it would destroy any hope of democracy in Northern Ireland and, in addition, would undermine the reality of democracy in the Republic of Ireland. What is now a disaster in Northern Ireland would, if the death penalty were introduced, become an unmanageable clamity throughout Ireland. There would be many more deaths, both in Britain and in Ireland. If we try to solve a problem by methods that will create even greater problems, is it sensible even to discuss the issue?
When reassessing the British decision to execute the leaders of the 1916 uprising in Dublin, Winston Churchill said that, as a consequence of that action,
the keys of Ireland passed into the hands of those to whom hatred of England was the dominant and almost the only interest.
Hatred of Britain, the result of grisly experience of generations of Irish life, has, alas, strong roots in Northern Ireland, particularly among young people. It was magnified two years ago by the Government's handling of the hunger strike. Never in its wildest: dreams could the IRA have expected to recruit the support that was won for it by the British Government's tragic mishandling of the hunger strike.
Those who are interested in Northern Ireland will remember the images of that time: the black flags on almost every telegraph pole, the grotesque wall paintings, the nihilistic slogans, the pornography of death, the street violence and the deaths of innocent people.
That hatred, the instability and the macabre display of that time, are as nothing compared with the reaction that would take place in Ireland if Irish men or women were hanged under British law. If the House wants the IRA to win, then hang them.
Reference was made today to the murders which took place in Northern Ireland last night. A UDR convoy was blown up and four UDR soldiers were killed—
Does any hon. Member not believe that that attack was timed to influence the result of our debate? The leaders of terrorist organisations want to see the introduction of hanging. I live among them and I know their thinking. They would be delighted if hanging were introduced. Let not the House think that the leaders will be hanged. The leaders are not in gaol. It will be the young followers who are sucked into the organisations because of the desperate position in Northern Ireland.
If the House wants the whole of Ireland to be convulsed in a frenzy of hatred, if the House wants once and for all to remove the prospect of a lasting peace, a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland and the prospect of friendship between our two peoples, nothing would be more certain to bring that about than the hanging of Irish people under British law. This House would then hand over the keys of the whole of Ireland to those who want to come to power by the bomb and the bullet.
Churchill was right when he wrote, in reference to British attitudes in Ireland:
The grass grows green on the battlefield, but never on the scaffold.
If the House again erects a scaffold in my country, it will turn the whole of Ireland into a savage and bloody battlefield. For the sake of democracy, for the sake of friendship, for the sake of ordinary men, women and children, and for the sake of peace, for God's sake, do not do it.
The gallows has already been erected in Northern Ireland, not by the hands of this House but by the hands of the Irish Republican Army. There is a cry to this House from those who have already been hung, drawn and quartered—murdered and tortured by the Irish Republican Army—and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) should keep that in mind.
It is all very well to say that if something happened here there would be such an outrage that neither the North nor South of Ireland could be governed. I too have read Irish history and studied the situation in Northern Ireland, having been brought up there. There was a parallel in the history of the South of Ireland with what is happening in the North today. Irregulars under De Valera were doing the very same as the IRA is doing today—killing, bombing and murdering—to bring down the treaty Government of the Republic. They murdered not only ordinary individuals but their own colleagues who had fought against Britain in the war before the civil war. There is a page in Irish history that is not mentioned by Republicans; it is the darkest page of the troubles—the civil war when Republicans of various hues fought one another.
The result was that that treaty Government were going to fall and a man named Kevin O'Higgins, who understood Irish Republicans and their methods—he himself was one — realised that the only way to deal with the situation was by the ultimate deterrent, capital punishment. Therefore, he ordered that those with the gun and those who went to kill should themselves be killed.
There were, of course, deaths and outcries. But within two or three years the carnage was finished. De Valera disbanded his irregulars, went into politics and became the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. Kevin O'Higgins had to suffer; he was killed. However, he brought peace to the South of Ireland. One can draw the parallel today. In the North of Ireland the killing is going on.
The hon. Member for Foyle said that the IRA wanted the return of capital punishment. That is strange. Joe Cahill was a condemned man in the cell but, because of the weakness of Government, was reprieved. He took part in the recent campaign of murder. He was regaled on our radio, and he warned the people of this Parliament not to dare to bring in capital punishment, or they would deal with the matter. The IRA is against capital punishment being re-enacted by this House. There was an hon. Member with close associations with terrorism in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. When did he come to this House? He was an absentee Member, though he was always here when there was going to be a vote on capital punishment.
I repeat that the IRA leaders are against capital punishment because it makes the recruiting sergeant's work impossible. At present he can say, "If you are captured you will go into the Maze prison, where immediately there will be a 50 per cent. cut in your sentence." In other words, a terrorist can act however he likes inside the prison, but automatically half his sentence is cut off. That is happening in our Province today.
Some amazing statements have been made in speeches today. For example, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that the real way to deal with terrorism was to wean the population away from it, and that that was the policy which his Government followed.
The figures which I now give must stick in the mind of the hon. Member for Fylde: 102,000 votes—not the 500 to whom the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) referred — or 43 per cent. of the entire nationalist vote, went to these murderers. They voted for the bomb, the gun and the bullet and for genocide of the Protestant community. There is no way that this House will wean people away from terrorism in the way the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup claimed.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described the IRA as tough men. Of course it comprises tough men. They know that they have been dealing with weakness in successive British Governments. That is why they are doing so well in their campaign against this House and our people.
We were told by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) that we had to abolish jury trials. I remind him that in Standing Committee, when he was a member of the Labour party, the Socialists voted to a man against abolishing juries, as did the leader of the SDLP, and I voted against the abolition of juries. However, if we bring in capital punishment, we must return to jury trials. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Of course we must. We cannot have anything but a return to jury trials. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members occupying the Front Benches may laugh, but they do not know Northern Ireland. I assure the House that there can be jury trials in Northern Ireland.
It is interesting to recall what happened in Standing Committee. Lord Rawlinson, then a Law Officer, said that Protestant juries were perverse and therefore had to be abolished. When I asked him to prove that, he could not, but he won because one Roman Catholic Member was won over. Opposition Members were there. They took part in that debate, and they understand what happened on that occasion.
Jury trials can be reintroduced. Juries were not intimidated in Northern Ireland. Witnesses were intimidated, but the IRA did not know who would comprise the juries until they were picked. I repeat, if there is to be a return to capital punishment, there must be a return to jury trials.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I have exceeded the time I should have taken. I am grateful for having been called to speak in the debate.
Whatever views hon. Members take about the reintroduction of capital punishment, it is clear that all have spoken against the increase in violence in recent years. I regret to have to say that, like many hon. Members, I was deeply shocked two Sundays ago to learn of what occurred when soldiers were engaged in entertainment in my constituency. I can only express the hope that those who gave my city a bad name will be brought to book and punished.
My local newspaper, the Cumberland News, then said:
There is no doubt that drink plays a major part in inciting unruly groups.
There must be a case for stronger measures to keep under control the sale of alcohol to crowds of youngsters. Subsequent to the debate, and possibly when we return in the autumn after the summer recess, I hope that the House will consider further whether anything can be done in a non-partisan manner to try to curb the increase in violence that has besmirched the good name of many of our towns and cities.
I have made it clear at every election that I have fought that should the issue of capital punishment be raised I should oppose it or its reintroduction to the best of my ability. To those who are keeping one eye on their constituencies and taking account of popular opinion within them, I draw attention to the words of Edmund Burke, who said that a Member is sent to this place not as a delegate but as a free-thinking representative who is entitled to vote as his or her conscience dictates. That is the line of approach that I shall take this evening, as I have taken in the past. I have made my position clear to my constituents.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) — I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—because, as a Christian, as one who occupies the pulpit on most Sundays, I cannot find it in my power to advocate that the state should take human life. It is morally wrong on the part of anyone to take human life and it is morally wrong on the part of the state.
In previous Parliaments we have debated abortion. Hon. Members, both men and women, from both sides of the House have strongly condemned abortion, but in a debate of this sort they will act against their stance on abortion and speak in favour of hanging and vote for it. I cannot understand how they can do that.
This is a moral issue and I shall treat it as such. If by some mischance we were to agreed to bring back capital punishment, the problem would not be solved. The problem will remain whatever the House does, and events in the past have told us that if a person sets out to kill he will not be deterred by the thought of the gallows. Those who have murdered while under the influence of drink, when probably sex has been involved, have shown that they were not concerned about the rope. That applies to other murders and is not restricted to those in which sex has been a factor. In many instances deaths have resulted from brawls.
I shall allow my head to overrule my heart and I shall vote in accord with what I consider to be my duty. Speaking as a Christian with all my faults and failings —I am not holier than thou and I am not one of the dogooders—I believe that if my master Jesus were in the Chamber and had to make a decision on this issue, he would vote against bringing back the rope.
I wish to answer one of the questions that was put to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He asked why the status quo should not be sufficiently and equitably maintained since our last major debate on this issue three years ago. There are two main reasons for changing the status quo. The first is the one to which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) referred, and that is the growth of violence against the person over the past three years. Secondly, and almost as alarming, is the chasm which is developing between the governed and those who attempt to govern from this place. For example, the leaders of the police often say that the death penalty should not be reintroduced. However, there is a solid vote for its reintroduction on the part of police officers who come into contact with crime day by day. There is the same position in the prison service. The public are baffled when they find that the two loudest voices protesting against the restoration of the death penalty in Northern Ireland are those of the supporters of the IRA and the Secretary of State himself. That confuses the public.
Outside the House there is confusion and a wish to see the death penalty restored, not just as a deterrent but for the simple reason that the British people believe that it would be an earnest of the intentions of the House to deal with violence. That has not happened, and we have seen what happened in Northern Ireland today. In two elections since 1979, the Conservative party has been returned to office on a law and order ticket, among other things. We have promised the people bread and given them a stone.
The restoration of the death penalty is concerned not so much with the crime of murder as with the hierarchy of violence throughout society. Those who do not want the death penalty argue that it is not a deterrent. Of course it is not an absolute deterrent. There is no absolute deterrent, or there would be no martyrs singing in heaven. There may be no such thing as an absolute deterrent but there are dissuaders, and it is dissuasion from crime which is the important element.
I have had some experience in a small way of being a terrorist and I acted against terrorism while undertaking my duties in the Colonial Office. When I was behind the lines, I was told that anyone found in uniform or out of it would be shot out of hand. That dissuaded me from embarking on many acts of derring-do which otherwise I might have done—a result to my credit and to the credit of others.
The discipline in terrorist organisations is the discipline of the death sentence and the firing squad, whether it be the PLO or the IRA. To say that the death penalty is in no way a dissuader is complete nonsense, for dissuader it is.
That is not the main argument for the return of the death penalty. The issue is much wider. First, I believe that society expects an element of retribution. Support of the law depends not just on consent but on approbation. That is what the country demands. Secondly, the principle that it would be an error for the House ever to forget is that if there be violence and terror, it must not be the gangster who imposes the terror but the state. If there be a question of violence, the monopoly of violence must be the monopoly of the state, and those who break the monopoly will themselves be broken. That is the basis of a sufficient and effective state.
Whatever my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) says, I say that in the country today there is a feeling that if violence is not controlled or put under more effective control than over the past few years other people will take law and order into their own hands. That will mean armed police and vigilantes. It will mean the sort of thing that we have seen in other countries. That is why I believe that at this stage it is important that this principle should be restored. It is the only principle which, in the hierarchy of punishment, can meet the variety of crimes that threaten our society.
Like many others from Northern Ireland, I am sometimes inclined to stumble over various designations and initials of organisations in Ulster. That is why I sympathised today with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), who stumbled over the UDA and the UDR. I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Members forgot that the debate is being broadcast and listened to in Northern Ireland. They laughed at the hon. Gentleman. I wonder if they are thinking now what effect their laughter had on no fewer than six families in Ulster today. Six people were murdered in the Province today, two alleged informers on IRA activities and four members of the security forces.
Since the debate began I have been steadily forced to the conclusion that we have a most ineffective police force and court system because all that I have heard about are the mistakes that have been made and the innocent men who have been condemned to death. If innocent men were condemned to death and suffered the supreme penalty when the police investigations and trial procedures must have been the most meticulous, I must come to the logical conclusion that our prisons are now full of innocent men and women. If it is not so, more mistakes must be made in murder cases than in general crime investigations and criminal trials.
On the Diplock courts, I disagree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in one respect. He wants the return of jury trials if the death penalty is put into operation. However, I believe that there is no reason for slanging the Diplock courts. They have done a reasonably good job all the way down the line. If they are good enough for trying murderers and sentencing them to life imprisonment, they are good enough to send murderers to their deaths.
I also make it plain that I have always been against the principle of the Diplock courts. I have always believed that jurymen could have been found, who would have carried out their duty, even if it eventually cost them their lives. A society that is not prepared to produce jurymen even at the cost of their lives is a society that is on its way to die. We should bring back jury trial to Ulster for all cases as soon as possible. I see no reason why it should not be reintroduced immediately.
The debate has circulated around morality, practicality and deterrent value. For myself, morality would have to be judged on biblical grounds, but, as so many hon. Members reject biblical morality and teaching, I fail to see why I should argue on the grounds of that morality today. I shall base my remarks in support of the death penalty on the practical effects that it will have on dealing with terrorists and murderers in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made it plain that, even if he had been convinced that the death penalty would be successful, he would still have been against it. In taking that view he undermined and destroyed his case. Therefore, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to discount the conclusions that he reached, because I do not understand how an effective system and weapon can be lightly discarded just because one does not like it. It does not matter whether a weapon against terrorism, murder and violence is a nice weapon to use. If it is effective and gives us the desired result, it should be used. I stood in the ruins of the Ballykelly bombing. I saw what was pulled out. I did not like it. Anyone who thinks that hanging is a nasty sight should have gone to Ballykelly; he might have changed his mind rapidly.
The question is then raised of who is to be hanged. It is the question of the death penalty for murder, yet one gets the impression from the debate that all those who have killed another human being are considered murderers when in fact a clear line is always drawn between manslaughter and murder. Therefore, we are talking about two totally different classes of killing—for manslaughter a prison sentence that could be long or short, and for murder the death penalty. I would go across the board for murder, whether it is committed by an organisation engaged in terrorism or by a person who kills for profit in a cold, calculated and premeditated way.
The mentality of the terrorist murderer is largely a product of the modern world. We are concerned mainly with Irish terrorism, which is the most spectacular terrorism with which we have to deal. It is with us all the time. I should like to refer to the mentality and attitude of Irish terrorists.
There are those who are against the death penalty, such as the Chief Constable of the RUC, judges and leading churchmen, who have all proclaimed themselves against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has declared himself for it, as have churchmen on the Government Benches. None of the people against it are at the cutting edge. The Police Federation, the constable on the road, the ordinary men and women who face terrorists and those who have suffered at their hands take a different view. Those who are insulated from the terrorists are in no position to pronounce on the issue.
What will be the effect of reintroducing the death penalty for Irish terrorists, the IRA, the UVF or any others? We have been told that there will be street violence. We have had street violence before. We have had 15 years of it. We have also had kidnapping, and the victims have been murdered. Undoubtedly terrorism will increase for a time, but what is the alternative? The alternative is that we retreat from violence and allow those who perpetuate street violence, murder and kidnapping to succeed in driving us from our chosen path. In other words, we shall allow terrorist organisation to defeat the forces of law and order and the House, which is the governing body of the nation.
Today, four members of the UDR have been murdered by cold-blooded, calculating members of the IRA. They are not the first and, I fear, they will not be the last. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said that death would not and does not deter the IRA. The IRA does not believe that. Today, it has proved that it believes in the death penalty, as it killed two of its own because it thought that they were informers. For the purposes of terrorist organisations, it does not matter whether the two people that the IRA murdered as informers were guilty. All that matters is that the terrorists' power has been projected once again into its community. Members of the community in which it lives and moves have been told by the murders that if they do not stay in line they will be killed.
