Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill – in the House of Commons at 8:30 pm on 25th January 1984.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Alex Carlile Mr Alex Carlile , Montgomery 8:30 pm, 25th January 1984

I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 13, line 13, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 30.

Clause 14 gives power to the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion to make an order to continue the operation of the legislation for a period, albeit temporarily, without first obtaining an affirmative resolution of this House.

We have paid a great deal of lip service today to the unfortunate nature of this type of legislation. We have all agreed that it is highly regrettable that it is necessary. We have all agreed that it involves serious interferences with civil rights. We have all agreed that risks of severe injustice are inherent in such legislation. We would all agree that one of the most important aspects of this Bill is its temporary nature—the fact that it requires to be affirmatively renewed every 12 months. Another of the most important features of the Bill is that that affirmative resolution has to be made not only by this House but by the other House as well.

Before we give the Home Secretary even a temporary power to exercise his discretion to continue this legislation without the affirmative resolution of the House, should we not stop and ask ourselves where that line of thought will lead us? I shall not indulge in the already hackneyed analogies with the attempts of George Orwell to predict what might happen in 1984, but the House should allow the exercise of executive discretion of this nature only in the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether the circumstances postulated by the Bill are the most extreme circumstances, in which we would regard it as acceptable for such a powerful executive discretion to be exercised. The alliance has come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate in the Bill for such a discretion to be given to the Secretary of State. Although we doubt it, we hope that the Secretary of State will accept that there is no necessity for the 40-day provision to be included.

It is most important that only the resolution of the House should permit the Bill to endure beyond a year. Despite not having the advantage of being represented on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, we have considered in detail whether there are any circumstances in which it could be realistically said that the Secretary of State should be able to exercise his executive discretion. In all circumstances, it is open to him so to arrange the timescales that apply to the Bill that he would be able to come back to the House before the 12 months were up and obtain the affirmative resolution that is provided for. We bear very much in mind the strongly justified representations made by many bodies and individuals that the Bill in any event gives a great deal of excessive power of an executive nature—power that is not subject to the usual scrutiny of judicial reform or other similar judicial processes.

We are of the view that this amendment would in no way damage the efficacy of the Bill or the effectiveness of the powers that the Government seek. However, the amendment would go some way towards harmlessly and properly alleviating the concerns that have been expressed. We regard the amendments as a matter of great importance and we ask the House to accept it.

Photo of Mr David Waddington Mr David Waddington , Ribble Valley

The hon. Member seems to be finding difficulties that do not really exist. This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's powers to make an order under clauses 1 and 17 at any time when, for whatever reason, parliamentary approval could not be obtained under the arrangements in clause 14(10)(a). The subparagraph and subsections which would be deleted enable him to make an order when "by reason of urgency" it appears to him that it is necessary to do so without the approval of both Houses for the draft. When an order is made in this way it lapses after 40 days unless during that period it has been approved in the same way as in the case of the draft. There is no question of the Home Secretary not having to come back to the House if he wants the powers to last for a year.

The object of this procedure is to enable the Secretary of State, in an emergency, to make an order when Parliament is not in session or when the matter is so urgent that it cannot wait until time can be found for debates in both Houses. The power has been used only once, when the Irish National Liberation Army was proscribed in July 1979, because of the need to move quickly and in step with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has separate but similar powers under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.

In practice, the use of the emergency arrangements is likely to involve either the making of a proscription order under clause 1, or an order under clause 17 bringing back into force, as a matter of urgency, a provision which had earlier been allowed to lapse. One example of a case where an order under clause 1 might be urgently needed would be that of an Irish terrorist group, previously unknown, which committed a series of attacks in Great Britain during the summer recess, or over Christmas. I am certain that there would be public outrage if such a group could not be immediately proscribed just because Parliament was not sitting.

We are satisfied that the safeguards in clause 14, which are the same as all cases involving the affirmative resolution procedure, provide an adequate means for Parliament to exercise its control over the operation of this aspect of the legislation.

Photo of Mr Alex Carlile Mr Alex Carlile , Montgomery 9:45 pm, 25th January 1984

Is the Minister really saying that the somewhat controversial use, only once in nine years, of a similar power is sufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of a power of this sort in a Bill that so fundamentally affects civil rights?

