Skip to main content

Housing Of Asylum-Seekers: Supplementary

Volume 202: debated on Tuesday 21 January 1992

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 9, line 36, leave out first 'an' and insert 'a housing'.— [Mr. Fraser.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.— [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

9.47 pm

I am glad to have an opportunity of making a few remarks at the end of the consideration of the Bill. Other business has prevented me from playing a bigger role in the earlier proceedings. I want to place on record on behalf of my constituents my opposition to the Bill.

I remember the first debate on the Bill, just a couple of months ago. In almost his opening sentence, the Home Secretary assured the House that there was no question of the Bill playing the numbers game. The preparation for the Bill began in the summer, when the tabloid Tory newspapers made it clear that part of their pre-electioneering was to play a racist card by supporting the introduction of this Bill. There was a spate of stories about the country being "swamped" or of there being "too many asylum seekers" and of the "scandal" of thousands of "bogus" applicants.

On 3 November, The Sunday Times managed to combine nearly all those elements in one sentence when it said:
"Tory MPs, particularly those with seats in the Midlands, plan to fight Labour hard on its pledge to oppose the government's legislation cracking down on immigrants seeking bogus political asylum."
Virtually all those elements were contained in a single sentence in one article. Of course, that is not an objective appraisal.

As anyone who has read the Committee proceedings or heard the debates in the Chamber will know, the word "bogus" is not an objective term but a purely subjective analysis which changes as do the rules and regulations, which the Government regularly tighten. People who do not come under the ambit of these rules and regulations are described as bogus.

What have we been talking about in terms of numbers, an issue with which the Home Secretary began his contribution—45,000 or 50,000 asylum seekers last year? What is that? It is perhaps the gate at a Manchester City/Manchester United local derby football match. The reality is that only about 5 per cent. of the estimated 17.5 million refugees in the world get as far as or seek to come to Europe, and only a small fraction of those ever apply to come to the United Kingdom. Those statistics are a matter of public record, but it is hard to find them reflected in many of the newspaper articles that I mentioned, especially those in the tabloids in recent months.

It is also a matter of public record, because the Home Office admitted it to me in a parliamentary answer some months ago, that in 20 of the past 27 years—from 1964 to 1990—there was a net outflow of people emigrating from this country. For those who wish to know, during those 27 years there was a net outflow of 786,000 people. That is a matter of public record, so there is no question of this country, in the immortal words of the former Prime Minister, being
"swamped by people of an alien culture".
The Bill has been designed to make asylum not easier but harder. It will be made harder because of carrier fines and the associated regulations. The speeding up of the process which is part of the Bill does not bode well for a fair hearing. The Minister will know of a case that I raised, which has occupied staff in his office in recent weeks. It involved a Sikh constituent who, if I had not intervened, would have been sent initially to Germany and possibly back to the Punjab, where his brother was killed some months ago.

I was able to raise the case because of the powers of intervention that hon. Members still have, but those powers will be side-stepped by the tightening of the procedures and by the denial of an oral hearing which the Bill will make law. If, in that case or in future cases, the so-called removal to the port of first entry is to be the norm, and if no assurances are received from the country to which the person is sent, I predict that the Bill will result in people being sent to their death.

As Nye Bevan used to say, one does not need to look into a crystal ball if one can read the book. We know about the famous case of the Tamil seekers after refugee status—five were sent back to Sri Lanka and four were tortured. That is a matter of record. I could mention other cases, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak. Any hon. Member who has a substantial proportion of constituents with families residing in other countries could provide case after case to show that the Bill will put at risk the lives and safety of constituents' families.

As I said, the Bill was politically aimed at the pre-election period. The newspapers that give support and succour to the Tory party played their role well, not only by softening public opinion in advance of the House's consideration of the Bill, but by poisoning workers' minds with their repeated stories of con men, of racketeering and of massive social security fraud. How those stories seemed to escalate in the weeks before the Queen's Speech when the Bill was first introduced in the House.