The second lesson to be learnt from today's events in Ulster relates to the murder of members of the UDR. Some will say that, by that action, the IRA is thumbing its nose at the House and telling us to do our worst. It is not. It is telling us that it intends to step up violence, to make our lives hell and to do everything it can to make our lives difficult. Beyond that comes the lesson from the hunger strikers. Once again, the wrong conclusions have consistently been drawn from that. I have an advantage over most hon. Members in that I knew one of the hunger strikers who died and one who came off the hunger strike.
The real lesson of the hunger strikers is not that 10 died but that only 10 died. The lesson is that, by standing firm on that issue, the Government defeated the IRA. The real lesson is that if the IRA and other terrorist organisations are to be defeated, they must be met on their own ground. The organisation must be met every time it ups the bet. When it is met, it can and will be defeated. It will not be defeated by running away. If we are to break the terrorist organisations, we must break the power of the godfathers. To beat them, we must match their sentence, which is death.
What of the fanatics? We will always have fanatics and they will not be deterred. They are the most ruthless, cold-blooded and dangerous of all, death penalty or no. Until they are executed, imprisoned or killed they will not stop and that is the way to deal with them. We must fight and defeat the IRA. The death penalty is a practical step because it has a tremendous and unrealised deterrent value. It should be brought into effect at the earliest possible opportunity.
I shall come back to the interesting remarks made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about the Diplock courts because I wish to confine my remarks to terrorism. Despite what the Home Secretary said and his powerful if rather vague advocacy of the death penalty for terrorism, the case for it is much weaker than it is for any other issue. I wish to take up two of my right hon. and learned Friend's points. I am sorry that he is not here, although I understand that he has a good reason.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Frield the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) came to the wrong answer because to some extent they asked the wrong question. It is true that terrorists are evil and an affront to civilisation because they wage war against society, but that is not the end of the matter. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) said, it is not a matter of doing what we think is right. What we think is right depends on its consequences.
If we intend to introduce the death penalty we must ask ourselves whether we shall thereby diminish terrorism and aid the security forces, or whether we shall increase terrorism and make the task of the security forces even more difficult. We do not have to rely simply on our hunches to answer that question. Several countries have faced such circumstances. One has already been mentioned. Capital punishment existed in Franco's Spain, although Spain was rather chary of wing it.
In September 1975 that country shot five terrorists for being guilty of shooting policemen. The result was that, within eight days, no fewer than nine policemen had been shot by terrorists in reprisals. The Police Review in Britain commented that
whether it was right or wrong to execute the Spanish terrorists, subsequent events hardly bore out the case for bringing back the death penalty to deal with the situation in Britain.
I commend that comment to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths).
The second precedent is Palestine after the second world war. The late Arthur Koestler wrote in his book "Promise and Fulfilment" about what happened when capital punishment was first used in 1947. He wrote:
In April, four terrorists were hanged … The executions were followed by a new wave of assassinations, bomb-throwing and mine laying, which caused further deaths within the next few days; on the scene of each attack the terrorists left a hangman's noose as their signature".
Presumably those who favour reintroducing hanging in Britain think that the IRA would act differently from the ETA and the Irgun terrorists. I should like to know their evidence. We have heard no evidence to suggest that the IRA would act differently from the way in which it and other terrorist organisations have acted.
There is also the problem of communal violence. I remind the hon. Member for Londonderry, East that capital punishment in Northern Ireland was abolished because of the imminent execution of a Protestant. It was thought that such an execution would lead to considerable communal violence.
We must ponder something else. When I was concerned with these matters throughout the Conservative Government of 1970–74, and as an Opposition spokesman for the rest of the 1970s, I never came across one commander of security forces who favoured capital punishment for terrorism. Every one opposed it. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that that is still the case. They opposed it because they believed that capital punishment would lead to more rather than less terrorism and fewer convictions. That is hardly a desirable combination.
Why do my right hon. and hon. Friends who want to reintroduce hanging for terrorism decide on this issue alone to pay no attention to the security commanders? On any other, they would pay serious attention to them. For some reason, they have decided totally to ignore them on this issue.
My final point has already been touched on and is whether we should extend the penalty to Northern Ireland. I did not fully understand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was saying initially, but he has made it clear that he thinks that the death penalty should be extended to Northern Ireland. We would then have an absurd position. Virtually everybody—except my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary agrees that one cannot hang a man without a jury trial. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he would welcome jury trial, but that is not a serious solution because it would lead to few convictions, because the witnesses and the jury would be intimidated. The result of bringing back hanging for terrorism in Northern Ireland would be that fewer terrorists would be convicted, which is not desirable.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary tossed out an extraordinary suggestion when he said that it might be possible to have three judges sitting together, or just one judge and a couple of assessors. With all respect to him, that is not something that should come from the Home Secretary. It might come from me or one of my right hon. or hon. Friends on the Back Benches, but the Home Secretary should have settled proposals if he is to advocate to the House a serious matter, and this could hardly be a more serious matter. Instead of that, he said that one might have a couple of assessors. That would be intolerable for public opinion here and in Northern Ireland, and for the assessors. That is not a serious point of view.
We would still have an extremely difficult and impossible quandary. If we extend the death penalty to Northern Ireland there would have to be jury trials, which would mean no convictions, and if we do not extend the death penalty to Northern Ireland we will have hanging on this side of the Irish channel, where there is little terrorism, and not on the other side of the Irish channel, where there is a great deal of terrorism. Either way, that argument reduces the whole case for hanging for terrorism to absurdity.
The experience of other countries, the views of the security commanders and the realities of our judicial system all point in exactly the same direction and make the case against hanging for terrorism overwhelming.
New Members, more than any others, have experienced the pressure of public opinion on this issue, or at least of assertions of what public opinion is said to be. I intend tonight to vote against the reintroduction of capital punishment, in any form, and for any form of murder. If I had thought that public opinion must rule my conscience I should not be in this House, for I should not have stood for election. I hope that many other new Members will take that view and vote with their consciences tonight.
I should like to concentrate on two specific matters—matters which are practical legal considerations. The first concerns the meaning and nature of the legislation that would have to be introduced if capital punishment were reintroduced. The second concerns the administration of justice.
Let me deal first with the meaning and nature of the laws that would have to be created. We have seen many attempts to define different categories of murder. The intention behind those attempts has almost always been to define the most serious as the capital crimes.
The Homicide Act 1957 was a signal failure. It demonstrated plainly the arbitrariness of the distinctions that were created. It is too glib to say that those who draft statutes have now discovered the magic of definition, which would remove the arbitrariness from such distinctions. With the 1957 Act, the callous poisoner who, for motives of gain or lust, killed in a painful and calculated way escaped the gallows; whereas the social inadequate who went to steal from the gas meter and made a spur-of-the-moment decision, not to kill but to cause serious injury, rendered himself liable to be executed. Such an arbitrary distinction is not acceptable in a civilised legal system.
What is more, how do we define terrorism for the purposes of distinguishing between capital and non-capital crime? I have not heard from those hon. Members who wish to see execution for terrorists one word of explanation of how they would define terrorism so that we would have a legally workable definition in court.
There is also the problem of the definition of
police officer during the course of his duty.
Every day, in many magistrates' courts, solicitors argue about the meaning of those very words. These are not cases of murder, but minor offences of assault.
Once again, we should see people executed because of arbitrary decisions based upon arbitrary legislation. How will the public react when they perceive that arbitrariness? How can we defend such laws against the accusation by our critics that the House had acted on emotion rather than on argument, and on gut feeling rather than on good judgment? The reintroduction of capital punishment, in whatever form, would create arbitrary laws; and arbitrary laws are thoroughly bad laws.
Secondly, there is the administration of justice. We all agree that it is of profound importance that murderers—all murderers if possible—should be brought to justice. Practitioners, and there will be some in the House, who have experience of capital trials in years gone by will say that, whatever public opinion may seem to be, juries were in fact reluctant to convict of capital crime, at least in England and Wales. In this regard, the statistics are persuasive. In 1955 and 1956, of those crimes that were reported by the police as murder, about 22 per cent. of the accused were convicted of murder. Between 1970 and 1972, the last years for which comparable statistics are available, and after the abolition of the death penalty, the rate had gone up to nearly 40 per cent. Capital punishment is a deterrent — a deterrent against the conviction of murderers by juries.
Another practical consideration is majority verdicts. One of the arguments deployed in the House when it was agreed that majority verdicts should be permitted was that no more capital verdicts were required, that is, no more verdicts that could lead to death. Are we to send people to the gallows on the basis of majority verdicts? Would majority verdicts have been introduced in the knowledge that capital punishment would be restored? This is extremely doubtful.
I have heard it said on the radio by an hon. Member that the answer to that problem was to have capital punishment only if there was a unanimous verdict. That is a naive proposition. It introduces an even less acceptable element of arbitrariness — the element of luck in finding an abolitionist on the jury.
My final point is also about juries. One of the main reasons for the revival of the debate on capital punishment has been the level of terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is less than intellectually honest to try to divert our attention to other forms of terrorism. When we talk of terrorism in this debate, we are all thinking of Northern Ireland. Terrorist trials in Northern Ireland are held in the Diplock courts because practical experience showed that it was not possible to find juries prepared to run the personal risk to themselves of convicting for terrorists offences, even offences falling far short of murder.
The reintroduction of capital punishment would inevitably mean that the House accepted executions without jury trial. That would be a change going to the very basis of our legal system. The suggestion that an individual man or woman should be killed as a result of the judicial verdict of another individual man or woman is horrific to any practising lawyer and should be horrific to the laymen too. The Home Secretary talks vaguely of having one or two assessors, but nobody knows what he means by that. Is he suggesting that people should be convicted of murder by something resembling a magistrates court?
We rely upon the checks and balances of the jury system. To suggest that we should do otherwise in capital cases is profoundly offensive to those of us involved with the practice and administration of justice. That was made plain yesterday by the overwhelming majority at the annual meeting of the Bar. It has been made plain by the majority of those judges who have let their views be known, and by those who have to manage the prisons.
These are practical problems. I hope that the House will give them full weight in deciding to vote against the reintroduction of capital punishment.
I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that this debate should not have been called so early in this Parliament. We faced a similar situation in 1979, when a debate was called early in the Parliament. It would have been in the best interests of the House — especially the new Members — and of the general public, to hold the debate in the autumn. New Members of Parliament would then have been able to make a better assessment of the views of their constituents.
I am also somewhat concerned about the new stance taken by the Government on this issue. When we last debated this matter in a similar way in May 1982, the then Home Secretary, Viscount Whitelaw, in replying to the
debate, commented upon the situation that would arise if the House were to vote in favour of the death penalty for any of the categories of murder. He said:
In that event, the Government would need to consider the means of achieving the exact basis on which capital punishment was to be made available. As I said in the 1979 debate, the problems in bringing forward and seeking agreement on precise legislative proposals to take account of the issues of principle and practice that have been raised in my contribution and many others would be an immensely difficult task. As Home Secretary, it would be my duty to prepare legislation to give effect to the will of the House, and that I should do."—[Official Report, 11 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 637.]
The answer to a question last Thursday suggested to me that the Government may have changed their view. Apparently it is now the view of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that, if we vote in favour of the death penalty for any of the categories of murder, there should be a private Member's Bill. That is a complete turnaround by the Government on the assurances given a year ago to this House, given again by Viscount Whitelaw, during the election campaign and also referred to on "Panorama" in the middle of May when the Prime Minister was interviewed by Robin Day.
We should be told why there has been such a change in Government policy. The Government have a duty to the House and to the British people to make the reasons plain.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made absolutely clear his views about the death penalty in relation to Northern Ireland. He has a right to do so, even though I may disagree with him. I fail to understand, however, why various other Ministers have not given us their reasons for the course of action they may wish to take. It is no good saying that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has special responsibilities. The Secretary of State for Scotland also has special responsibilities, so perhaps we ought to hear from him too.
Where indeed? We are debating a serious issue of national interest. There is no doubt that the people of this country will study this debate seriously. They have a right to know the views of important members of both Government and Opposition who would have to administer the law or to take decisions affected by our vote tonight.
In recent years there have been many opinion polls. Many hon. Members have recently taken straw polls. I do not necessarily believe that one should cast one's vote on the basis of a straw poll, but, in our democratic system, when we are considering issues that arouse the emotions of the general public, we should brief ourselves as fully as we can.
We are discussing a number of categories of murder. I am deeply concerned about some of the views expressed outside the House. The bishops, the judges and others have every right to their opinions — everyone has in a democratic society — but I am worried when judges, prosecuting counsel and others say that they may not be prepared to administer the law if Parliament decides to change the law in favour of the death penalty. I find that very dangerous. My answer to those who try to influence events in that way is that if the law changes and they feel that they cannot administer it, although it is the democratic will of Parliament, they should leave the positions that they hold. Otherwise, such a situation would take us into very dangerous waters.
I am bitterly disappointed about much of the role that the Church has recently played in politics —[Interruption.] I knew that some of my remarks would be unpopular but there are things that must be said. I should like the Church—regardless of which Church it is—to be more active in speaking out against violence. I should like it to exert more influence on that subject. We only seem to hear from the Church on certain aspects of politics. It does not seem to cover the wider spectrum. I have never heard the Church of England Synod refer to the victims in its debates on murder and capital punishment — [Interruption.] Again, that comment might be unpopular, but there are things that need to be said.
We have been battling for many years against one factor that has forced many people to seek the return of the death penalty. I refer to the fact that the measures taken after 1957 have basically failed to work, because life imprisonment has not meant exactly that. Murderers leave prison 10 to 12 years after committing their crimes and often serve much shorter sentences than possibly the train robbers, the Krays, the Richardsons and others who have committed capital murders, although frequently against their own criminal kind—[Interruption.] That is one reason why the British public are concerned about what is happening. The sentences meted out to others who commit murder are minimal by comparison.
We have correctly heard that the number of policemen murdered since the abolition of the death penalty has nearly trebled. Much has been said about the serious acts of terrorism that are committed. I do not intend to go into the details, but hon. Members should bear in mind the sad situation that obtained at the Maze prison, and the fact that several hunger strikers committed suicide before sanity prevailed with their relatives, and came to the aid of others who wished to continue on that path. They realised that the Government were not prepared to give way. The problems must be brought closer to home. We must have more influence on the family unit, where the problems originate. We must also have more influence in the schools, where the problems also have their root. Those are the areas that we must tackle.
I admire the comments made by the Home Secretary today when he said that we should introduce capital punishment for terrorism. I am only sorry that he did not include the use of firearms and explosives. It is difficult to define whether a terrorist who robs a bank is committing a criminal act or an act of terrorism. However, if firearms and explosives are included, the difficulty is removed. That inclusion would make it clear that the use of firearms or explosives would warrant the death penalty. Therefore, I am sorry that the Home Secretary could not find it in his heart to go further. If he believes in the death penalty for terrorists, he must surely believe in the death penalty for those who use explosives and firearms. That is why I shall support the motion and the amendments, and I trust that other hon. Members will join me in the Lobby.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has complained that the Church does not speak out against violence in our society, or on behalf of the victims. However, the Church has consistently spoken out about certain forms of violence. I think of the horrors of nuclear war, or perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is violence. In speaking out against nuclear war, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Church is speaking on behalf of the potential victims? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think again about the role of the Church.
No, I do not think so.