Photo of Mr David Waddington Mr David Waddington , Ribble Valley

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that this is a draconian power when, if the Secretary of State makes the order, it lapses in any event after 40 days unless there are affirmative resolutions by both Houses of Parliament? It is difficult to see what all the fuss is about, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 102, Noes 196.

Division No. 141][9.48 pm
Alton, DavidLitherland, Robert
Archer, Rt Hon PeterLloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ashdown, PaddyLofthouse, Geoffrey
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Loyden, Edward
Barron, KevinMcCartney, Hugh
Beckett, Mrs MargaretMcGuire, Michael
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Bermingham, GeraldMcKelvey, William
Blair, AnthonyMackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Boyes, RolandMcNamara, Kevin
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)McWilliam, John
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)Madden, Max
Bruce, MalcolmMarek, Dr John
Buchan, NormanMaxton, John
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Maynard, Miss Joan
Campbell-Savours, DaleMikardo, Ian
Canavan, DennisNellist, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)O'Brien, William
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Parry, Robert
Clay, RobertPatchett, Terry
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)Penhaligon, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)Pike, Peter
Corbyn, JeremyPowell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Cowans, HarryPrescott, John
Craigen, J. M.Richardson, Ms Jo
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Dewar, DonaldRoberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Dixon, DonaldRogers, Allan
Dormand, JackRoss, Ernest (Dundee W)
Dubs, AlfredRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Eadie, AlexSedgemore, Brian
Eastham, KenShort, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Ellis, RaymondSkinner, Dennis
Evans, John (St. Helens N)Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Fatchett, DerekSnape, Peter
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)Soley, Clive
Fisher, MarkStott, Roger
Flannery, MartinStrang, Gavin
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Godman, Dr NormanThomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Golding, JohnThompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Harman, Ms HarrietWainwright, R.
Haynes, FrankWallace, James
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)Wareing, Robert
Home Robertson, JohnWelsh, Michael
Howells, GeraintWilson, Gordon
Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldWinnick, David
Kirkwood, Archibald
Leadbitter, TedTellers for the Ayes
Leighton, RonaldMr. A. J. Beith and
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)Mr. Clement Freud
Ashby, DavidBeggs, Roy
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Boscawen, Hon Robert
Baldry, AnthonyBrandon-Bravo, Martin
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyBrittan, Rt Hon Leon
Budgen, NickMcCusker, Harold
Burt, AlistairMacfarlane, Neil
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)MacGregor, John
Chapman, SydneyMacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Clegg, Sir WalterMaclean, David John.
Coombs, SimonMacmillan, Rt Hon M.
Cope, JohnMcQuarrie, Albert
Cranborne, ViscountMaginnis, Ken
Crouch, DavidMajor, John
Currie, Mrs EdwinaMalins, Humfrey
Dicks, T.Malone, Gerald
Favell, AnthonyMaples, John
Fenner, Mrs PeggyMarlow, Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)Mather, Carol
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)Maude, Francis
Fox, MarcusMaxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Freeman, RogerMerchant, Piers
Gale, RogerMiller, Hal (B'grove)
Galley, RoyMills, Iain (Meriden)
Garel-Jones, TristanMills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Goodhart, Sir PhilipMiscampbell, Norman
Goodlad, AlastairMitchell, David (NW Hants)
Gregory, ConalMoate, Roger
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)Montgomery, Fergus
Ground, PatrickMorris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Grylls, MichaelMorrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Gummer, John SelwynMoynihan, Hon C.
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)Murphy, Christopher
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)Neale, Gerrard
Hampson, Dr KeithNeedham, Richard
Hanley, JeremyNeubert, Michael
Hannam, JohnNewton, Tony
Harvey, RobertNicholls, Patrick
Haselhurst, AlanNorris, Steven
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)Onslow, Cranley
Hawksley, WarrenOttaway, Richard
Hayes, J.Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Hayward, RobertPawsey, James
Heathcoat-Amory, DavidPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Hickmet, RichardPollock, Alexander
Hicks, RobertPowell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Hill, JamesPowell, William (Corby)
Hind, KennethPowley, John
Hirst, MichaelPrentice, Rt Hon Reg
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Proctor, K. Harvey
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)Raffan, Keith
Holt, RichardRhodes James, Robert
Hooson, TomRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Howard, MichaelRidsdale, Sir Julian
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Hubbard-Miles, PeterRoe, Mrs Marion
Hunt, David (Wirral)Rossi, Sir Hugh
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)Rowe, Andrew
Hunter, AndrewRyder, Richard
Irving, CharlesSackville, Hon Thomas
Jessel, TobySayeed, Jonathan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Jones, Robert (W Herts)Shelton, William (Streatham)
Key, RobertShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)Silvester, Fred
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)Sims, Roger
Knowles, MichaelSkeet, T. H. H.
Knox, DavidSmith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lang, IanSoames, Hon Nicholas
Latham, MichaelSpeller, Tony
Lawler, GeoffreySpence, John
Lee, John (Pendle)Spencer, D.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Lester, JimStanbrook, Ivor
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)Stanley, John
Lightbown, DavidStern, Michael
Lilley, PeterStevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Luce, RichardStewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Lyell, NicholasStradling Thomas, J.
McCrea, Rev WilliamSumberg, David
McCurley, Mrs AnnaTaylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Temple-Morris, PeterWatson, John
Terlezki, StefanWatts, John
Thomas, Rt Hon PeterWells, Bowen (Hertford)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)Wheeler, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)Wilkinson, John
Thornton, MalcolmWinterton, Mrs Ann
Thurnham, PeterWinterton, Nicholas
Tracey, RichardWolfson, Mark
Trotter, NevilleWood, Timothy
Twinn, Dr IanWoodcock, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.Yeo, Tim
Viggers, PeterYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Waddington, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon JohnTellers for the Noes:
Waller, GaryMr. Donald Thompson and
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Mr Clive Soley Mr Clive Soley , Hammersmith

