Variation of Leave: Appeal Procedures

Order of the Day – in the House of Commons at 5:15 pm on 16th February 1988.

Alert me about debates like this

`In subsection (2) of section 19 of the Immigration Act 1971 all the words after "based" shall be omitted.'.—[Mr.Randall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of Mr Stuart Randall Mr Stuart Randall , Kingston upon Hull West

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

This matter was discussed at length in Committee. There was considerable concern about the way in which the Minister attempted to describe how certain procedures, particularly those associated with variation of leave, worked. As a result of the dispute in Committee, we felt it necessary to introduce the new clause.

The purpose of the clause is to give the appellate authorities powers that are outside the existing rules. This would enable the authorities, during variation of leave appeals, to take compassionate circumstances into account. On numerous occasions in Committee—I could present all the Official Report quotations to the House, but I shall not do so because we have a lot of business to get through — the Minister described how he thought the arrangements for the appeal procedures worked. Frankly, I believe that the Minister either failed to understand how the system worked, or he was given bad advice.

Without doubt, great concern was created by the Minister's inability to get things right. On 28 January a letter was sent to the Minister from the general secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the director of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and the president of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The letter set out their deep concern over the effects of clause 4 and said the Minister's justification for its introduction was based upon a fallacy.

The Minister suggested that there was no reason to think that when deportation cases were heard com-passionate circumstances would no longer be taken into account. He said that during earlier stages of variation of leave appeals such matters were fully taken into account.

We now know that that argument is utter tripe. The people who are involved with immigration matters have categorically demonstrated that the Minister is wrong. It is clear that the Minister does not know what he is talking about. I believe that clause 4 should be withdrawn because of the way in which it removes certain basic rights from people when appeal procedures are operated.

In Committee on 17 December, the Minister said: The decision to refuse further leave to remain, and the hearing of the appeal against that decision, provide the proper opportunity for compassionate factors to be taken into account … That is the point in the appeal procedure when facts, merit and compassionate circumstances should be considered.

Photo of Mr Stuart Randall Mr Stuart Randall , Kingston upon Hull West

Let me prove why I believe that the Minister has got it wrong.

In Committee we talked about what happens in practice. We know that section 19(2) of the principal Act precludes the appellate authorities from making any decisions on matters outside the immigration rules that involve compassionate circumstances. Therefore, the appellate authorities are forbidden to make a decision involving compassionate circumstances.

I believe that the Minister recognised that, because he said: it is open to the adjudicator to take account of the compassionate circumstances of the case. When he regards the compassionate circumstances as compelling … he may, even while formally dismissing the appeal, recommend that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion in the appellant's favour and allow him to remain." — [Official Report. Standing Committee D, 17 December 1987, c. 388–923. In other words, an adjudicator who is compelled by the immigration rules to make a decision against an applicant may, if he or she chooses, temper that by recommending that the Home Secretary should exercise his discretion outside the immigration rules and allow the appellant to stay. The Minister acknowledges that the appellate authorities do not have a formal responsibility, although anyone can make recommendations. The crucial point on which the Minister's argument is so misleading is that representations are never made.

I have spoken to people in the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service who deal with such cases daily. One gentleman told me that in three years of case work he had come across one recommendation. I am surprised that the Minister is not aware of the reality.

There is only one means whereby that information can be conveyed to the Home Secretary, and that is on the determination of a case,. When the appellate authority reviews a case, it produces a determination which is sent to the Home Office and to all the agencies, which make representations on behalf of the person concerned. Everyone is aware when a recommendation is made to the Home Secretary to take into account compassionate circumstances. Of course, the Minister, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who is grinning, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) were party to that.