Parliament, of course, must take responsibility for what it does, and we must be aware of the views of those who send us here, for we must answer to them for what we do. Indeed, several hon. Members have already made that point. I have received nine letters from my constituency, so my constituents are apparently not unduly concerned about what I might do tonight. They have not been whipped up by the press, which has been organising public opinion polls, just as it did during the election campaign, to try to whip up a feeling of hysteria.
We must answer to our constituents, but that does not mean that we must ignore our consciences and do what we believe in our hearts to be wrong. Parliament would be a poor place if we were to do that. I do not know whether hon. Members realise it, but we are discussing this fundamental issue on the anniversary of the judicial murder of a woman. The hanging of Ruth Ellis, as I well remember, was a horrific affair. I believe that the majority view then was that she should have been reprieved, but she was not, and she died what must have been, for her, an utterly terrifying and lonely death. That brought home to many of us the utter futility of the death penalty and the enormity of taking life, even when a life had been taken, and in circumstances that many people could well understand. Treachery and betrayal can call up the deepest emotions normally hidden in the human heart, and no one can say with any certainty that it could never happen to him.
The argument that the death penalty would, if reintroduced, prove a deterrent to terrorism is false. It did not deter in the past. Terrorism, in the context that many think of at present, has a long and terrible history. Hon. Members have already reminded us of some of the appalling events in Northern Ireland.
The fear of death was not in the minds of those who were deputed by their peers to commit those acts. In the past the prize of martyrdom acted almost as adrenalin to spur on the evil doers. It gave them the motivation and drive to carry out the murders of innocent people who stood in the way of their political goal. That has been the position throughout history. In every country there have been periods of prolonged terror with countless lives lost but little evidence to show that the guillotine or the hangman had any deterrent effect.
Almost 124 years ago the first Royal Commission was set up by the House to decide which murders should be punishable by death and which should not. That Royal Commission, even in 1864, favoured the abolition of the death penalty, but it tried to categorise murders into capital and non-capital offences because it felt that it had to make concession to public opinion as it believed public opinion to be at that time. Since then, debates of this type have become a ritual in the House. I hope to goodness that this will be the last. I wish that this debate could conclude with a clear vote against the death penalty and that that would settle the matter.
The judicial hanging of a human being has never, to my mind, served any useful purpose. I do not believe that this callous, cold-hearted ritual should ever be brought back into our lives. There is a paradox in the argument of hon. Members who say how wicked it is to take a human life when those who support the motion would do just that. Those of us who oppose the reimposition of the death penalty do not believe that the taking of human life is part of a civilised society and we renounce our right to do that. Society must be protected and criminals deterred, but there is no evidence that hanging is a deterrent. The dreadful risk is that if we vote in favour of the death penalty mistakes will again be made and innocent people hanged. The cases of Timothy Evans and Craig and Bentley spring to mind, but there were several others.
In earlier centuries the usual penalty for theft was to cut off the hand of the thief. That practice still operates in some middle east countries. No one would ever suggest bringing back that penalty in this country — or would they? One never knows with the Conservatives. We have been re-educated about that. I hope that Conservative Members are now being re-educated about hanging. Legalised murder is brutalising and degrading. It does not deter. Every criminal, petty or not, thinks that he will get away with it. Those who kill in a fit of rage do not have time to think about whether there is capital punishment. When the rage is over, they are horrified at what they have done and are filled with remorse. I do not believe that the deterrent argument holds water.
If we reintroduce the death penalty for terrorism, we shall create a whole new mythology and literature of martyrdom. Songs will be sung for generations, plays will be written about the so-called martyrs, the literature will expand and new generations of terrorists will grow up with the desire to emulate and to exceed what has been done before.
The hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) has not proved his case. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, revenge is not acceptable. It proves nothing, it deters no one and it serves only to make martyrs in evil causes. The right hon. Gentleman was also right that concentration on capital punishment prevents us from doing anything positive about penal reform.
It is largely, but not exclusively, in poverty that the seeds of crime are sown, and poverty is made more likely by the present Government. To do anything positive to reform the penal system and the way in which we deal with law-breakers is one of the most unpopular causes to plead in the House and in this allegedly enlightened land, as I know to my cost, but reform is certainly needed. Our prison system is a disgrace. A terrifying fate awaits any long-term prisoner in our overcrowded, overstaffed and insanitary prisons. Thousands of men suffer those overcrowded conditions and on the whole nothing is being done to re-educate or reform them.
I hope that the House will vote against the motion and that this will be the last debate of this kind.
It is now nearly 20 years since the House voted for the Second Reading of the Bill to abolish capital punishment. At that time I had recently entered the House, having had the honour to be elected to represent Worthing. I well recall being greatly influenced by the speech of the then Mr. Henry Brooke, who had just left the office of Home Secretary. He said that he had changed his mind and strongly advocated that the House should vote for abolition.
Mr. Henry Brooke's remarks were reinforced from his own experience. In particular, he referred to the frame in the Home Secretary's office which contained a list of those due to be considered for reprieve, having been condemned to death. He referred to a Latin tag, which was translated as:
No pause for thought is too long where the death of a man is concerned.
I hope that that frame will not be reinstated in the Home Secretary's office. Many of the arguments put forward by that Home Secretary are still relevant, although there are new arguments that did not exist 20 years ago, such as the impact of majority verdicts, trial without jury and terrorism.
Reference has been made to the difference of opinion in the House and to our constituents' view on the matter. That must be of great concern to every hon. Member. I have always believed that politics must be a two-way business so that one takes fully into account one's constituents' views. One also has a duty to explain to them the arguments expounded here and elsewhere. It is important to stress — I am disturbed by reports of colleagues who take a different view — that we are not sent here as pocket computers to register simply on the basis of numbers what our constituents believe. If we do that, we are failing in our duty. We have a far more difficult task, which is to take fully into account the arguments of our constituents, to listen to debates in the House, to examine all matters as fully as possible, and then to vote as our constituents would vote if they had the same opportunity as we do. We must explain to them, in Burke's immortal words, that we are here as representatives, not as delegates.
Much has been made of the argument that this is a matter for individual Members' consciences. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and others laid great weight on that argument and appealed to hon. Members' consciences. I do not believe that it would be a problem of conscience if I were faced with the simple issue of saving the life of an innocent person or saving the life of someone guilty of murder. That would be a clear-cut decision, which Hs not a matter of conscience but one of judgment. However, in this debate, it is difficult to make up one's mind on the basis of judgment, taking all the arguments into account.
The crucial question, as is well established from this and earlier debates, is whether a vote for the restoration of capital punishment would save innocent lives. I have no sympathy for criminals or terrorists. My anxiety is for the community as a whole, but one must ask whether the case for deterrence has been proved, given the fact that mistakes have been made in murder cases. The onus of proof is on those who believe that capital punishment is a deterrent, and they have not made their case.
That does not mean that I am soft on crimes of violence, and preoccupation with this matter has distracted the attention of the House from the need for heavier penalties for crimes of violence. It might be argued that as the judiciary has discretion to impose sentences for robbery with violence and armed robbery, an amendment today stating that such crimes should have a sentence of at least 20 years served would do far more to deter bank robbers than would capital punishment.
Our attention has been distracted from the main issue, which is the need for heavier sentences.
There is a real problem because of the introduction of majority verdicts. If a man were found guilty of murder, with two members of the jury believing him innocent, one could not go ahead and hang that man. However, if one goes for a unanimous verdict in such cases, there is a real danger that because a member of the jury is opposed to capital punishment on moral grounds the person would be acquitted and go free, receiving no punishment at all. It is perhaps unfortunate that my hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not deal with this matter.
I shall deal briefly with terrorism and the various arguments that have been raised on that tragic subject. I have no sympathy whatever with terrorism, and I believe that the whole House shares my utter revulsion at and abhorrence for the deeds that have been carried out by terrorists. Several arguments have been put, in particular about the problem of creating martyrs.
Capital punishment would give the terrorists a real propaganda weapon. One cannot use the comparison of the hunger strikers. Someone rightly said that the Government stood firm and in the end the hunger strikes stopped. That would not happen if we reintroduced capital punishment. If murders and terrorist murders continued, the process of capital punishment would necessarily continue, and that would provide a propaganda weapon of a totally different order from that which existed when the people concerned decided to take their own lives. We should be concerned about that.
In the wider context of terrorism, I was much impressed by the remarks that were made by Sir Robert Mark at the time of the Balcombe street seige, when the terrorists were persuaded to surrender. He said that they would have been most unlikely to surrender if they knew that they would be hanged. That again is something that we should bear in mind.
There is also the problem of hostages. If capital punishment were imposed, with the long drawn-out process that would necessarily precede the hanging of any terrorist, there is the possibility that hostages would be taken. If I were convinced that the Government would stand firm in those circumstances I believe that the risk would be worth taking, but there is no guarantee that the Government would stand firm, faced with going ahead with capital punishment at a time when the lives of perhaps 20 or 30 hostages were at stake. If the Government did not stand firm the victory for the terrorists would be great, as would be the defeat for law and order.
Then there is the point that has been made on a number of occasions about whether we could have capital punishment for terrorists when the decision would be taken by a judge, or a judge and two assessors.
As my right hon. and learned Friend says, apparently, three judges. The number of judges is not relevant, with great respect. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend did not spell out what he had in mind in greater detail. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is possible that public opinion would not find a decision of that nature acceptable. Indeed, it would place tremendous responsibility and strain on the individual judges, in a totally unprecedented situation—at any rate, in modern times. However, if we go back to a system of trial by jury in Northern Ireland, in particular, there is a risk of intimidation, with the result that people might be acquitted and suffer no penalty whatever. I am therefore not convinced that it would be right to restore capital punishment.
In view of the strength of argument in the debate 20 years ago, when it was almost unanimously agreed that it was impossible to differentiate between capital and non-capital murder — certainly Mr. Henry Brooke stressed that aspect—and when it was rejected by the House on that occasion, I find it extraordinary that we now have a series of amendments on the Order Paper which seek to do precisely that. One cannot differentiate between different categories of murder, and certainly not, as has been stressed by several hon. Members, between terrorist and non-terrorist murders. As has been rightly said, those are equally terrible and it is right that the same penalty should be imposed. However, for the reasons that I have given, it would not be right to restore capital punishment in any of those cases.
The debate was opened by two Queen's counsel — the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) and the Home Secretary. They both had expensive educations. I listened to them as a simple layman and I had no sense of deprivation in not having had a legal training. They did the cases that they put forward no justice.
The hon. and learned Member for Fylde almost admitted that there were no statistics to prove that capital punishment of whatever kind is a deterrent. The Home Secretary underlined that. All the figures produced by all the authorities that we can lay our hands on also underline that fact. That destroys the principal argument for the reintroduction of capital punishment.
If it does not deter, why is the argument for capital punishment put forward unless it is some form of retribution? But retribution does not solve the problem. We are still left with murders and violence of one kind or another, endemic to our society. They are increasing day by day.
At every general election in the past 20 years to my knowledge the Conservative party has promised that it is the party of law and order and will solve the problems. It has singularly failed to do so and it is in desperation that debates such as this are put forward from time to time. They are to try to prove the Conservative party's virility in one way or another by showing its firmness and determination to root out murder. But, of course, they do nothing of the kind.
The Home Secretary's speech was the most appalling that I have heard from a Home Secretary in the past 30 years. He is one of the most over-rated Members of the House. I have thought so ever since he became a Member. Whatever position he has held, I have had that view confirmed. He underlined it this afternoon by an almost off-the-cuff remark. He said that he would reintroduce capital punishment for terrorism. He said that we cannot have juries but that we shall have two or three assessors, a little quango the members of which will get together in a happy little knot to decide that somebody shall be for the rope.
Would there be a majority verdict, two to one? What would be the mechanics by which a man would hang, be shot, be poisoned, or whatever? For a prominent member of the Cabinet to make such a speech is absolutely disgraceful. It has rightly been shot down by almost everybody who has spoken in the debate.
The Home Secretary also said that the argument was raging in the country. It is doing no such thing. In a document in the Library I read that in a previous debate an hon. Member said that she had received 800 letters on the subject. I have never had 800 letters on any single subject under the sun in all the years that I have been in the House, and on this particular matter I have had precisely four. Right hon. and hon. Members can make of that what they like. They cannot presume that the country is seething and desperately anxious for the rope.
Even if that were so, it has been said repeatedly in the House that we are not here to govern by public opinion poll. We are here to make our own judgments, to exercise our own consciences and to take the rap in our constituencies for whatever we do or say. I have always made my views abundantly clear, and there has never been any threat to my existence in the House. My position has never been threatened by virtue of my attitude on this matter.
I forecast that, whatever the outcome tonight, no legislation on capital punishment will be passed by Parliament. I build a scenario. What will happen if the Home Secretary's advice is taken by the House—I do not believe that it will be — and we accept the proposition that there will be capital punishment for terrorism? A private Member will try to introduce legislation with the Government's advice. He might be better off without it. The Government must then define their terms. Many Prime Ministers all over the world have at one time been defined as terrorists—in Africa, South America and all over the former British Empire.
I can name 20 hon. Members who would like to be on a committee on capital punishment legislation, defining exclusions and the rest, but there is no prospect of succeeding with such a Bill. The Government know that no guillotine motion would be possible.
The Prime Minister, contrary to her promise during the election campaign, said that the Government would have nothing to do with this matter. The Government are divided. They see a way out. Even if the vote goes in favour of one proposition or another, there is no hope in hell that it will be translated into legislation.
The Government are gunning for the Home Secretary. His bacon will be saved by the device of a private Member's Bill. The legislation is dead, whatever the result tonight. That is why the Government are behaving in this hypocritical way. I hope that this is the end of this sad story and that we will get down to solving the undoubted problems of increasing violence. The greatest violence is to put nearly 4 million people on the dole.
I commend to the House amendment (i) which stands in ray name and which seeks to restore the death penalty for murders committed in the course or furtherance of theft. Having heard this debate through, although the contributions from both sides have obviously been sincere, I am left with the feeling that insufficient account has been taken of the weight of public opinion.
My amendment covers the category of murder that comes closest to ordinary people in their daily lives. It seeks to lessen the danger and the feat that they feel. My amendment would restore the possibility of capital punishment for those who take guns oh raids on banks or wages vans with the intention of using them to shoot their way out of trouble. The scene of such a tragedy could be any high street bank to which our constituents go regularly in the course of their business. It could be a security van visiting a factory, office or other place of work.
The amendment seeks to restore the possibility of capital punishment for those who take weapons with them when burgling homes, knowing that they might use them to eliminate an unfortunate innocent witness to their crime. It seeks to restore the possibility of capital punishment for street thieves — for muggers and people who use violence and weapons other than guns at the cost of innocent victims' lives. It seeks to restore the possibility of capital punishment for that despicable crime that is becoming prevalent—breaking into a home, battering an old person, taking their savings and leaving the victim without any apparent concern about whether he or she lives or dies. Indifference to human life has become associated with many forms of crime. I find that most frightening of all.
A newspaper report a few weeks ago, which did not take up much space, began with the words:
Two men who killed Mrs. Violet Beckett, 84, by putting tape over her eyes and mouth, tying her to her bed and leaving her, were both jailed for 12 years at Birmingham Crown court yesterday. The pair also stole the £400 she had saved to pay for her funeral.
That type of murder comes closest to people's experience in their daily lives. Ordinary people live in fear of that happening to them. Is it any wonder that the majority of people demand the further protection that they believe the possibility of the death sentence would give them?
I cannot accept the Home Secretary's contention that some exemplary sentences would cause the greatest public disquiet. That disquiet, anger and fear exist now. The argument of the advocates of capital punishment is not about taking life, but about saving it. We have a duty to do whatever we can to ensure that men, women and children do not become the innocent victims of violent crime.