We are talking about people fleeing persecution by some of the world's worst dictatorships, fleeing countries racked by civil war under repressive regimes often supported and funded by countries in the west in general, and even by this country in particular.

I have been politically active for 20 years. The first case with which I dealt as an individual was that of refugees from Chile, who had arrived in Coventry in the early 1970s with no clothes and no furniture. My grandfather's radio, which is still playing, was given to the children of the first Chilean refugee family to get as far as Coventry in the early 1970s. Throughout that period and until today, we have received families from Africa, Asia, the Punjab, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and other countries. The Bill would make the job of hon. Members that much harder—it is designed to do so. Many Tory Members have written—not least my neighbour the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who wrote an article a few days ago in a Coventry magazine stating that it was because hon. Members were clogging up Home Office procedure with their interventions that the Bill had to be introduced.

We know why the Bill has been introduced. It seeks to criminalise those who come to this country seeking political asylum. As "Newsnight" showed last night, several hundred of the people who get as far as these shores find that Britain's hospitality leads them to the detention centre at Harmsworth or to prison, where they languish for weeks or months.

I make no apology for saying that the Bill legitimises and underpins the arguments of racists in this country, which, if unchecked, could lead to the horrors that have occurred in France and Germany in recent months, where people have been burnt out of hostels and there have been several attacks. Just before Christmas, a black woman in my constituency—Mrs. Morrison, who is not a refugee—was threatened with a baseball bat, her phone and television cables were cut four times and she had beans and grease thrown at her windows and dog excreta smeared on her doormat. She fears for her own life and that of her 12-year-old son. If the Bill is enacted, the proposals that it contains will legitimise, underpin and give support to racist organisations such as the National Front and the British National party, which seek to take on to the streets the racist and neo-Nazi ideas that unfortunately gain succor from those who play the numbers game in the House or elsewhere.

As a socialist, I believe that people who are fleeing war and persecution should be welcomed into this country as they have been so many times by past generations. Our parents and grandparents welcomed the people from Europe, eastern Europe, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa who were seeking to flee persecution. It should not only be Russian composers and South African athletes with friends in the Tory Cabinet who are allowed here in a matter of days: all those who flee persecution should have a right to seek and find asylum and refuge in this country.

I hope that, when Opposition spokesmen make their wind-up speeches later, and when, as I hope, Labour form a Government in the weeks and months ahead, they will make it clear that they will not only make it easier and quicker for refugees to be granted the right to stay in this country, but withdraw support from those regimes from whom people are fleeing—such administrations should include the Governments of Sri Lanka and India as long as oppression continues in the Kashmir and Punjab—and embark on a sufficiently large programme of public works to build homes, hospitals and schools so that unemployment and other social conditions do not allow racism to breed in the cities and towns of Britain.

There is no justification for the Bill. The Home Secretary seems to take it as conclusive proof that anyone who arrives with bogus documents is, by definition, a bogus refugee or asylum seeker. Most people fleeing a country in which there is oppression do not have time to queue up at a British embassy or high commission for the necessary paperwork. The very nature of their departure means that they often seek refuge here via a third country. The fast track proposed in the Bill will weaken or even fatally flaw the ability of such people to seek refuge in this country.

It is a nasty little Bill, and the House should drop it into the dustbin tonight. If it is enacted, I hope that a future Labour Government will give a categorical pledge to repeal it and the earlier racist legislation on which it is built. I wish to ensure that families in my constituency and others up and down the country are united instead of divided, as they are at present. I want to ensure that those who come here to save their lives, those who have been restricted and suppressed in their own countries, are not further restricted and suppressed when they seek refuge in this country, which has traditionally been a haven for refugees and, in my opinion, should continue to be such a haven.