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

I shall deal with whether adjudicators make informal representations to the Home Secretary in my reply if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. However, I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that there was no contradiction between what I said at column 391 of Hansard and what I said at a later sitting at column 759. Both those comments say precisely the same thing, at column 759 at greater length. At column 391, I said: The adjudicator may have to dismiss an appeal on the facts, but can, if he chooses, make a recommendation for compassionate consideration to the Secretary of State." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 17 December 1987; c. 391.] At column 759, I said: If he judges that the compassionate circumstances are such as to merit exceptional treatment, he can informally recommend to the Secretary of State that he should allow the person concerned to remain by the exercise of his discretion outside the immigration rules. Any such recommendations are considered seriously." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 January 1988; c. 759.]I stand by both those remarks. They fit each other and they are accurate.

Photo of Mr Stuart Randall Mr Stuart Randall , Kingston upon Hull West

The Minister knows that hon. Members and those involved in the provision of services to immigrants know that in Committee, he got it wrong. The Minister quotes parts of the Official Report where he was reading from a brief, but at other times he was freewheeling.

Photo of Mr Stuart Randall Mr Stuart Randall , Kingston upon Hull West

The hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position, but he was not there. One can distinguish between the times when the Minister was speaking from a brief and when he was not. That is why we are so concerned about the way in which the Minister is dealing with these matters.

Photo of Mr Jeremy Hanley Mr Jeremy Hanley , Richmond and Barnes

The hon. Gentleman should be concerned. When I said in Committee that adjudicators could, if they dismissed an appeal, deal with compassionate circumstances through recommendations to the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman said that I was talking nonsense. That proved that he did not know the first thing about immigration. That was a statement from an Opposition spokesman new to his portfolio—within a week. He was saying that I did not know what I was talking about after I had served for years on the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. Now he must admit that he was wrong and that I was right.

Photo of Mr Stuart Randall Mr Stuart Randall , Kingston upon Hull West 6:15 pm, 16th February 1988

That is absolute nonsense. During a variation of appeal proceedings, compassionate circumstances are no part of any decision made by the appellate authority. That is a fact.

Photo of Mr Stuart Randall Mr Stuart Randall , Kingston upon Hull West

The hon. Gentleman says that it is official. It is not at all official. In reality, any of the members of the appellate authority could write whatever they wished on a determination. They could write that, if the case were to lead to deportation proceedings, they would recommend that the Home Secretary takes into account compassionate circumstances. However, in reality, they do not do that. The chief appellate officer has put it on record that he believes that the variation of appeal procedure is not the time and place to raise compassionate circumstances. He believes that they should be reviewed as part and parcel of the deportation procedure, which is a separate procedure, with different criteria.

First, the appellate authority may not, by virtue of the rules, make any decision taking into account such matters. Secondly, although anyone could recommend to the Home Secretary that, later on, compassionate circumstances might be taken into account if deportation is involved, in reality that is not done. That is a fact which has been substantiated to me by the people involved.

Photo of Mr Stuart Randall Mr Stuart Randall , Kingston upon Hull West

The hon. Gentleman says that it is hearsay. Is he suggesting that because the chief appellate officer is saying what I am saying it is hearsay—when it is a comment by a man in that position?

The Minister cannot get away with it. He has suggested that compassionate circumstances are involved in the appeal procedures, and he used that argument to justify clause 4 and say that it would be acceptable. Clause 4 removes the appeal procedures from those who have been in the United Kingdom for fewer than seven years. The justification for doing that was that compassionate circumstances do not need to be taken into account at this stage because they will already have been taken into account. That is nonsense. It is a disgrace that the Minister did not make it perfectly clear. He has not done the proper research and made it clear that in Committee he was wrong.

I suggest that the Minister should admit that he was wrong and apologise from the Dispatch Box. If he admits that he did not understand what he was saying, or that he now understands what he is saying, he should support the new clause, which provides that compassionate circumstances should be taken into account and be made part and parcel of the decision-making process by the appellate authority. If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes believes that that happens anyway, what is his reason for not voting for the new clause? Let us put into the statute what the hon. Gentleman and the Minister have said happens already. I suggest that they put their votes where their mouths are. This is a chance to test whether they genuinely support this idea.