Many statistics have been used in the debate. In the past 10 years in that category of murder to which I refer—the furtherance of theft or gain—5000 innocent people have lost their lives.
The Timothy Evans case is thrown at us as an example of a possible innocent life taken. We must remember the 500 innocent lives that have been lost in the last 10 years as a result of murder by those bent on theft. I cannot comprehend how abolitionists can disagree that at least some of those 500 innocent lives could have been saved if the possibility of capital punishment had obliged the criminals to pay a passing thought for their victims.
It is freely acknowledged on all sides that hon. Members have a difficult and moral decision to make. Moral questions are not easy. They are often difficult to decide. That is so tonight. The moral arguments are not all on one side. Many opponents of capital punishment this evening have talked about the possibility of error when a capital sentence is carried out. That is a possibility which I, in honesty, have to understand and accept. What if an innocent life is taken? I take that on board when considering the problem. But that is not the end of the moral argument. An equally moral question is whether we can continue to deny to citizens innocent of crime the final thin protection of obliging the criminal to show some consideration for their lives while pursuing his ends.
I agree that the death of Timothy Evans poses a moral problem, but so does the death of Mrs. Violet Beckett, left casually to die by those who had robbed her of £400. Her life should weigh on our consciences—together with the lives of many of the 500 killed during the process of theft in the past 10 years—as does the life of Timothy Evans.
I have no doubt where the balance of such moral argument lies. I shall vote accordingly tonight to save lives —the lives of those destined, under the law as it stands, to become innocent victims.
The first argument presented to the House this afternoon was put by the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner). It was that the public wishes the return of the death penalty for the crime of murder. I tend to think that perhaps the majority do wish for that. The return of the ultimate penalty would be regarded as a mark of determination by the House to deter the criminal. No doubt such symbols have a powerful attraction, but they are of little benefit when they do not produce the required results. From all that I have read over many years and heard today, it is hard to find substantial evidence to suggest that judicial killing is an act that deters.
I do not doubt that it does deter some, but it does not deter others. There is no real statistical evidence for believing that there is a clear correlation between the murder rate and the existence or otherwise of the death penalty. It cannot be proved one way or the other. Therefore, it must be a question of judgment.
The second argument before us is that of retribution. Many hon. Members bellowed in support of that emotional attitude. I find it difficult to argue with those who demand retribution because of the sheer single-mindedness of that approach. They believe that murderers should be hanged irrespective of the consequences of that decision. The retributionists tonight will not find much difficulty in making their decision. But I do not believe that revenge and retribution are the business of Parliament. The business of Parliament is justice and the protection of the innocent—justice in the form of harsh punishment for the guilty and justice in protecting the lives of the innocent and the values of our society. Retribution can never and should never have a place in the deliberations of a Parliament.
The third argument before us is that of selectivity. Those who do not believe in judicial killing are not being asked to throw their convictions overboard; they are being persuaded to make their convictions flexible. It has been suggested throughout the debate by those who have tabled amendments that a more flexible approach will suffice.
They suggest that we should discriminate in applying the capital sentence. We are being asked to apply it not to all murders, but to killings in furtherance of certain types of crime, which are spelt out in the amendments. Many hon. Members have acknowledged that to restore selective judicial killing would present the judiciary with enormous problems.
Attempts to implement legislation which distinguishes between capital and non-capital murders have been unsuccessful. We have heard that earlier legislation produced anomalies despite years of study and examination in attempts to define different types of murder. We must face reality. Either we have the death penalty for all murders or we do not reinstate it. That is the issue before the House. We cannot distinguish between one category of murder and another.
Let us consider the issue in practice. I give as an example a raid on a post office or a bank in which a clerk is killed. Subsequently the prosecution produces evidence to suggest that he who killed the clerk had former associations with a terrorist organisation but that those associations had been severed some years before. The accused denies that he was politically motivated but insists that he was financially motivated. There would be grave suspicion and doubt in such a case. It could be that the individual who carried out the killing had no connection with a terrorist organisation but there was evidence to suggest that his associates were politically motivated. It would be an impossible task for juries to distinguish between motives. It would result in far fewer convictions. The legal system would be in disarray and brought into disrepute. It is a ghoulish proposition and an impossible task to draw moral distinctions, as some amendments seek to do, between different types of murder.
The fourth argument concerns the delusion that judicial killing would horrify and deter those prepared to commit major crimes of terrorism. I believe that the Home Secretary is wrong, and dangerously wrong, in what he said today. History disproves the case. History disproves the contention of deterrent. One has only to consider Ireland in the past, Palestine as it then was, Cyprus and more recently Spain. Reprisals on innocent people produced no evidence that the overall result of capital punishment is effective to deter the terrorist any more than it protects the innocent. This was acknowledged 10 years ago in relation to Northern Ireland. At that time, a courageous Conservative Home Secretary moved the abolition of the death penalty there. In doing so he said that he was absolutely convinced that in the days preceding and following any execution police and soldiers would be at increased risk and that it would be likely to promote more shooting and more risk of death than to reduce it. That was later confirmed when that former Home Secretary was in Opposition. It has been upheld by Home Secretaries for 10 years.
I was saddened today after all those years to hear the astonishing views of the new Home Secretary in an incomplete, incoherent argument on a most crucial issue. We are dealing not with criminal thugs but with fanatics, and I do not think he recognises that. We are talking about people who put their lives at minimal cost in comparison with the cause for which they fight because they are hooked on the drug of fanaticism. Death is their business and their only fear is meeting death without the full glare of publicity.
Although martyrdom is an old and classic argument, it is still valid. It was demonstrated in the wave of emotion which followed the self-inflicted starvation of Maze prisoners. That produced money, prestige and support for the IRA, and I am in no doubt that judicial execution would see even greater escalation of that support for violence, swelling the ranks of the paramilitary ready for the grisly romanticism of martyrdom.
For those who perpetuate outrageous acts there is no shred of sympathy. They must be met with long, tough sentences. I make no bones about the fact that I welcome the practice of committal for decades and conviction for life, and I regret that the Home Secretary did not give the figures in relation to Northern Ireland.
I come now to the final argument, to the democratic process which brings into conflict individual conscience and majority opinion. The first question put to me at the first meeting of the election campaign was on this subject. Although over the years in the House I have demonstrated my opposition to capital punishment, I cannot say that all my constituents are aware of my views. But I am not a mandated delegate and this is not a delegated assembly. I owe respect for the point of view of those whom I represent. I also owe them my judgment in seeking what is best for the country as a whole.
It would not only be wrong in itself but wrong in the interests of the nation to reinstate capital punishment on the basis of outside opinion. That opinion I must face and convince. If I fail, my views and I can be rejected. However, it would be intolerable if I were to allow gunmen to blow me away from the opinions I hold. We all owe our unpressured opinions to the nation, and I shall act in that manner tonight.
I have listened to the debate carefully and tried to evaluate the arguments that have been put forward. As some hon. Members may know, I have for long held objections on grounds of conscience to capital punishment, but that cannot be the end of the matter. This is an issue, not only of the individual hon. Member's conscience but of the judgment of each one of us as to whether the restoration of capital punishment would increase the security of the nation.
We are obliged to take into account the views of the constituents who sent us here. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) said—and this has been a burden throughout the debate; I agree with it on constitutional grounds — we are not mandated delegates. We are representatives and therefore must take into account the views of our constituents. That must be part of our judgment, but it cannot determine it.
Let us remember that it is the restoration of capital punishment that we are discussing. Hon. Members have spoken about abolitionists. Capital punishment has been abolished—it has gone—and the argument is whether it should be restored. We should be talking about restorationists, not about abolitionists. The burden of proof is upon those who wish to reverse the decision of the House and return to another situation.
No, I shall not give way.
Has the burden of proof been discharged? Has it been established in the debate that the death penalty is a unique deterrent that would increase the security of the country? That has not been established and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) said that it could not be. If that is so, the case cannot be made out for altering the status quo.
We know that it is probable that perhaps six people have been wrongly executed. There may have been more, but can we return to the death penalty in the light of the evidence that mistakes have been made? That question has not been answered in this debate.
Much of the debate has been devoted to execution for terrorists. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary devoted a considerable part of his speech to that issue. I am the first to acknowledge that it is extremely difficult for someone to speak as Home Secretary on this subject. He has a dual role which it is extremely difficult to discharge adequately. We all respect the conscientious right of my right hon. and learned Friend as a Member of this place to have his own opinion and his own vote, but he has an additional and different role from that, which is just as important. As Home Secretary he has a particular responsibility in this area, and it is up to him to give guidance to the House from the beginning.
I have to say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I do not think that he was clear in the guidance that he gave. He was rightly challenged by successive contributors to the debate from both sides of the House to provide clarification. There were two issues. First, he was asked whether the death penalty for terrorists would apply in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain.
Possibly: in fact it was made clear in response to a question from a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). The second issue is just as crucial and it has not been answered. It is whether the Home Secretary believes that it is possible without a restoration of jury trial in Northern Ireland to bring back the death penalty for terrorism. Is that possible?
If we consider the whole of our constitutional history, even in our darkest days—and there have been some black ones—we find that no responsible person has ever put forward the proposition that someone should lose his life—suffer the supreme penalty—save by the judgment of his peers. On an issue of this sort we need the utmost clarity from my right hon. and learned Friend in what he tells us he is proposing.
No, I shall not give way.
It has been suggested that perhaps a judge in Northern Ireland sitting with assessors would be a substitute for a jury. Has my right hon. and learned Friend asked the Northern Ireland judiciary whether it would be willing to adopt such a role? If he has made such an inquiry, what has been the response? We in the House are entitled to that information if we are to make a considered judgment on the facts.
One of the most outstanding speeches in the debate was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I served with him in the Cabinet when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I can vouch, though it is not necessary, for the truth of everything that he said about the events during that period. He pointed to something of even more importance than jury trial. That is the consistent view of the Government and Opposition that there is nothing special about terrorist activities as such in Northern Ireland. What are the IRA and the others? They are not political offenders. They are common criminals, and they should be treated in that way. My right hon. Friend made it clear, with all the authority that his experience must command, that he was not in favour of bringing back the death penalty for terrorism alone.
Even if the death penalty were brought back not for terrorists alone, we would still be faced with the problem. If one brought back the death penalty in general for murder, what would happen in Northern Ireland for offences of terrorism? One would be impaled on the horns of the same dilemma. What would one do? Would there be a death penalty for everything save for terrorist offences in Northern Ireland? It is outrageous even to suggest such a thing. The issue has not been thought through. Until it has been a great deal more thoroughly than it has been during the debate, it is the duty of the House to give a negative reply.
We have had a full debate. It is true that many people who are deeply anxious about violence and crime in our society—rightly so—think that some sort of short cut solution will come about through the death penalty. Ii will not. They may be wrong in thinking that, but continuous debates in the House and elsewhere on the subject foster and create that delusion. Let the verdict of the House tonight—no one knows what it will be—be one thing, and it is this. Let it be the final verdict on the issue.
Order. To bring the debate to an orderly conclusion I should like to call the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) at 9.30 pm and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) at 9.45 pm.
Most civilised societies have already abolished capital punishment. Those who seek to bring back capital punishment are seeking to lower our standards below those of many other countries. When we had capital punishment 20 years or more ago, hanging was used only for a small and limited number of murderers. Had capital punishment been applied more widely, I think that it would have been abolished many years earlier. Not one hon. Member who spoke up in favour of capital punishment today argued that it should be used in a widespread manner. Every hon. Member said that it should be used in a particular and limited manner. That makes its function as a deterrent that much less effective.
I argue, as other Members have, that individuals who seek to bring back hanging or some other form of capital punishment have the onus firmly on their shoulders to prove that it should work as a deterrent. I appreciate that not all hon. Members who want to reintroduce capital punishment have argued that it would be a deterrent, but most have. Rather than simply saying that the death penalty would somehow be effective, they have a responsibility to say why it would be effective.
There are other aspects of our criminal law where the evidence for a penalty or punishment is clear-cut. On something as drastic as the death penalty, the least that we can demand is that some evidence of its effectiveness be produced. It is not as simple as saying, "We will have capital punishment as a deterrent or we will not." If we have it, consequences that could be damaging to society will follow. Supporters of capital punishment have not covered that point properly.
The Home Secretary did not argue that capital punishment should be reintroduced for acts of terrorism because it would be a deterrent. Indeed, if I remember correctly, he said that it would not be a deterrent. He said that terrorism is so reprehensible that, irrespective of whether the death penalty would be a deterrent, he wants to reintroduce it. He went further and said that he wants the death penalty for terrorism not because of the loss of life of individuals but because terrorism represents a threat to the state.
That is a long way from the anxieties of most hon. Members who have spoken today, who are worried about the threat to the lives of fellow citizens. Not so the Home Secretary. He talked about the state. In that, he is different from almost every Home Secretary that most of us can remember. All of them opposed capital punishment. Indeed, only one Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) — has believed that capital punishment is appropriate. Home Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are in a better position to judge the effectiveness of the death penalty. Their views should be listened to with respect. If they oppose it, they must have real reasons that are based upon their experience for doing so.
Some countries use the death penalty as a weapon of repression. South Africa and Iraq are but two. It seems that we are in grave danger of lowering our standards to those of states that are not democratic and use the death penalty to repress their citizens. Surely we do not want to do that.
The death penalty brutalises any society that uses it. Most of us can remember people waiting outside Wandsworth or other prisons at dawn for the notice saying that someone had been executed. Some hon. Members have said today that they want a method of capital punishment other than hanging. That argument has not had much weight. If we are to consider hanging—the other methods are also brutal—it is worth pointing out that it is an obnoxious way in which to deal with someone in the name of the state, even if that person has committed a ghastly murder. It involves the noose being placed in such a way that it will break the neck. It involves arms being tied and a hood over the person's face. It involves the use of rubber underwear so that excrement does not fall from the hanged person or, if the person to be hanged is a woman, to prevent the womb falling out. Do we want all of that in the name of the state and then a body that is so disfigured that the relatives might not be allowed to see it?
The hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) said that it was the duty of the state to protect its citizens. I agree with that, and, having heard the arguments from both sides of the House, I submit that the best way to protect our citizens and make life in our country safer, more decent and more tolerable is to defeat every one of the amendments and the motion that seeks to reintroduce the death penalty.
I start on a personal note. When I first came here 20 years ago, I listened to Sydney Silverman and agreed strongly with, and supported, his views on the abolition of the death penalty, as I still do. As the years have gone on, I have operated on a broader canvas related to responsibilities as Northern Ireland Secretary and Home Secretary. I shall relate my remarks to my experience and explain why, with that experience, I am still against capital punishment.
From holding those two posts, I know that Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Secretary and not for the Home Secretary. It used not to be that way. Northern Ireland was the responsibility of the Home Secretary and, apart from 1968–70 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) had responsibility, it was very much a backroom job. In the face of the events of 1972 the Northern Ireland Office was set up. The Province is a place apart and a divided community. Some 2,250 people have been killed there, with further killings recently. At least 25,000 have been injured, while 300 members of the Provisional IRA are lying dead in the Milltown cemetry in the Falls road. I was astounded that the Home Secretary spoke in favour of an amendment that is almost completely concerned with Irish terrorism, and that he floated ideas on which his Department, except vicariously, could not have commented, for which he had no responsibility and of which he has no knowledge.
I rest my general case on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who spoke of the effect in general of the removal of the death penalty and against a return to the categorisation of murders. I am concerned about the frailty of the courts. One of the cases mentioned in the documentation that has been sent to us is an instance when I was linked to the reversal of a sentence for murder.