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


That, at this day's sitting, the Asylum Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10 pm

The House wishes to come to a conclusion on this Bill tonight.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has just spoken with very great passion and feeling. I do not believe that what we have heard from him was the least bit simulated. He spoke with conviction, and he spoke for many people—people outside this House as well as in it—who share his abhorrence of the measure that Parliament is passing with so little scrutiny.

Today the House is being asked to conclude its deliberations against a background of Government uncertainty about the administration of the provisions of this legislation, which is almost unparalleled and unbelievable. When the Bill was being introduced the House was advised that the prime responsibility for representing and giving advice to people seeking asylum would rest with the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Today we have been told that this is not so. The whole foundation of the argument put forward by the Minister was shot from under his feet by himself. At lunch time today the Minister published amendments to the immigration rules. In doing so at such a late hour he made it impossible for the House properly to consider the amendments and to decide whether, in the whole new framework of rules, the Bill is appropriate. That is not the way in which the House should deliberate in respect of such a sensitive matter.

We have not received from the Minister, either today or on an earlier occasion, a direct answer to the accusation of the Commission for Racial Equality that at least some of the Bill's provisions are racially discriminatory and are counter to the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is a very serious matter that the chairman of this Government-appointed body, Mr. Michael Day, should make such a charge. I refer in particular to clause 4, which relates to the duties of local authorities—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has not been so closely involved at all stages of the debate on this Bill as to know what Mr. Michael Day and the Commission for Racial Equality have said about it. That body, which is charged by statute and was appointed by the present Government to protect our society from racial discriminatory measures, has made the charge to which I have just referred. It is a very serious charge, and the Government have not answered it. No doubt, however, it will come up again in another place.

Upon that House falls a heavy responsibility to ameliorate this rotten little measure, which does nothing to enhance the reputation of the Ministers who brought it forward. I should say in passing that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office has undertaken his role with honour and distinction. He has attempted the impossible by at least seeking to explain, if not to justify, what is in the Government's mind. Justification would be impossible. The Home Secretary, of course, has nothing to say. The Home Secretary is the Home Secretary. [Laughter.] I use a rhetorical device that Mr. Edward Pearce is accused of having used too frequently.

I hope that this Bill will come to grief in another place and that it will come back to this House much improved. Those in the other place who have experience of the law—and there are a number of former Home Secretaries there who have direct experience of handling these matters—would do well to justify their revising role by making hefty revisions to the Bill before it returns to this House.

10.4 pm

As I have been in the Chamber throughout today's proceedings and attended every sitting of the Standing Committee, I should like to take this opportunity again to place on record my opposition to the Bill.

Every time we consider the Bill, it becomes clearer that the provisions are wholly unnecessary and unjustified. It has become clear today that it may well be impossible to administer the provisions and, clearly, the Bill may have the most dangerous consequences for the men, women and even children who seek political asylum in the United Kingdom.

Last year, we were told by the so-called popular press, and by many right-wing Conservative Members, that hundreds of thousands—possibly millions—of people were queuing up to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom. That propaganda campaign caused widespread alarm among many sections of the community at the prospect of all those people flooding into the country seeking political asylum.

We were told that many of the applicants—indeed, the majority of them—were bogus, and we have heard that again today. How can that be squared with the Government's information that nine of every 10 people seeking political asylum are genuine—indeed, must be genuine because they are granted exceptional need to remain or full political asylum? We know from the Government's information that the bulk of applicants are genuine and we have no reason to believe that, in future, the majority will be bogus.

The Government have tried to persuade us that the Bill is necessary to allow applications for political asylum to be considered more quickly. None of us supports the system which has meant that many seeking political asylum have had to wait up to a year—in some cases, for several years—to have their applications considered. None of us can justify arrangements whereby appeals can take months and months to be held. But if the Government want to expedite political asylum applications, they can do so very easily. They could have done it years ago by devoting more resources to enabling applications to be considered quickly and efficiently and by appointing more officials.