I am confident that Conservative Members will fail to vote for the new clause, because they will do what their Whip says, and because, if they were to support the new clause they would be accepting that during variation, or even refusal to enter appeals, compassionate circumstances should be taken into account. Therefore, clause 4 will go on to the statute book when it should have been withdrawn by the Government because of the way in which it takes away basic rights of appeal. It is wrong, and it is a measure of how uncivilised and uncaring our society is.

To deport people without taking all the compassionate circumstances into account is deplored by Opposition Members, and that is why we believe that it is crucial that the House should support new clause 1. It is a good clause, which is worthy of support. If the Minister believes what he has said in the past, he too should support it. It seeks only to do what the Minister has claimed is already happening, but he will vote against it because he does not want such appeal procedures to be put into the statute. He should be straight with the House, come clean, admit that he made a mistake and vote for new clause 1.

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said—

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

No, I shall not insult the hon. Gentleman. I shall deny that we had a dispute. I shall simply say that there is a complete lack of understanding between us. There is a complete lack of understanding on the hon. Gentleman's part of the procedure of adjudicators when they are looking at cases within the rules and decide that, on the facts, they will not allow the variation of leave, but do make a recommendation, informal or otherwise, to the Home Secretary, suggesting that he might exercise his discretion.

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding—

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman lets me finish this point.

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

I am about to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I suggest that he gives me a chance to do so.

I realise that the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding was stoked by a letter that I received, signed by Michael Barnes of UKIAS, Ian Macdonald of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and Ann Owers of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. However, I replied to that letter and, in all fairness, the hon. Gentleman should have quoted from my reply. I clearly said: Moreover. the Home Office's experience is that the appelate authorities do make use of their freedom to recommend the use of the Secretary of State's discretion. If a recommendation is made on compassionate grounds the instructions to the immigration department's case workers are quite explicit in stating that the normal practice should be to comply with that recommendation. Such matters are treated very seriously indeed and any decision not to accept an adjudicator's recommendaton must be taken at senior level. In Committee the hon. Gentleman asked me whether we kept statistics of the percentage of recommendations that were made on that basis which were and were not accepted. I said that we do not keep such statistics. However, I did ask Home Office officials to dig out a few recent cases where the adjudicator made a recommendation within the rules to the Secretary of State and where the recommendation was considered and, in most cases, accepted. I have them here and, if time permitted, I would gladly read them to the House. However, I do not think that that would please the House.

There are one or two examples here of where a recommendation was made which the Home Office did not accept—

Photo of Mr Jeremy Hanley Mr Jeremy Hanley , Richmond and Barnes

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House that the adjudicators are independently appointed?

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. They are appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Therefore, they are quite independent of the Home Office.

If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will allow me to take a little more time, I shall refer to four examples. I shall refer to the people involved simply by initials, because it is inappropriate to name names in this context. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to come to my office and look at the cases, he is welcome to do so.

In July 1984, Mrs. D was refused indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as a dependant of her stepson. Her appeal was dismissed, first by the adjudicator in August 1986, and finally by the tribunal in February 1987. The tribunal took the view— I am abbreviating this — that the circumstances were such that the Secretary of State could properly consider exercising his discretion in favour of Mrs. D outside the rules. It considered that if she had to return to Barbados it seemed that it would not be very long before she became dependant on her stepson. The Secretary of State accepted the tribunal's recommendation and in July 1987 Mrs. D was granted indefinite leave to remain.

The same applied to Mr. R, who arrived in the United Kingdom in August 1978. That was a case in which the arguments for accepting the recommendation from the adjudicator that he should be allowed to remain were far from clear-cut. But, after the adjudicator's view was subsequently endorsed by the tribunal, Mr. R was granted indefinite leave to remain in July 1987. I could continue ad infinitum—

Photo of Mr Stuart Holland Mr Stuart Holland , Vauxhall

It is striking that the Minister cites cases from 1978 and 1984. In what sense do those rare cases meet the points made in the letter by Michael Barnes, Ian Macdonald and Ann Owers that The Deputy Director (Legal) of UKIAS estimates that, of the many hundreds of appeals he has dealt with over the last three years, in only one such appeal did an adjudicator make a recommendation"? The Minister will realise how important this is to many of us in our constituency casework.