I understand the feelings of those who are concerned about the increase in crime. The way to deal with that is to control the number of guns that are available, consider the length of sentences and investigate the causes of crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) said. That is the way to proceed. They would make pointless additions to party manifestos that cannot be carried out, which lead to disillusion among the electorate and cannot mean a return to capital punishment, as the right hon. Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser) said.
I found the Home Secretary's approach to terrorism strange. He floated ideas for which another Department is responsible. He has a responsibility for a terrorism in this country that is almost completely Irish. The Irish terrorism is our problem. It is not Soviet inspired and it does not come from Cuba, although there was a time when Libya funded both sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. The events in Northern Ireland follow 200 or 300 years of history, and the ghastly murders that have taken place should make us understand the feelings of the people who come from Northern Ireland, who live with this daily, and who believe that over here nobody is interested. The violence comes from Ireland.
Northern Ireland Members and others know that I have not been out since March 1974 without a police guard, or stayed in without a police guard on my house. I know what the Provisional IRA and the INLA and God knows what feel. I have seen the blood on the streets. I know about the 2,300 dead and about the terrorism. I locked up 600 terrorists in detention and I know the names of others who dabbled with terrorists at different times, but who have talked about democracy with their second breath.
Having had that experience—and I have a right to refer to it—I can assert that to hang Irish terrorists—or shoot them or kill them by whatever new means may be suggested—will not solve the Irish question. Matters would get worse even in advance of legislation. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) points out, Ireland would burn the moment the first person died. There may be 30 or 40 terrorist groups in Northern Ireland. They spawn in the same way as pressure groups here. The only difference is that they kill. We have a Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which defines terrorism. I have not been able to find any other legislation in the world that defines terrorism. It is defined as using violence for political ends, including any use of violence to put people in fear.
Northern Ireland is a place that has elected five members of the Provisional Sinn Fein. That is a group that I legalised in order to get political action. It is a group that broke away from the Marxist Official IRA in 1969. One member of that group has been elected to this House. Two members of it, whom I know have been associated with murder, were elected to the Assembly. For the State to involve itself in hanging and capital punishment flies in the face of 300 or 400 years of Irish history.
I agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, not because I belong to his club—I belong to the Home Secretary's club as well—but because he knows what lie is talking about. In his letter to the chairman of Waveney constituency association he made a number of good points that were based on his experience.
Most terrorists believe that they will not be caught. The defeat of terrorism depends on arresting and convicting … As I shall explain … capital punishment is likely to make it more difficult to secure evidence".
He had taken advice from the police in Northern Ireland. He then referred to the jury system, and so on.
The right hon. Gentleman is right, but his words are based on experience, in the face of which he changed his mind. What the Home Secretary has said today about Irish terrorism did not meet the facts or the feel of the Province. The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not the first to have changed his mind. Viscount Whitelaw changed his mind in the face of the possible hanging of a Protestant and a Catholic.
The Home Secretary cannot simply float an idea. He cannot simply recommend to the the House that we should return to the death penalty for murder, having discussed it in the House. He had a duty to put forward the facts. Was he speaking for the Government?
There is no mystery about that. I made it perfectly clear that in my speech I was giving certain facts to the House and that I was also giving my personal view. As the House knows perfectly well, there is a free vote on all these matters. Whenever I gave my personal view, I made it clear that I was doing so. There has never been any doubt about that.
There is doubt about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He has argued that we should have capital punishment in the United Kingdom as a whole, but with a different system in Northern Ireland. He suggested that there should be two assessors. I voted in 1973 for the system of having two assessors with a judge. When I arrived in Northern Ireland I realised that the idea was rubbish. The Home Secretary should have consulted his right hon. Friend. He should not have floated his ideas here. Has he considered the question of jury trial? Even if I had not been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, no member of my family would be a juror in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know the facts if he can come to the Chamber and say, "I float this idea. Have a look at it on the basis of a private Member's Bill." The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not discussed the matter with the judiciary in Northern Ireland, and nor should he. That is the job of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to come here with ideas that will not work. Of course, as Home Secretary, he is entitled to put them forward, but a Home Secretary should do his homework better.
We have made mistakes before. A Tory Government introduced the special category. We supported it but a Tory Government introduced it. The building of the H-blocks and the ending of the use of special category led to the last Northern Ireland Secretary's problems. But has the Secretary thought that in a sense he has argued this afternoon for a return to a special category for Irish terrorists? We should not treat Irish terrorists—whether Protestant or Catholic, Republican or Loyalist—as other than criminals. That is what they are. They are not, and should not be allowed to get away with the idea that they are separate and different.
There is a political side to this question. I disagree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Whatever Joe Cahill says in a newspaper, I am sure that the Provisional IRA, the INLA, and the other organisations want the death penalty to be restored. I tell the House that they would love it. They would love a return to capital punishment. They would vote for it if they were here. They would want to be on the world scene. They would want embassies to burn and ambassadors abroad to be shot. That is what the Provisional IRA lives on. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned, they also live on a substantial number of votes in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend is short of time and I appreciate the fact that he has given way. I have had to sit in the Chamber listening to hon. Members talk about terrorism in Northern Ireland. I confirm that my right hon. Friend gave me that brief to end the special category. However, the Home Secretary has today gone back on that. Sometimes Ministers have dirty, horrible jobs to do. I was certainly a Minister who had dirty and horrible jobs to do in Northern Ireland. I had to go to the Maze prison, as part of my duty to the House, to see certain groups of people. I have never said or uttered a word about what they said to me. I have mentioned what I put to them, but they told me that their only disappointment about the way things were going was that they were not facing a Brit firing squad or were not to have Brit nooses put around their necks. That is what the House should consider tonight.
My right hon. Friend has told me that before. The people on hunger strike told him that they did not want to die by their own hands. It would have been better for their cause if they had died at the hands of the British Government. That is what we must consider in the months ahead. We may make the same sort of error as was made after the Easter rising. That rising was a flop, but in the heat of war the British Government shot the Irish patriots, killed the Redmond party and played a major part in the later development of the South.
They may be gangsters, but there are a lot of gangsters in Northern Ireland and on both sides. It is wrong to give the idea that they are all on one side. I could use an unparliamentary word to describe all those who believe that killing and murder is the way to proceed. However, I do not want to hang them, or to repeat the mistakes of the Easter rising. My advice to the Opposition is to vote against the main motion and the amendments. Terrorism is reinforced by the Home Secretary's attitude tonight. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends: do not listen to the Home Secretary; listen to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has got it right.
It has been good for democracy and for Parliament that the debate on this exciting and emotive issue has been reasonable and thoughtful. I shall deal with terrorism and Ireland later. My principal task is to deal with the main argument about capital punishment. I merely say at this point that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and those who agree with him about the hunger strikes should remember that they stopped when the Government made it clear that they would not give in.
The case for capital punishment as presented by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde, (Sir E. Gardner) is, first, that it will prevent some murders, curb the carrying of guns and give more protection to the law-abiding public. It is argued by some that capital punishment is a just penalty for murder, but most of those who have spoken today have made it cler that it is the deterrence argument that influences them most.
Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart), asked for proof. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that he would not vote for capital punishment unless it was proved that it would save lives. As he and every hon. Member knows, in dealing with human conduct there is no way of proving anything at all. We cannot say what will happen in the future. As with all policy—financial, social or whatever—we must consider the available evidence and make a judgment whether a reasonable person would conclude from the facts that a certain result would ensue. If hon. Members, especially those who are undecided, examine the available facts, they will undoubtedly conclude that the deterrent of capital punishment would save lives and be in the overall interest of this country.
What are the facts? One has not yet been mentioned, but I hope that every hon. Member will consider it before voting. The papers published by the Library show that during the 20 years after the second world war, despite a substantial increase in crime generally, there was no increase in the number of murders. The figure was almost static at about 300. Indeed, contrary to the view of my view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the figures actually fell during that period, with 347 in 1946 and 296 in 1964. There was a big rise in crime and plenty of social upheaval, but there was no increase in the murder rate. That leads one to conclude that capital punishment had a deterrent effect in containing the number of murders.
What has happened since then? The figures show that since abolition there has been a sharp rise to a new plateau of killings, with an average of about 600 per year. As the Home Secretary told me in a parliamentary answer the other day, in the five years before abolition the number of killings was 290 per year, whereas in the past five years it has been 590. I challenge anyone to say that there is nothing in those figures to suggest that capital punishment was at least an influence on the situation.
Even if one throws that argument out of the window and says that it proves nothing, I ask every hon. Member before voting to consider why there has been such a dramatic increase in the use of guns by criminals since abolition. It is not a matter of a 2 or 3 per cent. increase. It is common knowledge that when we had the deterrent of capital punishment British criminals rarely carried guns. We were almost unique in the world in having criminals who went out of their way to avoid carrying guns. We all know what has happened since abolition. Guns are now used regularly in quite petty offences and robberies. The increase in the use of firearms is alarming. The Home Secretary told us that even during the past 10 years the number of serious offences involving firearms increased from about 1,700 to about 8,000.
Another figure which I hope hon. Members will consider is the horrifying one contained in the recently published criminal statistics, which shows that during the past 10 years 29 innocent humans in Britain were murdered by someone who had previously been convicted of murder, been imprisoned and then released. Although we hear about the possibility of hanging innocent men, we should also remember those 29 innocent people.
Some hon. Members, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, asked, "Where is the evidence?" Those facts and others are enough to convince a reasonable person that there is a definite link between the abolition of capital punishment and the increase in murders and the use of firearms.
I am upset by the concept that there is no argument showing that capital punishment is a deterrent, so may I give the House some figures?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In Scotland, between 1950 and 1957, there were 7,500 assaults on the person each year. Between 1957 and 1964 there was an average of 17,000 such assaults. Since the abolition of capital punishment, the figure has been 80,000 a year, and last year there were 100,000 assaults. In 1957 there were 32 High Court cases in Scotland—[Interruption.]—and last year three times as many people were killed.
My hon. and learned Friend's remarks emphasise the point that I have tried to make. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in a very good speech, said that even if he were convinced that capital punishment was a deterrent he would not vote for it. That is morally wrong. I hope that he realises the enormity of what he said, because it means that even if he believes that capital punishment is a deterrent he is prepared to condemn innocent people to die as a result. Some hon. Members have said that it is a simple question whether we vote for capital punishment, which is horrible and harrowing, or whether we do not. However, it is not so simple, because those who accept the figures must choose between hanging or judicially killing some murderers, or condemning some innocent people to death.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked where our duty as Members lay. It was a special pleasure for me, as I am sure it was for you, Mr. Speaker, to hear a former Chief Whip saying that we must be guided only by our consciences and by no other consideration. I remember the warmth and comradely friendship that he showed me when I had to explain to him that I would vote against the party's policies.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the House when I as Chief Whip influenced a free vote on a moral issue such as capital punishment. Perhaps he will also explain that he joined the Government of which I was Prime Minister at my invitation, on the basis that, because of his European views, he would resign if the Government introduced a Bill to enter the Community—which he did — and that later I invited him to rejoin the Government, which he also did. [Interruption.]
I am sure that my right hon. Friend keeps careful notes. What he said is important. Where does our duty lie? Certainly it is right that we should vote for what we believe to be the right thing. On the other hand, it would be wrong wholly to disregard not only the extent of public feeling, but the depth of concern. Some people have given the impression that the only people who care about crime are strange females at Tory conferences who wave umbrellas. We know that that is not true. There are many mothers of young children and many parents of teenagers who are desperately concerned about them being out late at night and what is happening to them.
There are also those who argue that we should forget about deterrence because it does not influence human conduct. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) said that she did not accept that deterrence mattered on any issue. I can accept that, but I hope that some of my hon. Friends who are thinking of voting tonight against capital punishment will examine the logic of saying that we as a nation are prepared to spend billions of pounds on the most horrifying weapons of nuclear destruction, not because we want to use them, but because we believe that they will deter foreign aggression, but are not prepared to have a deterrent that will deter crime at home. The two are widely different issues, of course, but, despite that, I hope that they will accept the argument.
Then there is the cleavage among the experts. Some experts argue that capital punishment will not save lives. Others argue that it will. I hope that before every hon. Member votes he will think about what Lord Devlin said this morning, that if the police, who are in the front line, strongly hold the view that the death penalty is a weapon that they need, it is our duty not to deny them.
We should all accept that the issue of terrorism is not easy. Strong arguments are advanced on both sides, as has happened today. All I hope is that if we reject the argument on terrorism it will not be on the basis of some of the arguments that have been put in the debate. Basically, it has been argued that there is nothing much that we can do about terrorism and that if the IRA respond in a certain way there is nothing that we can do about it.
Surely the whole basis of terrorism is that those who carry it out hope that by inflicting illegal capital punishment, or threatening it, they influence the views of people like ourselves, or the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), in a very sincere speech, said, as did the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), that if one guilty terrorist is hanged, Ireland will go ablaze. What do we think about the relatives of the 2,000 innocent people who have been murdered by the IRA? Are we to assume that the only thing about which Ireland gets excited is the killing of a guilty terrorist?
I appeal to those who are in genuine doubt—as I know many are — on this vital issue of terrorism to remember that some of us reluctantly took the advice of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and walked into the Lobby to support the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly, not because we believed in devolution, but because we were convinced by what he said about the need to have a democratic voice to express the views of the people of Northern Ireland.
If there is one thing in the history of Ireland that is clear, and on which I think everyone agrees, it is that far too many people think they know how to solve the problems of Northern Ireland but do not have to go through the agony of suffering as a result. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Where there is doubt, we should take the advice of those who have to live with terrorism, those who have to suffer, and those who have to die.