It is clear that the real purpose of the Bill has nothing to do with the creation of a fair and efficient system for considering political asylum cases, and everything to do with political opportunism and the Government's desire to pander to right-wing sections of the Conservative party—which have been in evidence again today.

The Bill is without friends. Opposition to it is considerable. Its opponents range from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality which, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, has warned that the Bill may well breach the Race Relations Act 1976.

The Bill may also breach our obligations under international conventions. It will certainly intimidate men, women and even children and deter them from applying for political asylum in Britain. The message that the Bill sends out clearly and loudly is "You are unwelcome here, go away." The Bill is part of a process that is now under way to create a Fortress Europe, so that the European Community can turn its back on those who are seeking refuge from violence, from persecution, from war, and from torture.

The Bill is unnecessary, dangerous and offensive. How, in 1992, can the House agree to a system whereby we routinely photograph and fingerprint even children? Those provisions are obscene. As we have heard today, the housing provisions will create enormous distress and difficulty for many families waiting for decisions on their political asylum applications.

This is a bad, squalid Bill. I hope very much that it never reaches the statute book but, if it does, I hope that the next Labour Government will repeal it.

10.10 pm

This is indeed a squalid, unworthy little Bill. It is discriminatory both in its intent and in its effect. It has been given a thorough going-over in Committee and in the House. Some concessions have been wrung out of the Government, but, nevertheless, it remains an unpleasant Bill. It remains a piece of legislation, the effect of which is to put this country in breach of its international obligations.

Earlier, reference was made to the specificity of the provisions. The international provisions which the Bill causes us to breach are article 19(4)(C) of the Council of Europe's social charter and the International Labour Organisation's convention No. 97, two articles of international law on which this country has been obliged to renege in pursuit of the Government's purpose—a purpose which does the House no credit.

At this time of the year, we in the Christian calendar celebrate the flight of Our Lord and his parents, delivered from Herod, into Egypt. At this time of the year, we might reflect on the Bill, because one can be in no doubt that if Our Lord and his parents were to seek to gain entry into the United Kingdom, they would have great difficulty. They would be turned away at the gates. If they were admitted, they would not only find themselves in danger of being fingerprinted—Mary, Joseph and child; such are the provisions of the Bill—but, were they to obtain temporary accommodation in a church or synagogue in excess of 28 days, they would be denied local authority housing.

This is a strange measure—strange because we have not had established in the House a sufficient reason for introducing a measure of this nature, the extent of which is so thoroughly discreditable. There is still time for the Government to make a better Bill in another place. They can begin by getting rid of clause 3 and its impact on existing housing legislation. Housing and immigration do not mix in terms of the functions of the House in creating new law. They should never have been intermingled in such a way, and they make the Bill even more unworthy than it would otherwise be.

There have been attempts to make the presentation of the Bill more palatable by stating that bona fide refugees need have nothing to fear and that our traditions of hospitality to bona fide refugees remain as they have always been. An attempt has been made to gloss over the more objectionable characteristics of the Bill by saying that they are necessary to preserve the general public good of those settled and permanently resident in the United Kingdom.

If that is true, the Government can give credence to their own case by recognising the very real needs that local authority associations of all political hues have made known to the Home Office and to the Department of the Environment. They can recognise the representations of the Churches, the voluntary organisations, the housing associations and the Housing Corporation, which seek to deal with refugees who are legally in this country. They can heed the representations made to the Home Office and the Department of the Environment about the impact in and on our constituencies of the presence of bona fide refugees.

What happens in schools in my constituency when young Somali boys and girls, many of them unaccompanied, find themselves there? What happens at Copland school in my constituency where they have had to deal with several score of Somali refugees without a penny more of resources from the Government? When the headmaster, the governing body and the local education authority, under both Conservative and Labour, have written to the Department of Education and Science and the Home Office about this gap in the funding of local authority provision for refugees, answer comes there none. Not a penny more comes from the Department of the Environment, the Home Office or the Department of Education and Science to deal with the resettlement of genuine refugees and to deal with the impact on local communities of refugees with special needs and problems—refugees already traumatised when they enter this country.