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this. He has many immigration cases himself. However, I stress that the cases that I have just mentioned are only two out of a bundle. Mrs. D's case started in July 1984 and finished in July 1987. I said that I had asked for recent cases. Mr. R arrived in the United Kingdom in August 1978, applied in September 1980 for the extension of stay to continue in work-permit employment, and in July 1987 was granted permission to stay.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the problems about Britain's treatment of immigration cases is that the superstructure of appeal upon appeal—the number of safeguards that we have given those who come here—to which we have added a Member of Parliament's representations, means that we arrive at a thicket within which the immigrant is well protected. He goes from one appeal to the next while the years drag on; at the end, after eight or nine years, it is almost inevitable that he be given leave to remain in Britain. That is one of the problems of our system and one reason why one must seek clarity and simplicity in it.

I could go on at length. The next case, which I did not mention because I wanted to save the time of the House, concerns a Miss M, who arrived in the United Kingdom in July 1986. The written determination of the adjudicator formally dismissed her appeal, but he recommended that the Secretary of State should exercise his discretion in her favour exceptionally outside the rules. That recommendation has been accepted.

That is the common working practice in the Home Office. Recommendations come up from cases within the rules to the Home Office. They are seriously considered and, in many cases, are accepted. As for the particular reference to one case only in the UKIAS/JCWI letter, there is, I think, a mistaken reference to the chief adjudicator's comments in giving his opinion in the case of Mostashari, because the letter implies that that was intended to be a general recommendation, but I think that it was a particular recommendation in specific regard to the case of Mostashari.

Photo of David Winnick David Winnick , Walsall North 6:30 pm, 16th February 1988

Bearing in mind that adjudicators are hardly likely to agree outside the immigration rules unless the compassionate circumstances are very compelling indeed, is there not a case for considering giving adjudicators and the tribunal, as this new clause would, the power in certain cases — they would be very few indeed—where the appellant would not qualify under the immigration laws because of the strictness of those rules, but where there is an overwhelming case on compassionate grounds, to allow the appeal; not simply to make a recommendation, but actually to allow the appeal? Adjudicators are hardly likely to act in an irresponsible manner.

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the real point of this new clause, upon which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West did not touch. As I see it, the real point of the new clause is not on the question of adjudicators making more recommendations to the Home Office on cases that fall within the rules, but to give them the power to make recommendations, or indeed to decide, on cases that are outside the rules. That is precisely the point to which I now want to refer, because I think that this would be giving far too great a power to the appellate authorities. The hon. Gentleman, with his customary acuteness in these matters, has put his finger on the real problem or challenge that this new clause implies.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was quite wrong in thinking that if this new clause were accepted it would in any sense bite on the question of appeal rights of persons subject to deportation orders. That was implicit in his remarks, but it would not be so. The new clause does not bite on clause 4, because section 19 of the 1971 Act is subject to any restriction on the grounds of appeal.

The real problem regarding this new clause is that it would vastly extend the powers of adjudicators in cases that fall outside the rules. This would be a fundamental change of policy which would not be acceptable to us. It may help if I make it clear from the outset that in determining appeals, adjudicators are provided, under section 19 of the Act, with the ability to review the way in which the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion under the rules.

This discretion is available in a number of categories, the principal exclusion being visitors seeking extension of their stay beyond the maximum permitted by the rules. Where there is discretion under the law, account will be taken of any compassionate or other circumstances which may make a decision to refuse inappropriate. In reviewing the way in which the Secretary of State's discretion has been exercised, where it is available under the rules, adjudicators will in turn hear arguments about compassionate and other factors.

Section 19 sets out clearly that the jurisdiction of an adjudicator at an appeal is to dismiss an appeal unless he considers, first, that the decision or action against which the appeal was brought was not in accordance with the law or with any immigration rules applicable to the case; or, secondly, where the decision or action involved the exercise of a discretion, that the discretion should have been exercised differently.