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 26, at end insert— '(c) shall, if approved by Parliament, cease to have effect at the end of a period of 12 months unless renewed by resolution of each House of Parliament'. We are seeking to allow the Government to get off a hook of their own making. The amendment will allow the proscription of organisations to expire over a period. In 1974, the proscription of organisations was thought to be one of the most important provisions of the current Act. I can do no better than quote Lord Jellicoe's comments in paragraph 210: I believe that time has proved this judgment to be mistaken". I think that everyone knows that it was a mistaken judgment. Lord Jellicoe's report did not recommend the abolition of proscription. In paragraph 208 he states: I conclude, therefore, that proscription has had some—albeit relatively limited—beneficial effects. In the same paragraph he stated that there were "presentational" issues. He meant that proscription discouraged displays of support for a proscribed organisation. He stated that there was a "practical" purpose, by which he meant that proscription banned collections. He added: Both the presentational and practical purposes of proscription appear to me to be valid; the success of the provisions is questionable in the latter sphere, but, I believe, real in the former. We believe that Lord Jellicoe's arguments for the presentational and practical advantages are extremely shaky. In paragraph 208 he argued that presentationally it had been successful because there had been few demonstrations or open displays of support for either the Provisional IRA or the INLA. However, the reason for that is their unpopularity. It has nothing to do with fear of arrest. It is clear to me and, I think, to most people that someone who went round saying, "I support the Provisional IRA," or, "I support the INLA," would put himself and others at risk.

There is another important point. There have been some displays of support, so why have there been so few arrests? Indeed, this section of the Act has hardly ever been used.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,That, at this day's sitting, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Photo of Mr Clive Soley Mr Clive Soley , Hammersmith

Lord Jellicoe argues that there is a practical advantage because there are few open collections of funds for the Provisional IRA or the INLA. But again, the evidence is that someone would hardly go round a pub asking for money for the Provisional IRA. There may be one or two pubs or clubs in some areas where that could be done, but on the whole it would risk a punch-up to go round the average British pub asking for money for the Provisional IRA, especially after the bombing of, for example, Harrods. In addition, collections are in any case banned under clause 10.