If the Government are genuine in their concern for bona fide refugees, they will put their money—our money—where their mouth is and do something to help local authorities tackle the problem. Until they show that they genuinely care about refugees and about the reputation of this country, we will be entitled to treat the Bill, as we do, with contempt.

10.16 pm

As one who spoke against the Bill on Second Reading, right through Committee and in today's proceedings, I want to put on record my continuing opposition to the Bill and my contempt for the purpose of it and the way in which the whole thing has been presented.

It has been accompanied, as other hon. Members have said, by a particularly nasty campaign in the popular press, with day-to-day stories of alleged social security fraud, including telephone fraud, with a story one day of excessive numbers of people seeking asylum and, on the next day, a story of multiple asylum applications. Yet at no stage are these stories properly collated or the issues surrounding asylum properly set out. It is part of an attempt to create a fear, a xenophobic attitude in the country, and it has been promoted by the Home Office and, in particular, by the Home Secretary with his disgusting and disgraceful speech to the Tory party conference some months ago.

It is against that background that there is a refusal by the Home Secretary and the media to recognise the real reasons why people seek asylum or the fact that the vast majority of people who have sought and obtained some form of safe haven have not come to western Europe or north America but have been cared for by the poor in the poor countries of the world. It is in Mexico, India, Iran and the Sudan that one finds very large numbers of people who have sought asylum, living in awful conditions and with very little help given by the wealthy west.

Yet all these things—the use of the words "flood" and "waves", the supposedly large numbers of asylum seekers trying to get into western Europe—are used to stoke up fears. On the back of this xenophobia, the racists are at work in Europe: there have been 800 attacks on the homes of people in western and eastern Germany who have sought to work there for economic reasons. Racist violence is going on there. There have been attacks on the streets of France. Racist attacks happen once very 30 minutes in this country. That is the agenda of the new Europe. I am not saying that the Bill is entirely related to all that, but the atmosphere surrounding it and the purpose behind its introduction lie in the direction of stoking up racist feelings in this country when we should be heading in the opposite direction.

The Bill makes it more difficult for those fleeing from persecution to gain entry into this country. As a result of the Trevi group and the Schengen and Dublin agreements, it is now more difficult to gain entry into western Europe as a whole. Those who readily condemn people who seek political asylum should spare a thought for what those who have suffered from political and social persecution have gone through. They should talk to those who have been tortured in Somalia or Zaire. They should talk to those who fled from the regime of Saddam Hussein—not last year when that was a popular cause because of the Gulf war, but five or 10 years ago when the British Government were happily trading with Saddam Hussein. They should talk to those who have fled from Iran and to those who managed to get out of the national stadium in Chile in 1973 when 20,000 people were killed by that fascist dictatorship—another one that was armed by the British Government.

We need some understanding of what it is like to have to leave one's country, possibly never to return—because that is what seeking political asylum is all about. Our attitude should recognise what we would want for ourselves if we were in the same situation—a place of safety, welcome and understanding. Instead, we offer a limited right of appeal with limited access to social security. We positively refuse to grant such asylum seekers permanent housing.

The Bill will go down in history as one of those nasty reactionary measures introduced by a particularly nasty and reactionary Government who are seeking to run with a nasty tide. We should recognise the victims of persecution not as the cause of a problem, but as the victims of a much wider problem. We should adopt a more welcoming and supportive attitude towards them. The Bill is wholly wrong and inappropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) rightly said, the Bill is wholly friendless and should be opposed by the House.

10.21 pm

Although we have had long discussions on the Bill both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, it would be wrong to let the Bill pass its Third Reading without comment. There is no doubt that the problems of asylum seekers and of the movement of people in Europe and elsewhere are real problems, but they need to be tackled rationally instead of being seen as an opportunity to score political advantage.