The new clause would place upon the appellant authorities the task of reviewing the exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion not only where the rules provided for this but also in all other cases where compassionate or other circumstances had been put forward in support of exceptional treatment outside the applicable rules.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that this would happen very rarely, but we can have no possible knowledge that that would be so. It would be a very great incentive to people who were refused their variation of leave by the adjudicators, in any circumstances outside the rules, immediately to bring in the full breadth of compassionate circumstances, however ridiculous, because, if this clause were accepted, they would know that the adjudicators would have to consider those circumstances.

Photo of David Winnick David Winnick , Walsall North

As perhaps the only Member in the House, or one of only a very few Members, who at one stage appeared before adjudicators regularly on almost a daily basis on behalf of clients, I found that adjudicators very rarely took the view that they should take into consideration other matters. Therefore, if the Minister has a fear that the adjudicators—who are now appointed, as I understand it, by the Lord Chancellor, but used to be appointed by the Home Office—would go out of their way to allow appeals on compassionate grounds unless the circumstances were very compelling, I can assure him from my experience of adjudicators that he has very little justification for his fear.

Photo of Mr Timothy Renton Mr Timothy Renton , Mid Sussex

But it would be permissible under this new clause for appellants to bring forward any type of compassionate circumstances even if the case was outside the rules. That would have to lead to far greater delays in appeals and to much lengthier appeals, which is precisely what all hon. Members wish to avoid.

It would also mean—and the hon. Member, with his expertise, will take this on board — that there would never be mandatory immigration rules, because however the rules were worded the exercise of discretion outside the rules would always be a significant arguable factor which the appellate authorities would be required to take into account. That puts into more elegant language the point that I have made to the hon. Member. There would obviously then be scope for abuse of the appeal system by those who see it solely as a means of prolonging their stay in the United Kingdom.

It would, for example, extend the rights in visitor appeals from a hearing on the facts of the case considered against the applicable immigration rule to a hearing of all the circumstances, exceptional or otherwise, which might have a bearing or an influence on the possible exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion outside the rules. It would thus leave the final decision on the exercise of discretion outside the rules not with the Secretary of State but with the appellate authorities. That is at the heart of my opposition to this new clause.

The new clause, in extending the jurisdiction of the appellate authorities, would also place upon them a far greater burden, increasing both the cost of the appeal system and delays in all types of cases being heard. It would also place them in an anomalous position whereby, under section 19(1) and (2) as amended by this new clause, they would be required to dismiss an appeal because the decision was in accordance with the law or the immigration rules applicable, or allow an appeal because in the adjudicator's opinion the Secretary of State's discretion outside the rules would have been exercised differently. This would be an unacceptable state of affairs and could be attractive only to those who seek to undermine at any cost the Government's commitment to fair but firm immigration control.

For all these reasons, I cannot possibly recommend the new clause to the House. I feel that it would undermine the effectiveness of immigration control as a whole, and 1 invite the House to reject it.

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

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 272.