The argument against proscription is very strong. It is an infringement of the principle of the freedom of speech. People should be prosecuted not for stating views and opinions but for criminal offences. In paragraph 210, Jellicoe says of that principle: I have much sympathy with this view. If one was starting absolutely with a clean slate, proscription would I believe be low on the list of priorities for inclusion in counter-terrorist legislation. Proscription, of course, enables the Provisional IRA and the INLA to present themselves as the persecuted and oppressed voice of Irish nationalism. They can claim that the British proscribe them but do not proscribe the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Red Hand commandos in Britain. Those organisations are proscribed in Northern Ireland under separate legislation.

In other words, yet again such organisations have a propaganda weapon. Credence is given to the romantic secret army image. I should add that proscription does not have a good track record, either internationally or historically. The attempts to proscribe the various Nazi organisations before the second world war were by and large counter-productive in western Europe. They forced those organisations to go underground, where their activities were less observable. It is significant that in most of the countries that tried to ban the Nazi movement there was a significant and powerful fifth column.

We are left with one problem, which Jellicoe feels to be important. He claims that de-proscribing would cause "a wave of public resentment". Personally, I doubt whether it would. In any event, politicians should be leaders. We should not do what we think is wrong because the public might be angry with us. At times, we need to stand up and say why something which may not be popular or well understood needs to be carried out nevertheless.

However, I can see that the Government are not prepared to risk that unpopularity. Therefore, we should allow the clause to lapse. That is precisely what the amendment does. At the end of the year, it would automatically lapse without any debate or further discussion unless Parliament as part of its normal procedures decided to reinstate it.

That would also get the Secretary of State off another hook on which he impaled himself when he unwisely resisted our amendment in Committee. It would have made the support of a proscribed organisation dependent on material or financial support. The Government managed to get themselves into great difficulties. That can be best exemplified by quoting the Minister in Committee: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) asked what happens if a man says in a public place, 'I think we ought to support the IRA.' That should be a criminal offence. What we are saying, using the Minister of State's own words, is that the statement, "I think we ought to support the IRA", is in fact, and should be, a criminal offence. There is an argument why it should be and an argument why it should not be. I say simply that it should not be an offence. It is about freedom of speech, and not a criminal act in itself. Most important of all, if we say it is a criminal act, as has the Minister, then we had better start arresting people who say it, had we not? We had better start arresting people who say, "We are going to take power with the ballot box in the one hand and an Armalite in the other." Where will that get us?

The Minister continues: Mere approval of an organisation is not caught by the Bill. That was a contradiction of what he said earlier. He continued: The object of the clause is to keep in check public statements about proscribed organisations." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 November 1983; c. 19–22.] That cannot be desirable and it is certainly not practised, because the Government have yet to arrest people for statements of that kind, and I sincerely hope that they will not go down that road. If the Government have any wisdom, they will accept our amendment. It does not change the nature of the Bill in the way that they have so far resisted. It simply allows a part of the clause, proscription, to lapse at the end of the year without any risk of serious embarrassment to them, yet in a way that even Lord Jellicoe accepts is no longer a priority in the fight against terrorism. Lord Jellicoe thinks that on balance it is useful, but that it is a marginal balance. In this short debate, I have attempted to show that it is not only unnecessary but to some extent counter-productive, and it has certainly not been carried out in practice by the Government.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell:

The amendment has provided the opportunity — and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) availed himself of it—for a reference to the unsatisfactory' character of the wording of clause 1, which would automatically be brought into effect in relation to any other organisation which might be proscribed by order. I think that the Standing Committee was almost totally dissatisfied with the wording, and the exposition of the wording, after long discussion.

The trouble about it is that, whereas substantively clause 1(1)(b) appears to relate to "financial support" or "contributions in money", the wider terms "other support" and "otherwise" are included in the subsection, and the Minister at that time resolutely refused to say that the rule of interpretation ejusdem generis would apply to it, and that those words would mean financial support or other property. I cannot believe that it is the intention to criminalise everything that could be comprised under the word "support" in general terms.

I notice in The Times of Friday 23 December 1983 a report about a musical group called the Eislea Collective. It appears that it had issued posters featuring the slogan "IRA", with the words "Long Kesh" beneath. The result was that Sir William Rees-Mogg, the chairman of the Arts Council, withdrew the grant, saying that it was political propaganda in favour of the IRA. The question arises whether that was support for the IRA. Sir William Rees-Mogg thought that it was. If so, was any criminal prosecution instituted or any action taken as a result of the musical group proceeding with the programme thus adorned? I take that as an illustration of the wide and undefined extent of the concept of support if it is unlimited.