As the police in Northern Irelnd and the Assembly have made it clear that they believe that capital punishment would save lives and give protection, I believe that we should take the necessary action. No one welcomes the introduction of capital punishment. It is distasteful and harrowing. On the other hand, I believe that all of us in Parliament have to support and do things that are harsh and unpalatable because we believe that they are in the public interest. We shall be failing in our duty if we do not vote for the restoration of the deterrent which will smite fear into the heart of potential offenders and save innocent human lives.
|Division No. 16]||[10 pm|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Gregory, Conal|
|Alexander, Richard||Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)|
|Amess, David||Grylls, Michael|
|Ancram, Michael||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Arnold, Tom||Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Hannam, John|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Baldry, Anthony||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Batiste, Spencer||Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)|
|Beggs, Roy||Hawksley, Warren|
|Bellingham, Henry||Hayward, Robert|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Heddle, John|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Hickmet, Richard|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Hill, James|
|Blackburn, John||Hind, Kenneth|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Peter||Hirst, Michael|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Holt, Richard|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Hooson, Tom|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Bright, Graham||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Brinton, Tim||Hunter, Andrew|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Jessel, Toby|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Jones, Robert (W Herts)|
|Browne, John||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Kilfedder, James A.|
|Butcher, John||King, Roger (B'ham N'field)|
|Carlisle, John (N Luton)||Knight, Gregory (Derby N)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Knowles, Michael|
|Chapman, Sydney||Latham, Michael|
|Chope, Christopher||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Churchill, W. S.||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Lightbown, David|
|Cockeram, Eric||Lord, Michael|
|Colvin, Michael||Luce, Richard|
|Cope, John||McCrea, Rev William|
|Cranborne, Viscount||McCrindle, Robert|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||McCusker, Harold|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Dicks, T.||MacGregor, John|
|Dover, Denshore||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)|
|Dunn, Robert||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Marland, Paul|
|Evennett, David||Marlow, Antony|
|Eyre, Reginald||Mates, Michael|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Mather, Carol|
|Fallon, Michael||Maude, Francis|
|Farr, John||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Favell, Anthony||Merchant, Piers|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Mills, Ian (Meriden)|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||Moate, Roger|
|Forth, Eric||Molyneaux, James|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Fox, Marcus||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Franks, Cecil||Moore, John|
|Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh||Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)|
|Fry, Peter||Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)|
|Gale, Roger||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Galley, Roy||Murphy, Christopher|
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)||Neale, Gerrard|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Neubert, Michael|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Gow, Ian||Nicholson, J.|
|Grant, Sir Anthony||Normanton, Tom|
|Greenway, Harry||Norris, Steven|
|Oppenheim, Philip||Stokes, John|
|Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.||Sumberg, David|
|Osborn, Sir John||Taylor, John (Strangford)|
|Ottaway, Richard||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Page, John (Harrow W)||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Paisley, Rev Ian||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil||Terlezki, Stefan|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|Pawsey, James||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Pollock, Alexander||Thurnham, Peter|
|Porter, Barry||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Tracey, Richard|
|Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)||Trippier, David|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Trotter, Neville|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Robinson, P. (Belfast E)||Viggers, Peter|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Waddington, David|
|Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Rost, Peter||Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Walker, William (T'side N)|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb7)||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Ward, John|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Warren, Kenneth|
|Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Watts, John|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)||Whitfield, John|
|Speed, Keith||Whitney, Raymond|
|Speller, Tony||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Spence, John||Wilkinson, John|
|Spencer, D.||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Wolfson, Mark|
|Stanley, John||Wood, Timothy|
|Steen, Anthony||Woodcock, Michael|
|Stern, Michael||Yeo, Tim|
|Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|Stevens, Martin (Fulham)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)||Mr. George Gardiner and|
|Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)||Mr. Vivian Bendall.|
|Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Abse, Leo||Boothroyd, Miss Betty|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Bottomley, Peter|
|Adley, Robert||Boyes, Roland|
|Alton, David||Bray, Dr Jeremy|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Brooke, Hon Peter|
|Anderson, Donald||Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)|
|Ashby, David||Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Bruce, Malcolm|
|Ashton, Joe||Bryan, Sir Paul.|
|Atkins Robert (South Ribble)||Buchan, Norman|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Buck, Sir Antony|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)||Budgen, Nick|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Burt, Alistair|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Butler, Hon Adam|
|Barnett, Guy||Butterfill, John|
|Barron, Kevin||Caborn, Richard|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Callaghan, Rt Hon J.|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)|
|Beith, A. J.||Campbell, Ian|
|Bell, Stuart||Canavan, Dennis|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)|
|Benyon, William||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Carter-Jones, Lewis|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Cartwright, John|
|Best, Keith||Channon, Rt Hon Paul|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Clark, Dr David (S Shields)|
|Blair, Anthony||Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Body, Richard||Clarke, Thomas|
|Clay, Robert||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Harris, David|
|Cohen, Harry||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Coleman, Donald||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J, D.||Harvey, Robert|
|Conlan, Bernard||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Conway, Derek||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Hayes, J.|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Coombs, Simon||Haynes, Frank|
|Corbett, Robin||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Heath, Ft Hon Edward|
|Couchman, James||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Cowans, Harry||Henderson, Barry.|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Craigen, J. M.||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Critchley, Julian||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Crouch, David||Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)|
|Crowther, Stan||Home Robertson, John|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Hordern, Peter|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Dalyell, Tarn||Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Howells, Geraint|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)||Hoyle, Douglas|
|Deakins, Eric||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Dewar, Donald||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Dixon, Donald||Hughes, Roy (Newport East)|
|Dobson, Frank||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Dormand, Jack||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Hume, John|
|Douglas, Dick||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Irving, Charles|
|Dubs, Alfred||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)|
|Durant, Tony||John, Brynmor|
|Dykes, Hugh||Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Eadie, Alex||Johnston, Russell|
|Eastham, Ken||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)||Joseph, Ft Hon Sir Keith|
|Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Kennedy, Charles|
|Ewing, Harry||Key, Robert|
|Fatchett, Derek||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Faulds, Andrew||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Kinnock, Neil|
|Flannery, Martin||Kirkwood, Archibald|
|Fletcher, Alexander||Knox, David|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Lambie, David|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Lamond, James|
|Forman, Nigel||Lamont, Norman|
|Forrester, John||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Foster, Derek||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Foulkes, George||Leighton, Ronald|
|Fraser, J. (Norwood)||Lester, Jim|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Freeman, Roger||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Litherland, Robert|
|Freud, Clement||Lloyd, Ian (Havant)|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)|
|Garrett, W. E.||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|George, Bruce||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Loyden, Edward|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Godman, Dr Norman||McCartney, Hugh|
|Golding, John||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Goodlad, Alastair||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Gorst, John||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Gould, Bryan||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Gourlay, Harry||McKelvey, William|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Grist, Ian||Maclennan, Robert|
|Ground, Reginald||Macmillan, Rt Hon M.|
|Hamilton, James (M'well N)||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||McNamara, Kevin|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||McTaggart, Robert|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Madden, Max|
|Hardy, Peter||Madel, David|
|Maginnis, Ken||Rossi, Hugh|
|Major, John||Rowe, Andrew|
|Malone, Gerald||Rowlands, Ted|
|Maples, John||Ryder, Richard|
|Marek, Dr John||Ryman, John|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Sackville, Hon Thomas|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Martin, Michael||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Scott, Nicholas|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Meacher, Michael||Sheerman, Barry|
|Meadowcroft, Michael||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Mellor, David||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Shersby, Michael|
|Michie, William||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mikardo, Ian||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Skinner, Dennis|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Mitchell, David (NW Hants)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Snape, Peter|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Mudd, David||Soley, Clive|
|Needham, Richard||Spearing, Nigel|
|Nellist, David||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Nelson, Anthony||Squire, Robin|
|Newton, Tony||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)|
|O'Brien, William||Stott, Roger|
|O'Neill, Martin||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Onslow, Cranley||Strang, Gavin|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Straw, Jack|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Tapsell, Peter|
|Park, George||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Parris, Matthew||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Parry Robert||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Patchett, Terry||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Tinn, James|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Pendry, Tom||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Penhaligon, David||Wainwright, R.|
|Pike, Peter||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)||Walden, George|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wallace, James|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Waller, Gary|
|Prescott, John||Walters, Dennis|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Wareing, Robert|
|Radice, Giles||Weetch, Ken|
|Raffan, Keith||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Randall, Stuart||Welsh, Michael|
|Rathbone, Tim||Wheeler, John|
|Redmond, M.||White, James|
|Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Renton, Tim||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Wilson, Gordon|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Winnick, David|
|Richardson, Ms Jo||Woodall, Alec|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Robertson, George||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|Rogers, Allan||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Rooker, J. W.||Mr. Campbell-Savours and|
|Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)||Mr. Mark Fisher.|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Division No. 17]||[10.15 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Aitken Jonathan||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Alexander, Richard||Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Forth, Eric|
|Amess, David||Fox, Marcus|
|Ancram, Michael||Franks, Cecil|
|Arnold, Tom||Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Fry, Peter|
|Atkins Robert (South Ribble)||Gale, Roger|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Baldry, Anthony||Goodhart, Sir Philip|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Gorst, John|
|Batiste, Spencer||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Grant, Sir Anthony|
|Beggs, Roy||Gregory, Conal|
|Bellingham, Henry||Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Grylls, Michael|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Blackburn, John||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Peter||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Hannam, John|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Hawksley, Warren|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Hayward, Robert|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Heddle, John|
|Bright, Graham||Henderson, Barry|
|Brinton, Tim||Hickmet, Richard|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Hicks, Robert|
|Browne, John||Hill, James|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Hind, Kenneth|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hirst, Michael|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Butcher, John||Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)|
|Butler, Hon Adam||Holt, Richard|
|Carlisle, John (N Luton)||Hooson, Tom|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Hordern, Peter|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Howard, Michael|
|Chapman, Sydney||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Chope, Christopher||Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Hunter, Andrew|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Jessel, Toby|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Jones, Robert (W Herts)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Colvin, Michael||Kershaw, Sir Anthony|
|Coombs, Simon||Key, Robert|
|Corrie, John||Kilfedder, James A.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||King, Roger (B'ham N'field)|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Knowles, Michael|
|Dicks, T.||Lang, Ian|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Latham, Michael|
|Dover, Denshore||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Dunn, Robert||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Durant, Tony||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Lightbown, David|
|Evennett, David||Lord, Michael|
|Eyre, Reginald||McCrea, Rev William|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||McCrindle, Robert|
|Fallon, Michael||McCusker, Harold|
|Farr, John||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Favell, Anthony||MacGregor, John|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Speed, Keith|
|Marland, Paul||Speller, Tony|
|Marlow, Antony||Spence, John|
|Mates, Michael||Spencer, D.|
|Mather, Carol||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Merchant, Piers||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Stanley, John|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|Mills, Ian (Meriden)||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Mitchell, David (NW Hants)||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Moate, Roger||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Molyneaux, James||Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Stokes, John|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Sumberg, David|
|Moore, John||Taylor, John (Strangford)|
|Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Moynihan, Hon C.||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Mudd, David||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Murphy, Christopher||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Neale, Gerrard||Terlezki, Stefan|
|Neubert, Michael||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Nicholson, J.||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Normanton, Tom||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Norris, Steven||Thurnham, Peter|
|Oppenheim, Philip||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.||Tracey, Richard|
|Osborn, Sir John||Trippier, David|
|Ottaway, Richard||Trotter, Neville|
|Page, John (Harrow W)||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Paisley, Rev Ian||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil||Viggers, Peter|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Waddington, David|
|Pawsey, James||Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Walker, William (T'side N)|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Ward, John|
|Pollock, Alexander||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Porter, Barry||Warren, Kenneth|
|Price, Sir David||Watson, John|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Watts, John|
|Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Whitfield, John|
|Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Whitney, Raymond|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Robinson, P. (Belfast E)||Wilkinson, John|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Rost, Peter||Wolfson, Mark|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Wood, Timothy|
|Sackville, Hon Thomas||Woodcock, Michael|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Yeo, Tim|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Mr. George Gardiner and|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Mr. Vivian Bendall.|
|Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Abse, Leo||Barnett, Guy|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Barron, Kevin|
|Alton, David||Beckett, Mrs Margaret|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Beith, A. J.|
|Anderson, Donald||Bell, Stuart|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)|
|Ashby, David||Benyon, William|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Bermingham, Gerald|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Best, Keith|
|Ashton, Joe||Bidwell, Sydney|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Blair, Anthony|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Body, Richard|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)||Boothroyd, Miss Betty|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Bottomley, Peter|
|Boyes, Roland||Foster, Derek|
|Bray. Dr Jeremy||Foulkes, George|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Fraser, J. (Norwood)|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Fraser, Peter (Angus East)|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Freeman, Roger|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Freud, Clement|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Bruce, Malcolm||Garrett, W. E.|
|Buchan, Norman||George, Bruce|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Budgen, Nick||Godman, Dr Norman|
|Burt, Alistair||Golding, John|
|Butterfill, John||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Caborn, Richard||Gould, Bryan|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Gourley, harry|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Gow, Ian|
|Campbell, Ian||Grist, Ian|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Ground, Reginald|
|Canavan, Dennis||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)||Hamilton, James (M'well N)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hardy, Peter|
|Cartwright, John||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Harris, David|
|Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Clarke, Thomas||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Clay, Robert||Harvey, Rcbert|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Cohen, Harry||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Coleman, Donald||Hayes, J.|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Conlan, Bernard||Haynes, Frank|
|Conway, Derek||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Heath, Rt Hon Edward|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Cope, John||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Corbett, Robin||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Couchman, James||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Cowans, Harry||Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Home Robertson, John|
|Craigen, J. M.||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Critchley, Julian||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Crouch, David||Howells, Geraint|
|Crowther, Stan||Hoyle, Douglas|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hughes, Roy (Newport East)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Davies. Ronald (Caerphilly)||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)||Hume, John|
|Deakins, Eric||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Dewar, Donald||Irving, Charles|
|Dixon, Donald||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Dobson, Frank||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Dormand, Jack||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)|
|Dorrell. Stephen||John, Brynmor|
|Douglas, Dick||Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Johnston, Russell|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Eadie, Alex||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Eastham, Ken||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)||Kennedy, Charles|
|Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Ewing, Harry||Kinnock, Neil|
|Fatchett, Derek||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Faulds, Andrew||Knox, David|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Lambie, David|
|Fisher, Mark||Lamond, James|
|Flannery, Martin||Lamont, Norman|
|Fletcher, Alexander||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Leighton, Ronald|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Forman, Nigel||Lester, Jim|
|Forrester, John||Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Renton, Tim|
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Lilley, Peter||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Litherland, Robert||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant)||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)||Robertson, George|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|Loyden, Edward||Rogers, Allan|
|Luce, Richard||Rooker, J. W.|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|McCurley, Mrs Anna||Rossi, Hugh|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Rowe, Andrew|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Rowlands, Ted|
|McKelvey, William||Ryder, Richard|
|Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Ryman, John|
|Maclennan, Robert||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Scott, Nicholas|
|McNamara, Kevin||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McTaggart, Robert||Sheerman, Barry|
|Madden, Max||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Madel, David||Shersby, Michael|
|Maginnis, Ken||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Major, John||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Malone, Gerald||Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)|
|Maples, John||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Marek, Dr John||Skinner, Dennis|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Martin, Michael||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Maude, Francis||Snape, Peter|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Soley, Clive|
|Meacher, Michael||Spearing, Nigel|
|Meadowcroft, Michael||Squire, Robin|
|Mellor, David||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Michie, William||Steen, Anthony|
|Mikardo, Ian||Stern, Michael|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Stott, Roger|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Strang, Gavin|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Straw, Jack|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Needham, Richard||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Nellist, David||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Nelson, Anthony||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Newton, Tony||Tinn, James|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|O'Brien, William||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|O'Neill, Martin||Wainwright, R.|