Hon. Members will remember that the Bill was yet another Tory flagship. The Home Secretary promoted its cause throughout last year—in the House, at the Tory party conference and wherever he could—but he has not even spoken today. It is no coincidence that the same Secretary of State who introduced the poll tax, which is now floundering, has abandoned the central plank of the Bill—the attempt to remove legal aid from those who seek asylum. It is clear from today's debate that legal advice and assistance is here to stay—at least for the time being. The Government's chosen replacement is now to be broken up because it cannot discharge the task that the Home Secretary was so confident only 11 months ago that it could. The rules that were published at lunch time today have made substantial concessions. I am glad of that and pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who has attempted to fashion a workable Bill out of what started originally as a piece of political rhetoric.

However, the Bill remains ill thought out. It was rushed out in an attempt to gain party advantage, which has failed, rather than being an attempt to tackle the real problem. The Committee and Report stages have effected substantial changes and we understand that more changes are to be proposed in another place. However, the Bill remains fundamentally flawed. I refer especially to the lack of a right of appeal. The clauses that are designed to discourage people from seeking asylum serve no other purpose.

Nothing in the Bill will stop asylum applications. As long as there is conflict and famine throughout the world, people will apply for asylum. The challenge for us is to deal with those applications fairly and thoroughly so that we do not run the risk of sending people back to countries where they may be tortured or face death. The Bill has failed to rise to that challenge. It was designed for entirely the wrong reasons. It has failed to meet the many challenges that it needs to meet. For those reasons, we shall oppose its Third Reading.

10.25 pm

This is a good and necessary Bill and I reject utterly the inflammatory, indeed palpably ignorant, charge by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and other hon. Gentlemen who, like him, have suggested that it is racist. It is designed to give effect to the 1951 United Nations convention in a way that ensures that all those who arrive in the United Kingdom with a well-founded fear of persecution, wherever they come from, will find a safe haven here; and that those who have no such fear and no other humanitarian or appropriate reason for remaining, wherever they come from, will be obliged to leave.

I urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading and speed it to the other place.

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

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Division No. 47]