Surely the intention is to ensure that the term "financial support" is interpreted in a reasonably wide and generous fashion, and that "contribution in money" is not restricted to money in the narrow sense, but includes, as in clause 10(2), at present in another context, money and other property.

Consideration of the Bill is not complete when it leaves the House tonight, and the Government have an opportunity to take another look at the drafting of clause 1(2), to which the soft of order that we are debating would apply. It must be in the interests of whatever benefit is to be got from proscription that there should be no fuzzy edges round the actions and behaviour which would be criminalised by the proscription of an organisation, and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will say that he will look in that light again at the wording of clause 1.

I do not think that it would be advantageous, if a new proscription were made, that it should automatically be terminated at the end of 12 months. I do not think that having proscribed, as we have, the IRA or the INLA, we would be anxious to incur the awkwardness of reproscribing after 12 months. No doubt the relative importance of a proscribed organisation may vary with the years, but I cannot but think that it is an inconvenience, which there is no benefit in incurring, to limit additional proscription orders to 12 months. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will neglect that advice from the Opposition Front Bench and accept the invitation to look seriously again at proscription as defined in clause 1.

Photo of Mr David Waddington Mr David Waddington , Ribble Valley

I shall, of course, look at the matter again in the light of what has been said by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). However, we are here discussing not the proscription powers but the nature of the parliamentary control over those powers. The amendment appears to be designed to give greater parliamentary control over the Bill's proscription powers, but, as I shall demonstrate, the effect would not have any similarity to what Opposition Members must have intended.

As the Bill stands, clause 14(10) provides that an order under clause 1 or clause 17 shall not be made unless a draft of the order has first been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, except where, by reasons of urgency, it is necessary to make the order without a draft having been so approved. Subsection (11) goes on to set out the procedures that are to apply in those latter cases of urgency, namely, that the order shall be laid before Parliament and shall cease to have effect after 40 days unless it has been approved under the affirmative resolution procedure before the end of that period.

The amendment concerns only those orders made under subsection (11), those which, for reasons of urgency, have not first been approved in draft. That seems an odd sort of approach to apply what I suppose is designed as an additional safeguard to an order made under subsection (10)(b) but not to an order made under subsection (10)(a). Nor would this new alleged safeguard have any effect on the position of the two organisations already proscribed and listed in schedule 1.

The amendment also covers the question of the renewal of the Bill, or parts of it, but that already must be done annually by affirmative order as a result of clause 17, so the amendment would therefore add nothing of value.

Of course we recognise that it is a very serious matter to proscribe an organisation, but I do not accept that when a matter has been given the detailed consideration in Parliament and by Ministers which the affirmative resolution procedure entails, it would be right for it to lapse only a year later. In those circumstances, I invite the House to reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 198.