|Onslow, Cranley||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Walden, George|
|Park, George||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Parry Robert||Wallace, James|
|Patchett, Terry||Waller, Gary|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Walters, Dennis|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Wareing, Robert|
|Pendry, Tom||Weetch, Ken|
|Penhaligon, David||Welsh, Michael|
|Pike, Peter||Wheeler, John|
|Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)||White, James|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Wilson, Gordon|
|Prescott, John||Winnick, David|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Woodall, Alec|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Radice, Giles||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Raffan, Keith||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Rathbone, Tim||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Redmond, M.||Ms. Jo Richardson and|
|Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)||Mr. Alfred Dubs.|
|Division No. 18]||[10.30 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)|
|Aitken Jonathan||Forth, Eric|
|Alexander, Richard||Fox, Marcus|
|Amess, David||Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh|
|Arnold, Tom||Fry, Peter|
|Atkins Robert (South Ribble)||Gale, Roger|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Baldry, Anthony||Goodhart, Sir Philip|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Batiste, Spencer||Grant, Sir Anthony|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Gregory, Conal|
|Beggs, Roy||Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Grylls, Michael|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Blackburn, John||Hannam, John|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Peter||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Hawksley, Warren|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Hayward, Robert|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Heddle, John|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Henderson, Barry|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Hickmet, Richard|
|Bright, Graham||Hicks, Robert|
|Brinton, Tim||Hill, James|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Hind, Kenneth|
|Browne, John||Hirst, Michael|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Holt, Richard|
|Butcher, John||Hooson, Tom|
|Butler, Hon Adam||Hordern, Peter|
|Carlisle, John (TV Luton)||Howard, Michael|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Chope, Christopher||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hunter, Andrew|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)||Jessel, Toby|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Jones, Robert (W Herts)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Kershaw, Sir Anthony|
|Cockeram, Eric||Key, Robert|
|Colvin, Michael||Kilfedder, James A.|
|Coombs, Simon||King, Roger (B'ham N'field)|
|Corrie, John||Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Knowles, Michael|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Latham, Michael|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Dicks, T.||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Dover, Denshore||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Lightbown, David|
|Dunn, Robert||Lord, Michael|
|Durant, Tony||McCrea, Rev William|
|Emery, Sir Peter||McCrindle, Robert|
|Evennett, David||McCusker, Harold|
|Eyre, Reginald||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||MacGregor, John|
|Fallon, Michael||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|Farr, John||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Favell, Anthony||McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Marland, Paul|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Marlow, Antony|
|Mates, Michael||Speed, Keith|
|Mather, Carol||Speller, Tony|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Spence, John|
|Merchant, Piers||Spencer, D.|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Mills, Ian (Meriden)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Stanley, John|
|Mitchell, David (NW Hants)||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|Moate, Roger||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|Molyneaux, James||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Moore, John||Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)|
|Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)||Stokes, John|
|Moynihan, Hon C.||Sumberg, David|
|Mudd, David||Taylor, John (Strangford)|
|Murphy, Christopher||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Neale, Gerrard||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Neubert, Michael||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Nicholson, J.||Terlezki, Stefan|
|Normanton, Tom||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|Norris, Steven||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Osborn, Sir John||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Ottaway, Richard||Thurnham, Peter|
|Page, John (Harrow W)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Page, Richard (Herts SW)||Tracey, Richard|
|Paisley, Rev Ian||Trippier, David|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil||Trotter, Neville|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Pawsey, James||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Waddington, David|
|Pink, R, Bonner||Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Pollock, Alexander||Walker, William (T'side N)|
|Porter, Barry||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Price, Sir David||Ward, John|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Watson, John|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Watts, John|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Robinson, P. (Belfast E)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Whitfield, John|
|Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)||Whitney, Raymond|
|Rost, Peter||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Wilkinson, John|
|Sackville, Hon Thomas||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Wolfson, Mark|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Wood, Timothy|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Woodcock, Michael|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Mr. George Gardiner and|
|Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)||Mr. Vivian Bendall.|
|Abse, Leo||Bell, Stuart|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)|
|Alton, David||Benyon, William|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Bermingham, Gerald|
|Ancram, Michael||Best, Keith|
|Anderson, Donald||Bidwell, Sydney|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Blair, Anthony|
|Ashby, David||Body, Richard|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Boothroyd, Miss Betty|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Boyes, Roland|
|Ashton, Joe||Bray, Dr Jeremy|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Brittan, Rt Hon Leon|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Brooke, Hon Peter|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)||Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)|
|Barnett, Guy||Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)|
|Barron, Kevin||Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Bruce, Malcolm|
|Beith, A. J.||Buchan, Norman|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||George, Bruce|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Budgen, Nick||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Burt, Alistair||Godman, Dr Norman|
|Butterfill, John||Golding, ,John|
|Caborn, Richard||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Gorst, John|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Gould, Bryan|
|Campbell, Ian||Gourlay, Harry|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Gow, Ian|
|Canavan, Dennis||Grist, Ian|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)||Ground, Reginald|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hamilton, James (M'well N)|
|Cartwright, John||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)|
|Clark. Dr David (S Shields)||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hardy, Peter|
|Clarke, Thomas||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Clay, Robert||Harris, David|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)||Harrison, Rt Hon Walter|
|Cohen, Harry||Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith|
|Coleman, Donald||Harvey, Robert|
|Concannon. Rt Hon J. D.||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Conway, Derek||Hawkins, C. (High Peak)|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Hayes, J.|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Cope, John||Haynes, Frank|
|Corbett, Robin||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Heath, Rt Hon Edward|
|Couchman, James||Heathcoat Amory, David|
|Cowans, Harry||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Craigen, J. M.||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Critchley, Julian||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Crouch, David||Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)|
|Crowther, Stan||Home Robertson, John|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Howells, Geraint|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Hoyle, Douglas|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Deakins, Eric||Hughes, Roy (Newport East)|
|Dewar, Donald||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Dixon, Donald||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Dobson, Frank||Hume, John|
|Dormand, Jack||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Irving, Charles|
|Douglas, Dick||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Dubs, Alfred||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||John, Brynmor|
|Dykes, Hugh||Johnson-Srnith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Eadie, Alex||Johnston, Russell|
|Eastham, Ken||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Ewing, Harry||Kennedy, Charles|
|Fatchett, Derek||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Faulds. Andrew||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Kinnock, Neil|
|Fisher, Mark||Kirkwood, Archibald|
|Flannery, Martin||Knox, David|
|Fletcher, Alexander||Lambie, David|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Lamond, James|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Lamont, Norman|
|Forman, Nigel||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Forrester, John||Leighton, Ronald|
|Foster, Derek||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Foulkes, George||Lester, Jim|
|Fraser, J. (Norwood)||Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Freeman, Roger||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Lilley, Peter|
|Freud, Clement||Litherland, Robert|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Lloyd, Ian (Havant)|
|Garrett, W. E.||Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Loyden, Edward||Robertson, George|
|Luce, Richard||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Robinson, Mark (N'port W)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Rogers, Allan|
|McCurley, Mrs Anna||Rooker, J. W.|
|McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|McKelvey, William||Rossi, Hugh|
|Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Rowe, Andrew|
|Maclennan, Robert||Rowlands, Ted|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Ryder, Richard|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Ryman, John|
|McNamara, Kevin||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|McTaggart, Robert||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|Madden, Max||Scott, Nicholas|
|Madel, David||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Maginnis, Ken||Sheerman, Barry|
|Major, John||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Malone, Gerald||Shersby, Michael|
|Maples, John||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Marek, Dr John||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)|
|Martin, Michael||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Skinner, Dennis|
|Maude, Francis||Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Mayhew, Sir Patrick||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Meacher, Michael||Snape, Peter|
|Meadowcroft, Michael||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Mellor, David||Soley, Clive|
|Michie, William||Spearing, Nigel|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Squire, Robin|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Steen, Anthony|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Stern, Michael|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Stott, Roger|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)||Strang, Gavin|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Straw, Jack|
|Needham, Richard||Tapsell, Peter|
|Nellist, David||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Nelson, Anthony||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Newton, Tony||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|O'Brien, William||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Onslow, Cranley||Tinn, James|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Park, George||Wainwright, R.|
|Parry Robert||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Patchett, Terry||Walden, George|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Wallace, James|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Waller, Gary|
|Pendry, Tom||Walters, Dennis|
|Penhaligon, David||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Pike, Peter||Wareing, Robert|
|Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)||Weetch, Ken|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Welsh, Michael|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wheeler, John|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||White, James|
|Prescott, John||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Wilson, Gordon|
|Radice, Giles||Winnick, David|
|Raffan, Keith||Woodall, Alec|
|Randall, Stuart||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Rathbone, Tim||Yeo, Tim|
|Redmond, M.||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Mr. Ian Mikardo and|
|Richardson, Ms Jo||Mr. Peter Bottomley.|
|Division No. 19]||[10.42|
|Alexander, Richard||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Hargreaves, Kenneth|
|Amess, David||Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Hawksley. Warren|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Hayward, Robert|
|Baldry, Anthony||Heddle, John|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Henderson, Barry|
|Beggs, Roy||Hickmet, Richard|
|Bellingham, Henry||Hicks, Robert|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)||Hill, James|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Hind, Kenneth|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Hirst, Michael|
|Blackburn, John||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Peter||Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Holt, Richard|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hooson, Tom|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Howard, Michael|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)|
|Brinton, Tim||Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Browne, John||Hunter, Andrew|
|Bruinvels, Peter||Jessel, Toby|
|Butcher, John||Jones, Robert (W Herts)|
|Carlisle, John (N Luton)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Chapman, Sydney||Kershaw, Sir Anthony|
|Chope. Christopher||Kilfedder, James A.|
|Churchill, W. S.||Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)||Knowles, Michael|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Lightbown, David|
|Colvin, Michael||Lord, Michael|
|Conway, Derek||McCrea, Rev William|
|Coombs, Simon||McCusker. Harold|
|Corrie, John||Macfarlane. Neil|
|Cranborne, Viscount||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)|
|Dicks, T.||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Dover, Denshore||Marland, Paul|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Marlow. Antony|
|Dunn, Robert||Mather, Carol|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Maude, Francis|
|Evennett, David||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Eyre, Reginald||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Mills, Ian (Meriden)|
|Fallon, Michael||Mitchell, David (NW Hants)|
|Farr, John||Molyneaux, James|
|Favell, Anthony||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Moore, John|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Forth, Eric||Mudd, David|
|Fox, Marcus||Murphy, Christopher|
|Franks, Cecil||Neale, Gerrard|
|Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh||Neubert, Michael|
|Fry, Peter||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Gale, Roger||Nicholson, J.|
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)||Normanton, Tom|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Norris, Steven|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.|
|Grant, Sir Anthony||Osborn, Sir John|
|Gregory, Conal||Ottaway, Richard|
|Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)||Page, John (Harrow W)|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Page, Richard (Herts SW)|
|Grylls, Michael||Paisley, Rev Ian|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Sumberg, David|
|Pawsey, James||Taylor, John (Strangford)|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Porter, Barry||Terlezki, Stefan|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Thurnham, Peter|
|Robinson, P. (Belfast E)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Trippier, David|
|Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)||Trotter, Neville|
|Rost, Peter||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Rumbold, Mrs Angela||Waddington, David|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Walker, William (T'side N)|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Silvester, Fred||Ward, John|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Watts, John|
|Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Speller, Tony||Whitfield, John|
|Spence, John||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Spencer, D.||Wilkinson, John|
|Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Stevens, Martin (Fulham)||Woodcock, Michael|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)||Mr. George Gardiner and|
|Stokes, John||Mr. Vivian Bendall.|
|Abse, Leo||Bruce, Malcolm|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Buchan, Norman|
|Alton, David||Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Buck, Sir Antony|
|Ancram, Michael||Budgen, Nick|
|Anderson, Donald||Bulmer, Esmond|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Burt, Alistair|
|Arnold, Tom||Butler, Hon Adam|
|Ashby, David||Butterfill, John|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Caborn, Richard|
|Ashley. Rt Hon Jack||Callaghan, Rt Hon J.|
|Ashton, Joe||Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)|
|Atkins Robert (South Ribble)||Campbell, Ian|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Campbell-Savours, Dale|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Canavan, Dennis|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)||Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Carter-Jones, Lewis|
|Barnett, Guy||Cartwright, John|
|Barron, Kevin||Chalker, Mrs Lynda|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Channon, Rt Hon Paul|
|Beith, A. J.||Clark, Dr David (S Shields)|
|Bell, Stuart||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Clarke, Thomas|
|Benyon, William||Clay, Robert|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Cohen, Harry|
|Best, Keith||Coleman, Donald|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Conlan, Bernard|
|Blair, Anthony||Cook, Frank (Stockton North)|
|Body, Richard||Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Cope, John|
|Bottomley, Peter||Corbett, Robin|
|Boyes, Roland||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Couchman, James|
|Bright, Graham||Cowans, Harry|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Craigen, J. M.|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Critchley, Julian|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Crouch, David|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Crowther, Stan|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Hordern, Peter|
|Dalyell, Tam||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)||Howells, Geraint|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)||Hoyle, Douglas|
|Deakins, Eric||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Dewar, Donald||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Dixon, Donald||Hughes, Roy (Newport East)|
|Dobson, Frank||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Dormand, Jack||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Hume, John|
|Douglas, Dick||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Dubs, Alfred||Irving, Charles|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Dykes, Hugh||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)|
|Eadie, Alex||John, Brynmor|
|Eastham, Ken||Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)||Johnston, Russell|
|Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Ewing, Harry||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith|
|Fatchett, Derek||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Faulds, Andrew||Kennedy, Charles|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Key, Robert|
|Fisher, Mark||Kilroy-Silk, Robert|
|Flannery, Martin||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Fletcher, Alexander||Kinnock, Neil|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Kirkwood, Archibald|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Knox, David|
|Forman, Nigel||Lambie, David|
|Forrester, John||Lamond, James|
|Foster, Derek||Lamont, Norman|
|Foulkes, George||Latham, Michael|
|Fraser, J. (Norwood)||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Freeman, Roger||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Leighton, Ronald|
|Freud, Clement||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Lester, Jim|
|Garrett, W. E.||Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)|
|George, Bruce||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Lilley, Peter|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Litherland, Robert|
|Golding, John||Lloyd, Ian (Havant)|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)|
|Gorst, John||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Gould, Bryan||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Gourlay, Harry||Loyden, Edward|
|Gow, Ian||Luce, Richard|
|Grist, Ian||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Ground, Reginald||McCartney, Hugh|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Hamilton, James (M'well N)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||MacGregor, John|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Hanley, Jeremy||McKelvey, William|
|Hardy, Peter||Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Harris, David||Maclennan, Robert|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Macmillan, Rt Hon M.|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Harvey, Robert||McNamara, Kevin|
|Haselhurst, Alan||McTaggart, Robert|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Madden, Max|
|Hawkins, C. (High Peak)||Madel, David|
|Hayes, J.||Maginnis, Ken|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Major, John|
|Haynes, Frank||Malone, Gerald|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Maples, John|
|Heath, Rt Hon Edward||Marek, Dr John|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Martin, Michael|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L||Mayhew, Sir Patrick|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)||Meacher, Michael|
|Home Robertson, John||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Mellor, David||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Michie, William||Sheerman, Barry|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Shersby, Michael|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Moate, Roger||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Needham, Richard||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Nellist, David||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Nelson, Anthony||Snape, Peter|
|Newton, Tony||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Soley, Clive|
|O'Brien, William||Spearing, Nigel|
|O'Neill, Martin||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Onslow, Cranley||Squire, Robin|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Steen, Anthony|
|Park, George||Stern, Michael|
|Parry Robert||Stott, Roger|
|Patchett, Terry||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Strang, Gavin|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Straw, Jack|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Tapsell, Peter|
|Pendry, Tom||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Penhaligon, David||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Pike, Peter||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Tinn, James|
|Prescott, John||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Wainwright, R.|
|Radice, Giles||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Raffan, Keith||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Randall, Stuart||Walden, George|
|Rathbone, Tim||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Redmond, M.||Wallace, James|
|Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)||Waller, Gary|
|Renton, Tim||Walters, Dennis|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Wareing, Robert|
|Richardson, Ms Jo||Weetch, Ken|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||Welsh, Michael|
|Robertson, George||Wheeler, John|
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)||White, James|
|Robinson, Mark (N'port W)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Rogers, Allan||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Rooker, J. W.||Wilson, Gordon|
|Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)||Winnick, David|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Woodall, Alec|
|Rossi, Hugh||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Rowe, Andrew||Yeo, Tim|
|Rowlands, Ted||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Ryder, Richard||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Ryman, John||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Sackville, Hon Thomas|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Tellers for the Noes:|