[10.25 pm

Adley, RobertFavell, Tony
Alexander, RichardFenner, Dame Peggy
Alison, Rt Hon MichaelField, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Allason, RupertFinsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Amess, DavidFishburn, John Dudley
Amos, AlanForman, Nigel
Arbuthnot, JamesForsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Arnold, Sir ThomasForth, Eric
Ashby, DavidFowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Atkins, RobertFreeman, Roger
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)French, Douglas
Baldry, TonyFry, Peter
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Gale, Roger
Batiste, SpencerGardiner, Sir George
Bellingham, HenryGill, Christopher
Bendall, VivianGlyn, Dr Sir Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)Goodhart, Sir Philip
Benyon, W.Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnGoodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Blackburn, Dr John G.Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterGrant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Bonsor, Sir NicholasGreenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Boscawen, Hon RobertGreenway, John (Ryedale)
Boswell, TimGregory, Conal
Bottomley, PeterGriffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaGrist, Ian
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Ground, Patrick
Bowis, JohnGrylls, Sir Michael
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir RhodesHague, William
Brandon-Bravo, MartinHamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Brazier, JulianHamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bright, GrahamHampson, Dr Keith
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)Hanley, Jeremy
Browne, John (Winchester)Hannam, Sir John
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Budgen, NicholasHargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Burns, SimonHarris, David
Burt, AlistairHawkins, Christopher
Butler, ChrisHayes, Jerry
Butterfill, JohnHayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)Hayward, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Carrington, MatthewHicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Carttiss, MichaelHiggins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Cash, WilliamHill, James
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs LyndaHind, Kenneth
Channon, Rt Hon PaulHogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Chapman, SydneyHordern, Sir Peter
Churchill, MrHowarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir WilliamHowell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Colvin, MichaelHunt, Rt Hon David
Conway, DerekHunter, Andrew
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)Irvine, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)Jack, Michael
Cope, Rt Hon Sir JohnJackson, Robert
Cormack, PatrickJanman, Tim
Couchman, JamesJessel, Toby
Gran, JamesJohnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Currie, Mrs EdwinaJones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Day, StephenKellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Devlin, TimKey, Robert
Dickens, GeoffreyKilfedder, James
Dorrell, StephenKing, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesKirkhope, Timothy
Dover, DenKnapman, Roger
Dunn, BobKnight, Greg (Derby North)
Durant, Sir AnthonyKnight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Dykes, HughKnowles, Michael
Eggar, TimKnox, David
Emery, Sir PeterLang, Rt Hon Ian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)Latham, Michael
Evennett, DavidLawrence, Ivan
Fallon, MichaelLee, John (Pendle)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon MarkSayeed, Jonathan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lightbown, DavidShaw, David (Dover)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Lord, MichaelShelton, Sir William
Luce, Rt Hon Sir RichardShephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir NicholasShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
MacGregor, Rt Hon JohnShepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)Shersby, Michael
Maclean, DavidSims, Roger
McLoughlin, PatrickSkeet, Sir Trevor
McNair-Wilson, Sir MichaelSmith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
McNair-Wilson, Sir PatrickSoames, Hon Nicholas
Madel, DavidSpeed, Keith
Malins, HumfreySpeller, Tony
Mans, KeithSpicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Maples, JohnSpicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marland, PaulSquire, Robin
Marlow, TonyStanbrook, Ivor
Marshall, John (Hendon S)Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)Steen, Anthony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)Stern, Michael
Mates, MichaelStevens, Lewis
Maude, Hon FrancisStewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir RobinStewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir PatrickStewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Meyer, Sir AnthonyStokes, Sir John
Miller, Sir HalSumberg, David
Mills, lainSummerson, Hugo
Mitchell, Sir DavidTapsell, Sir Peter
Moate, RogerTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon JamesTaylor, Sir Teddy
Monro, Sir HectorTebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Montgomery, Sir FergusTemple-Morris, Peter
Moore, Rt Hon JohnThompson, Sir D. (Calder
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Morrison, Sir CharlesThompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir PeterThorne, Neil
Moss, MalcolmThornton, Malcolm
Moynihan, Hon ColinThurnham, Peter
Neale, Sir GerrardTownend, John (Bridlington)
Nelson, AnthonyTownsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Neubert, Sir MichaelTracey, Richard
Newton, Rt Hon TonyTredinnick, David
Nicholls, PatrickTrippier, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)Twinn, Dr Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Norris, SteveViggers, Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon CranleyWakeham, Rt Hon John