Division No. 142][10.15 pm
Alton, DavidKirkwood, Archibald
Archer, Rt Hon PeterLeadbitter, Ted
Ashdown, PaddyLeighton, Ronald
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Barron, KevinMcGuire, Michael
Beckett, Mrs MargaretMcKay, Allen (Penistone)
Beith, A. J.McKelvey, William
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Bermingham, GeraldMcNamara, Kevin
Blair, AnthonyMcWilliam, John
Boyes, RolandMadden, Max
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)Marek, Dr John
Bruce, MalcolmMaxton, John
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Maynard, Miss Joan
Campbell-Savours, DaleMeadowcroft, Michael
Canavan, DennisMikardo, Ian
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)Nellist, David
Clay, RobertParry, Robert
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)Patchett, Terry
Cohen, HarryPenhaligon, David
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)Pike, Peter
Corbyn, JeremyPowell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Cowans, HarryPrescott, John
Craigen, J. M.Redmond, M.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)Richardson, Ms Jo
Dewar, DonaldRoberts, Allan (Bootle)
Dormand, JackRoberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Dubs, AlfredRogers, Allan
Eadie, AlexRoss, Ernest (Dundee W)
Eastham, KenRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Ellis, RaymondSedgemore, Brian
Evans, John (St. Helens N)Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Fatchett, DerekSkinner, Dennis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Fisher, MarkSoley, Clive
Flannery, MartinStrang, Gavin
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Freud, ClementThomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Godman, Dr NormanThorne, Stan (Preston)
Golding, JohnWallace, James
Hamilton, James (M'well N)Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Harman, Ms HarrietWareing, Robert
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Welsh, Michael
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)Wilson, Gordon
Home Robertson, JohnWinnick, David
Howells, Geraint
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)Tellers for the Ayes:
Janner, Hon GrevilleMr. Frank Haynes and
Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldMr. Don Dixon.
Ashby, DavidCranborne, Viscount
Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.Crouch, David
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)Currie, Mrs Edwina
Baldry, AnthonyDicks, T.
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyFavell, Anthony
Beggs, RoyFenner, Mrs Peggy
Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnForsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Boscawen, Hon RobertForsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Brandon-Bravo, MartinFox, Marcus
Brittan, Rt Hon LeonFreeman, Roger
Budgen, NickGale, Roger
Burt, AlistairGalley, Roy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Garel-Jones, Tristan
Chapman, SydneyGoodhart, Sir Philip
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Goodlad, Alastair
Clegg, Sir WalterGregory, Conal
Coombs, SimonGriffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Cope, JohnGriffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Ground, PatrickMacGregor, John
Grylls, MichaelMacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Gummer, John SelwynMaclean, David John.
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)McQuarrie, Albert
Hampson, Dr KeithMaginnis, Ken
Hanley, JeremyMajor, John
Hannam, JohnMalins, Humfrey
Harvey, RobertMalone, Gerald
Haselhurst, AlanMaples, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)Marlow, Antony
Hawksley, WarrenMather, Carol
Hayes, J.Maude, Francis
Hayward, RobertMaxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Heathcoat-Amory, DavidMerchant, Piers
Hickmet, RichardMiller, Hal (B'grove)
Hicks, RobertMills, Iain (Meriden)
Hill, JamesMiscampbell, Norman
Hind, KennethMitchell, David (NW Hants)
Hirst, MichaelMoate, Roger
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Holt, RichardMorrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Hooson, TomMoynihan, Hon C.
Howard, MichaelMurphy, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)Neale, Gerrard
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)Needham, Richard
Hubbard-Miles, PeterNewton, Tony
Hunt, David (Wirral)Nicholls, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)Norris, Steven
Hunter, AndrewOnslow, Cranley
Irving, CharlesOppenheim, Philip
Jenkin, Rt Hon PatrickOsborn, Sir John
Jessel, TobyOttaway, Richard
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Jones, Robert (W Herts)Pawsey, James
Key, RobertPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Knowles, MichaelPowell, William (Corby)
Lang, IanPowley, John
Latham, MichaelPrentice, Rt Hon Reg
Lawler, GeoffreyProctor, K. Harvey
Lee, John (Pendle)Raffan, Keith
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Rhodes James, Robert
Lester, JimRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Lightbown, DavidRobinson, Mark (N'port W)
Lilley, PeterRobinson, P. (Belfast E)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)Roe, Mrs Marion
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)Rossi, Sir Hugh
Luce, RichardRowe, Andrew
Lyell, NicholasRyder, Richard
McCrea, Rev WilliamSackville, Hon Thomas
McCurley, Mrs AnnaSayeed, Jonathan
McCusker, HaroldShaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Macfarlane, NeilShelton, William (Streatham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)Thornton, Malcolm
Silvester, FredThurnham, Peter
Sims, RogerTracey, Richard
Skeet, T. H. H.Trotter, Neville
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)Twinn, Dr Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholasvan Straubenzee, Sir W.
Speller, TonyViggers, Peter
Spence, JohnWaddington, David
Spencer, D.Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)Waller, Gary
Stanbrook, IvorWardle, C. (Bexhill)
Stanley, JohnWatson, John
Steen, AnthonyWatts, John
Stern, MichaelWells, Bowen (Hertford)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)Wheeler, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)Wilkinson, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)Winterton, Mrs Ann
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)Winterton, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.Wolfson, Mark
Sumberg, DavidWood, Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)Woodcock, Michael
Temple-Morris, PeterYeo, Tim
Terlezki, StefanYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)Tellers for the Noes:
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)Mr. Tim Sainsbury and
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.