|St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.||Ms. Harriet Harman and|
|Scott, Nicholas||Mr. Ian Mikardo.|
|Division No. 20]||[10.57 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Amess, David|
|Alexander, Richard||Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)|
|Beggs, Roy||Kershaw, Sir Anthony|
|Bellingham, Henry||Key, Robert|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Kilfedder, James A.|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||King, Roger (B'ham N'field)|
|Blackburn, John||Knight, Gregory (Derby N)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Peter||Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Knowles, Michael|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Lightbown, David|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Lord, Michael|
|Brinton, Tim||McCrea, Rev William|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||McCusker, Harold|
|Browne, John||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Bruinvels, Peter||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|Butcher, John||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Carlisle, John (N Luton)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Chapman, Sydney||Marland, Paul|
|Chope, Christopher||Marlow, Antony|
|Churchill, W. S.||Mather, Carol|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)||Maude, Francis|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Mills, Ian (Meriden)|
|Colvin, Michael||Mitchell, David (NW Hants)|
|Coombs, Simon||Molyneaux, James|
|Corrie, John||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Moore, John|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Dicks, T.||Mudd, David|
|Dover, Denshore||Murphy, Christopher|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Neale, Gerrard|
|Dunn, Robert||Neubert, Michael|
|Durant, Tony||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Eyre, Reginald||Nicholson, J.|
|Fallon, Michael||Normanton, Tom|
|Farr, John||Norris, Steven|
|Favell, Anthony||Oppenheim, Philip|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Osborn, Sir John|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Ottaway, Richard|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||Page, John (Harrow W)|
|Forth, Eric||Paisley, Rev Ian|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Fox, Marcus||Pawsey, James|
|Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Fry, Peter||Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Gale, Roger||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)||Porter, Barry|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Gorst, John||Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)|
|Grant, Sir Anthony||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Gregory, Conal||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)||Robinson, P. (Belfast E)|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Grylls, Michael||Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Hargreaves, Kenneth||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Hawksley, Warren||Shersby, Michael|
|Hayward, Robert||Silvester, Fred|
|Heddle, John||Skeet, T. H H.|
|Hickmet, Richard||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Hicks, Robert||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Hill, James||Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)|
|Hirst, Michael||Speller, Tony|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Spence, John|
|Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)||Spencer, D.|
|Holt, Richard||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Hooson, Tom||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|Hunter, Andrew||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Jessel, Toby||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Jones, Robert (W Herts)||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Stokes, John|
|Sumberg, David||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Taylor, John (Solihull)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)||Watts, John|
|Terlezki, Stefan||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Thompson, Donald (Calder V)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)||Whitfield, John|
|Thornton, Malcolm||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Thurnham, Peter||Wilkinson, John|
|Townend, John (Bridlington)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Tracey, Richard||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Trippier, David||Wolfson, Mark|
|Trotter, Neville||Wood, Timothy|
|Twinn, Dr Ian||Yeo, Tim|
|Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Walker, William (T'side N)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Wall, Sir Patrick||Mr. George Gardiner and|
|Ward, John||Mr. Vivian Bendall.|
|Abse, Leo||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Carter-Jones, Lewis|
|Alton, David||Cartwright, John|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Channon, Rt Hon Paul|
|Ancram, Michael||Clark, Dr David (S Shields)|
|Anderson, Donald||Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Clarke, Thomas|
|Arnold, Tom||Clay, Robert|
|Ashby, David||Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Cohen, Harry|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Coleman, Donald|
|Ashton, Joe||Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Conlan, Bernard|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Conway, Derek|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)||Cook, Frank (Stockton North)|
|Baldry, Anthony||Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Cope, John|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Corbett, Robin|
|Barnett, Guy||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Barron, Kevin||Couchman, James|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Cowans, Harry|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Beith, A. J.||Craigen, J. M.|
|Bell, Stuart||Critchley, Julian|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Crouch, David|
|Benyon, William||Crowther, Stan|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Cunningham, Dr John|
|Best, Keith||Dalyell, Tam|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)|
|Blair, Anthony||Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)|
|Body, Richard||Deakins, Eric|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Dewar, Donald|
|Bottomley, Peter||Dixon, Donald|
|Boyes, Roland||Dobson, Frank|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Dormand, Jack|
|Bright, Graham||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Douglas, Dick|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||Eadie, Alex|
|Bruce, Malcolm||Eastham, Ken|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)|
|Buchan, Norman||Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Evans, John (St. Helens N)|
|Budgen, Nick||Ewing, Harry|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Fatchett, Derek|
|Burt, Alistair||Faulds, Andrew|
|Butler, Hon Adam||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Butterfill, John||Fisher, Mark|
|Caborn, Richard||Flannery, Martin|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Fletcher, Alexander|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Campbell, Ian||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Forman, Nigel|
|Canavan, Dennis||Forrester, John|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)||Foster, Derek|
|Foulkes, George||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Fraser, J. (Norwood)||Lester, Jim|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)|
|Freeman, Roger||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Freud, Clement||Lilley, Peter|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Litherland, Robert|
|Garrett, W. E.||Lloyd, Ian (Havant)|
|George, Bruce||Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Loyden, Edward|
|Golding, John||Luce, Richard|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Gould, Bryan||McCartney, Hugh|
|Gourlay, Harry||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Gow, Ian||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Grist, Ian||MacGregor, John|
|Ground, Reginald||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||McKelvey, William|
|Hamilton, James (M'well N)||Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Macmillan, Rt Hon M.|
|Hardy, Peter||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||McNamara, Kevin|
|Harris, David||McTaggart, Robert|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Madden, Max|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Madel, David|
|Harvey, Robert||Maginnis, Ken|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Major, John|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Malone, Gerald|
|Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael||Maples, John|
|Hawkins, C. (High Peak)||Marek, Dr John|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Haynes, Frank||Martin, Michael|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Heath, Rt Hon Edward||Mayhew, Sir Patrick|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Meacher, Michael|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Mellor, David|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Merchant, Piers|
|Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Home Robertson, John||Michie, William|
|Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Howells, Geraint||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Moate, Roger|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport East)||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)|
|Hume, John||Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Needham, Richard|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Nellist, David|
|Irving, Charles||Nelson, Anthony|
|Janner, Hon Greville||Newton, Tony|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)||O'Brien, William|
|John, Brynmor||O'Neill, Martin|
|Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Onslow, Cranley|
|Johnston, Russell||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Page, Richard (Herts SW)|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Park, George|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Parry Robert|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Patchett, Terry|
|Kennedy, Charles||Patten, Christopher (Bath)|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Kinnock, Neil||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Kirkwood, Archibald||Pendry, Tom|
|Knox, David||Penhaligon, David|
|Lambie, David||Pike, Peter|
|Lamond, James||Pollock, Alexander|
|Lamont, Norman||Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)|
|Latham, Michael||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Lawler, Geoffrey||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Leighton, Ronald||Prescott, John|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Squire, Robin|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Radice, Giles||Steen, Anthony|
|Raffan, Keith||Stern, Michael|
|Randall, Stuart||Stott, Roger|
|Rathbone, Tim||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Redmond, M.||Strang, Gavin|
|Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)||Straw, Jack|
|Renton, Tim||Tapsell, Peter|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Taylor, John (Strangford)|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth,|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Robertson, George||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Robinson, Mark (N'port W)||Thorne, Stan (Preston)|
|Rogers, Allan||Tinn, James|
|Rooker, J. W.||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath,|
|Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Wainwright, R.|
|Rossi, Hugh||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Rowe, Andrew||Walden, George|
|Rowlands, Ted||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Ryder, Richard||Wallace, James|
|Ryman, John||Waller, Gary|
|Sackville, Hon Thomas||Walters, Dennis|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.||Wareing, Robert|
|Scott, Nicholas||Weetch, Ken|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Welsh, Michael|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)||Wheeler, John|
|Sheerman, Barry||White, James|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon R.||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)||Wilson, Gordon|
|Short, Mrs (W'hampt'n NE)||Winnick, David|
|Silkin, Rt Hon J.||Woodall, Alec|
|Skinner, Dennis||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Smith, Rt Hon J, (M'kl'ds E)||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Soley, Clive||Ms. Jo Richardson and|
|Spearing, Nigel||Mr. Alf Dubs.|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Division No. 21]||[11.11 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Brandon-Bravo, Martin|
|Alexander, Richard||Brinton, Tim|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)|
|Amess, David||Browne, John|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Bruinvels, Peter|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)||Butcher, John|
|Atkins Robert (South Ribble)||Carlisle, John (N Luton)|
|Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)||Carttiss, Michael|
|Batiste, Spencer||Chapman, Sydney|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Churchill, W. S.|
|Beggs, Roy||Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Cockeram, Eric|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)||Conway, Derek|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Coombs, Simon|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Corrie, John|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Blackburn, John||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Peter||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Dicks, T.|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Dover, Denshore|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Dunn, Robert|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Durant, Tony|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Evennett, David||Mitchell, David (NW Hants)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Molyneaux, James|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Fallon, Michael||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Farr, John||Moore, John|
|Fenner, Mrs Peggy||Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Mudd, David|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Neale, Gerrard|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||Neubert, Michael|
|Forth, Eric||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Nicholson, J.|
|Fox, Marcus||Normanton, Tom|
|Franks, Cecil||Norris, Steven|
|Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh||Oppenheim, Philip|
|Fry, Peter||Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.|
|Gale, Roger||Osborn, Sir John|
|Galley, Roy||Ottaway, Richard|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Page, John (Harrow W)|
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)||Paisley, Rev Ian|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Parris, Matthew|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Grant, Sir Anthony||Pawsey, James|
|Gregory, Conal||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)||Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Grylls, Michael||Pollock, Alexander|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Porter, Barry|
|Hargreaves, Kenneth||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)||Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)|
|Hawksley, Warren||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Hayward, Robert||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Heddle, John||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Hickmet, Richard||Robinson, P. (Belfast E)|
|Hicks, Robert||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Hill, James||Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)|
|Hirst, Michael||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Holt, Richard||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Silvester, Fred|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Sims, Roger|
|Hunter, Andrew||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Jackson, Robert||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Jessel, Toby||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Jones, Robert (W Herts)||Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Speller, Tony|
|Kershaw, Sir Anthony||Spence, John|
|Key, Robert||Spencer, D.|
|Kilfedder, James A.||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'field)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Knight, Gregory (Derby N)||Steen, Anthony|
|Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|Knowles, Michael||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|Lang, Ian||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Latham, Michael||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)|
|Lightbown, David||Stokes, John|
|Lord, Michael||Sumberg, David|
|McCrea, Rev William||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|McCusker, Harold||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Terlezki, Stefan|
|MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.|
|MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)||Thompson, Donald (Calder V)|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Malins, Humfrey||Thurnham, Peter|
|Malone, Gerald||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Marland, Paul||Trippier, David|
|Marlow, Antony||Trotter, Neville|
|Mates, Michael||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Mather, Carol||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Viggers, Peter|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Waddington, David|
|Merchant, Piers||Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Mills, Ian (Meriden)||Walker, William (T'side N)|
|Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)||Wall, Sir Patrick|
|Ward, John||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Wardle, C. (Bexhill)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Warren, Kenneth||Woodcock, Michael|
|Watts, John||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Whitfield, John||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Wiggin, Jerry||Mr. Teddy Taylor and|
|Wilkinson, John||Mr. Christopher Murphy.|
|Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Abse, Leo||Colvin, Michael|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.|
|Alton, David||Conlan, Bernard|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Cook, Frank (Stockton North)|
|Ancram, Michael||Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)|
|Anderson, Donald||Cope, John|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Corbett, Robin|
|Ashby, David||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Couchman, James|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Cowans, Harry|
|Ashton, Joe||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Craigen, J. M.|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Critchley, Julian|
|Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)||Crouch, David|
|Baldry, Anthony||Crowther, Stan|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Cunningham, Dr John|
|Barnett, Guy||Dalyell, Tam|
|Barron, Kevin||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)|
|Beith, A. J.||Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)|
|Bell, Stuart||Deakins, Eric|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Dewar, Donald|
|Benyon, William||Dixon, Donald|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Dobson, Frank|
|Best, Keith||Dormand, Jack|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Douglas, Dick|
|Blair, Anthony||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Body, Richard||Dubs, Alfred|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Boyes, Roland||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Dykes, Hugh|
|Bright, Graham||Eadie, Alex|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Eastham, Ken|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Evans, John (St. Helens N)|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||Ewing, Harry|
|Bruce, Malcolm||Fatchett, Derek|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Faulds, Andrew|
|Buchan, Norman||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||Fisher, Mark|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Flannery, Martin|
|Budgen, Nick||Fletcher, Alexander|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Burt, Alistair||Forman, Nigel|
|Butler, Hon Adam||Forrester, John|
|Butterfill, John||Foster, Derek|
|Caborn, Richard||Foulkes, George|
|Callaghan, Rt Hon J.||Fraser, J. (Norwood)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Fraser, Peter (Angus East)|
|Campbell, Ian||Freeman, Roger|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Canavan, Dennis||Freud, Clement|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Garrett, W. E.|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||George, Bruce|
|Cartwright, John||Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Godman, Dr Norman|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Golding, John|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Clarke, Thomas||Gorst, John|
|Clay, Robert||Gould, Bryan|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Cohen, Harry||Gow, Ian|
|Coleman, Donald||Grist, Ian|
|Ground, Reginald||Lamond, James|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Lamont, Norman|
|Hamilton, James (M'well N)||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Leighton, Ronald|
|Hardy, Peter||Lester, Jim|
|Harman, Ms Harriet||Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)|
|Harris, David||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Lilley, Peter|
|Harvey, Robert||Litherland, Robert|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Lloyd, Ian (Havant)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)|
|Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Hawkins, C. (High Peak)||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Loyden, Edward|
|Haynes, Frank||Luce, Richard|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Heath, Rt Hon Edward||McCartney, Hugh|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||McCrindle, Robert|
|Heffer, Eric S.||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||MacGregor, John|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)||McKelvey William|
|Home Robertson, John||Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Hooson, Tom||Maclennan, Robert|
|Hordern, Peter||Macmillan, Rt Hon M.|
|Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)||McNamara, Kevin|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||McTaggart, Robert|
|Howells, Geraint||Madden, Max|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Madel, David|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Maginnis, Ken|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Major, John|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport East)||Maples, John|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Marek, Dr John|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Hume, John||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Martin, Michael|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Irving, Charles||Maude, Francis|
|Janner, Hon Greville||Mayhew, Sir Patrick|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)||Meacher, Michael|
|John, Brynmor||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Mellor, David|
|Johnston, Russell||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Michie, William|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)|
|Kennedy, Charles||Moate, Roger|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Kinnock, Neil||Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)|
|Kirkwood, Archibald||Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)|
|Knox, David||Needham, Richard|
|Lambie, David||Nellist, David|
|Nelson, Anthony||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Newton, Tony||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)|
|O'Brien, William||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|O'Neill, Martin||Skinner, Dennis|
|Onslow, Cranley||Smith, (lsl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Owen, Rt Hon Dr David||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Park, George||Snape, Peter|
|Parry Robert||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Patchett, Terry||Soley, Clive|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Pavitt, Laurie||Squire, Robin|
|Pendry, Tom||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Penhaligon, David||Stern, Michael|
|Pike, Peter||Stott, Roger|
|Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)||Strang, Gavin|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Straw, Jack|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Tapsell, Peter|
|Prescott, John||Taylor, John (Strangford)|
|Prior, Rt Hon James||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Radice, Giles||Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|Raffan, Keith||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Randall, Stuart||Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)|
|Rathbone, Tim||Thome, Stan (Preston)|
|Redmond, M.||Tinn, James|
|Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Renton, Tim||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Wainwright, R.|
|Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Richardson, Ms Jo||Walden, George|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)|
|Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)||Wallace, James|
|Robertson, George||Walters, Dennis|
|Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Robinson, Mark (N'port W)||Wareing, Robert|
|Rogers, Allan||Weetch, Ken|
|Rooker, J. W.||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)||Welsh, Michael|
|Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)||Wheeler, John|
|Rossi, Hugh||White, James|
|Rowe, Andrew||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Rowlands, Ted||Williams, Rt Hon A.|
|Ryder, Richard||Wilson, Gordon|
|Ryman, John||Winnick, David|
|Sackville, Hon Thomas||Woodall, Alec|
|Sainsbury, Hon Timothy||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.||Yeo, Tim|
|Scott, Nicholas||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Sheerman, Barry||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon R.||Mr. Ian Mikardo and|
|Shersby, Michael||Mr. Peter Bottomley.|