Division No. 181][6.40 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms DianeCohen, Harry
Allen, GrahamColeman, Donald
Anderson, DonaldCook, Robin (Livingston)
Archer, Rt Hon PeterCorbyn, Jeremy
Armstrong, HilaryCousins, Jim
Ashdown, PaddyCox, Tom
Ashley, Rt Hon JackCrowther, Stan
Ashton, JoeCryer, Bob
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Cummings, John
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)Cunliffe, Lawrence
Battle, JohnCunningham, Dr John
Beckett, MargaretDarling, Alistair
Beith, A. J.Dewar, Donald
Bell, StuartDixon, Don
Benn, Rt Hon TonyDoran, Frank
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)Duffy, A. E. P.
Bidwell, SydneyDunnachie, Jimmy
Blair, TonyDunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Blunkett, DavidEadie, Alexander
Boyes, RolandEastham, Ken
Bradley, KeithEvans, John (St Helens N)
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)Fatchett, Derek
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)Fearn, Ronald
Buckley, George J.Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Caborn, RichardFields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Callaghan, JimFisher, Mark
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)Flannery, Martin
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)Flynn, Paul
Campbell-Savours, D. N.Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Canavan, DennisFoster, Derek
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)Foulkes, George
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Fraser, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)Fyfe, Maria
Clay, BobGalbraith, Sam
Clelland, DavidGarrett, John (Norwich South)
Clwyd, Mrs AnnGarrett, Ted (Wailsend)
George, BruceMorgan, Rhodri
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnMorley, Elliott
Golding, Mrs LlinMorris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Gordon, MildredMorris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Graham, ThomasMowlam, Marjorie
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)Murphy, Paul
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)Nellist, Dave
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Grocott, BruceO'Neill, Martin
Harman, Ms HarrietOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hattersley, Rt Hon RoyParry, Robert
Haynes, FrankPatchett, Terry
Healey, Rt Hon DenisPendry, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.Pike, Peter L.
Henderson, DougPowell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hinchliffe, DavidPrimarolo, Dawn
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Quin, Ms Joyce
Holland, StuartRadice, Giles
Home Robertson, JohnRandall, Stuart
Hood, JimmyRees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Howells, GeraintReid, Dr John
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)Richardson, Jo
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)Robertson, George
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)Robinson, Geoffrey
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)Rogers, Allan
Hume, JohnRooker, Jeff
Ingram, AdamRoss, Ernie (Dundee W)
Janner, GrevilleRowlands, Ted
John, BrynmorRuddock, Joan
Johnston, Sir RussellSalmond, Alex
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)Sedgemore, Brian
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)Sheerman, Barry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Lambie, DavidShore, Rt Hon Peter
Lamond, JamesShort, Clare
Leadbitter, TedSkinner, Dennis
Leighton, RonSmith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)Smith, C. (Lsl'ton & F'bury)
Lewis, TerrySmith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Litherland, RobertSoley, Clive
Livingstone, KenSpearing, Nigel
Livsey, RichardSteinberg, Gerry
Lofthouse, GeoffreyStott, Roger
McAllion, JohnStrang, Gavin
McAvoy, ThomasTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McCartney, IanTaylor, Matthew (Truro)
Macdonald, Calum A.Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
McFall, JohnTurner, Dennis
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)Vaz, Keith
McKelvey, WilliamWall, Pat
McLeish, HenryWalley, Joan
McTaggart, BobWardell, Gareth (Gower)
McWilliam, JohnWareing, Robert N.
Madden, MaxWelsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Mahon, Mrs AliceWelsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Marek, Dr JohnWigley, Dafydd
Marshall, David (Shettleston)Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)Wilson, Brian
Martlew, EricWinnick, David
Maxton, JohnWise, Mrs Audrey
Meacher, MichaelWorthington, Tony
Meale, AlanWray, Jimmy
Michael, AlunYoung, David (Bolton SE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)Tellers for the Ayes:
Millan, Rt Hon BruceMr. Frank Cook and
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)Mr. Allen Adams.
Moonie, Dr Lewis
NOES
Adley, RobertArnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Aitken, JonathanArnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Alexander, RichardAshby, David
Alison, Rt Hon MichaelAspinwall, Jack
Amery, Rt Hon JulianAtkins, Robert
Amess, DavidBaker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Amos, AlanBaldry, Tony
Arbuthnot, JamesBanks, Robert (Harrogate)
Batiste, SpencerGummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyHamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Bellingham, HenryHamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bendall, VivianHampson, Dr Keith
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)Hanley, Jeremy