Oppenheim, PhillipWaldegrave, Rt Hon William
Page, RichardWalden, George
Paice, JamesWalker, Bill (T'side North)
Parkinson, Rt Hon CecilWaller, Gary
Patnick, IrvineWard, John
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Patten, Rt Hon JohnWarren, Kenneth
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyWatts, John
Pawsey, JamesWells, Bowen
Peacock, Mrs ElizabethWheeler, Sir John
Porter, David (Waveney)Whitney, Ray
Portillo, MichaelWiddecombe, Ann
Powell, William (Corby)Wilkinson, John
Price, Sir DavidWilshire, David
Raison, Rt Hon Sir TimothyWinterton, Mrs Ann
Redwood, JohnWinterton, Nicholas
Renton, Rt Hon TimWolfson, Mark
Rhodes James, Sir RobertWood, Timothy
Ridsdale, Sir JulianYeo, Tim
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Roe, Mrs MarionTellers for the Ayes:
Rost, PeterMr. John M. Taylor and
Rowe, AndrewMr. Nicholas Baker.
Sackville, Hon Tom
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)Anderson, Donald
Allen, GrahamArcher, Rt Hon Peter
Alton, DavidArmstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon PaddyHattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ashley, Rt Hon JackHaynes, Frank
Ashton, JoeHeal, Mrs Sylvia
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)Hinchliffe, David
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Barron, KevinHogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Battle, JohnHome Robertson, John
Beith, A. J.Hood, Jimmy
Bell, StuartHowarth, George (Knowsley N)
Bellotti, DavidHowells, Geraint
Benn, Rt Hon TonyHowells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)Hoyle, Doug
Bermingham, GeraldHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Blair, TonyHughes, Roy (Newport E)
Blunkett, DavidHughes, Simon (Southwark)
Boateng, PaulIllsley, Eric
Boyes, RolandIngram, Adam
Bradley, KeithJanner, Greville
Bray, Dr JeremyJohnston, Sir Russell
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)Jones, Ieuan (Ynys M6n)
Caborn, RichardJones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Callaghan, JimKennedy, Charles
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)Kilfoyle, Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)Kirkwood, Archy
Canavan, DennisKumar, Dr. Ashok
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)Lambie, David
Cartwright, JohnLamond, James
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Leadbitter, Ted
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)Leighton, Ron
Clelland, DavidLewis, Terry
Cohen, HarryLitherland, Robert
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)Livingstone, Ken
Cook, Robin (Livingston)Livsey, Richard
Corbett, RobinLloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Corbyn, JeremyLofthouse, Geoffrey
Cousins, JimLoyden, Eddie
Crowther, StanMcAllion, John
Cryer, BobMcAvoy, Thomas
Cummings, JohnMcCartney, Ian
Cunliffe, LawrenceMacdonald, Calum A.
Darling, AlistairMcKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)McKelvey, William
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)McLeish, Henry
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)Maclennan, Robert
Dewar, DonaldMcMaster, Gordon
Dixon, DonMcNamara, Kevin
Doran, FrankMcWilliam, John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs GwynethMadden, Max
Eadie, AlexanderMahon, Mrs Alice
Edwards, HuwMarek, Dr John
Enright, DerekMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Evans, John (St Helens N)Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)Martlew, Eric
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)Maxton, John
Fatchett, DerekMeale, Alan
Faulds, AndrewMichael, Alun
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Flannery, MartinMitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Flynn, PaulMoonie, Dr Lewis
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelMorgan, Rhodri
Foster, DerekMorley, Elliot
Foulkes, GeorgeMorris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Fraser, JohnMowlam, Marjorie
Fyfe, MariaMullin, Chris
Galloway, GeorgeMurphy, Paul
Garrett, John (Norwich South)Nellist, Dave
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
George, BruceO'Brien, William
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnO'Hara, Edward
Golding, Mrs LlinO'Neill, Martin
Graham, ThomasOrme, Rt Hon Stanley
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)Parry, Robert
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)Patchett, Terry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Pendry, Tom
Grocott, BrucePowell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hain, PeterPrescott, John
Hardy, PeterPrimarolo, Dawn
Harman, Ms HarrietQuin, Ms Joyce

Radice, GilesStott, Roger
Randall, StuartStrang, Gavin
Redmond, MartinStraw, Jack
Rees, Rt Hon MerlynTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Reid, Dr JohnTaylor, Matthew (Truro)
Robertson, GeorgeThomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Robinson, GeoffreyThompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Rogers, AllanTurner, Dennis
Rooker, JeffWallace, James
Rooney, TerenceWalley, Joan
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Rowlands, TedWareing, Robert N.
Ruddock, JoanWatson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Sedgemore, BrianWelsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Sheerman, BarryWelsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon RobertWilliams, Rt Hon Alan
Shore, Rt Hon PeterWilliams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Short, ClareWilson, Brian
Skinner, DennisWinnick, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)Wise, Mrs Audrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)Worthington, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)Wray, Jimmy
Snape, PeterYoung, David (Bolton SE)
Soley, Clive
Spearing, Nigel

Tellers for the Noes:

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mr. Ken Eastham and

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.