Benyon,W.Hannam, John
Bevan, David GilroyHargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnHargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnHarris, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.Haselhurst, Alan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterHawkins, Christopher
Body, Sir RichardHayes, Jerry
Bonsor, Sir NicholasHayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Boscawen, Hon RobertHayward, Robert
Boswell, TimHeathcoat-Amory, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Heddle, John
Bowis, JohnHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir RhodesHill, James
Braine, Rt Hon Sir BernardHind, Kenneth
Brandon-Bravo, MartinHogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Brazier, JulianHolt, Richard
Bright, GrahamHordern, Sir Peter
Brittan, Rt Hon LeonHoward, Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon AlickHowell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Buck, Sir AntonyHowell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Burns, SimonHughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Burt, AlistairHunt, David (Wirral W)
Butcher, JohnHunter, Andrew
Butler, ChrisHurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Butterfill, JohnIrvine, Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)Irving, Charles
Carrington, MatthewJack, Michael
Carttiss, MichaelJackson, Robert
Cash, WilliamJanman, Tim
Chapman, SydneyJessel, Toby
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Colvin, MichaelJones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)Key, Robert
Couchman, JamesKilfedder, James
Currie, Mrs EdwinaKing, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Curry, DavidKirkhope, Timothy
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)Knapman, Roger
Davis, David (Boothferry)Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Devlin, TimKnight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Dorrell, StephenKnowles, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesKnox, David
Dover, DenLang, Ian
Dunn, BobLatham, Michael
Durant, TonyLawrence, Ivan
Dykes, HughLee, John (Pendle)
Emery, Sir PeterLeigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fairbairn, NicholasLester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)Lightbown, David
Fookes, Miss JanetLilley, Peter
Forman, NigelLloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Forth, EricLord, Michael
Fox, Sir MarcusMacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Franks, CecilMaclean, David
French, DouglasMcLoughlin, Patrick
Gale, RogerMcNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Garel-Jones, TristanMcNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Gill, ChristopherMajor, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr AlanMalins, Humfrey
Goodson-Wickes, Dr CharlesMans, Keith
Gorman, Mrs TeresaMarshall, John (Hendon S)
Gow, IanMartin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gower, Sir RaymondMates, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Greenway, John (Ryedale)Mellor, David
Gregory, ConalMeyer, Sir Anthony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')Miller, Hal
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)Miscampbell, Norman
Grist, IanMitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ground, PatrickMitchell, David (Hants NW)
Moate, RogerSpeller, Tony
Monro, Sir HectorSpicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Moss, MalcolmSteen, Anthony
Mudd, DavidStern, Michael
Nelson, AnthonyStevens, Lewis
Neubert, MichaelStewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Newton, Rt Hon TonyStewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Nicholls, PatrickStokes, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)Sumberg, David
Onslow, Rt Hon CranleySummerson, Hugo
Oppenheim, PhillipTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Page, RichardTaylor, John M (Solihull)
Paice, JamesTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Patnick, IrvineTemple-Morris, Peter
Pawsey, JamesThompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Peacock, Mrs ElizabethThorne, Neil
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)Thornton, Malcolm
Porter, David (Waveney)Townend, John (Bridlington)
Portillo, MichaelTracey, Richard
Price, Sir DavidTrippier, David
Raffan, KeithTrotter, Neville
Raison, Rt Hon TimothyTwinn, Dr Ian
Redwood, JohnVaughan, Sir Gerard
Renton, TimWaddington, Rt Hon David
Rhodes James, RobertWaldegrave, Hon William
Rhys Williams, Sir BrandonWalden, George
Riddick, GrahamWalker, Bill (T'side North)
Rifkind, Rt Hon MalcolmWaller, Gary
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)Ward, John
Roe, Mrs MarionWarren, Kenneth
Rossi, Sir HughWatts, John
Rost, PeterWells, Bowen
Rowe, AndrewWheeler, John
Rumbold, Mrs AngelaWiddecombe, Ann
Sackville, Hon TomWiggin, Jerry
Sainsbury, Hon TimWilkinson, John
Shaw, David (Dover)Wilshire, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)Winterton, Mrs Ann
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')Winterton, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)Wolfson, Mark
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)Wood, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)Woodcock, Mike
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)Yeo, Tim
Shersby, MichaelYoung, Sir George (Acton)
Sims, Roger
Skeet, Sir TrevorTellers for the Noes:
Soames, Hon NicholasMr. Richard Ryder and
Speed, KeithMr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.