§ Amendment made: No. 32, in page 13, line 15, leave out from 'three' to end of line 17.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.10.38 pm
§ Mr. Winnick
I wish that I could be more enthusiastic about the Bill, especially in view of the long campaign to ensure that the security services are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I wish that I were in a position tonight in which I could say that the campaign had succeeded, and that the oversight that is necessary to ensure that the security services act in the way in which they should act had been accomplished, but I am afraid that I am not in that position. Therefore, like my hon. Friends, I am somewhat critical of the measure. I am not enthusiastic.
It is regrettable that the Government, having gone down the road of parliamentary scrutiny of a type, have stopped far short of what they should be doing. I should like to be able to say that the long campaign had come to a victorious conclusion. I should like to be able to say that the House could now be satisfied that it was establishing genuine parliamentary scrutiny along the lines of other western democracies. Unfortunately, I am not in that position.
I say this to the Minister. This would have been the opportunity to end the controversy. This would have been the opportunity to say that the battle had been won. The 344 parties should agree to an oversight committee and there is no reason why it should continue to be the subject of controversy.
I do not believe that we do the services—the intelligence services, MI5, MI6 and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham—any favours by creating a situation in which the controversy will continue. I agree that the controversy will continue in a more limited form, but it will continue. It will continue because we have not ensured the necessary type of parliamentary scrutiny.
It is unfortunate that the proposed oversight committee will report not directly to the House but to the Prime Minister and hence there will be a feeling that the committee is more similar to a Cabinet subcommittee than it should be. I regret even more deeply the fact that the proposed committee will not have powers and papers which it should have.
I challenged the Minister earlier about what would happen if a witness who had been summoned to the committee decided that he or she did not want to appear. I asked whether, in those circumstances, the Government would be in favour of ensuring that the person concerned was forced to go to the committee as to a Select Committee. The Minister of State at the Foreign Office said that the Government would be willing to do nothing of the kind.
It is unfortunate indeed that the oversight committee does not yet have the powers and authority that the House should give such a committee. I do not know who will serve on the committee, but I hope that, in spite of the limitations that I have outlined and in spite of the criticisms that were made by the Labour party in Committee and on the Floor of the House, the committee, once it is set up, will regard its job as that of a genuine oversight committee.
One of the reasons that I, and I am sure most of my hon. Friends, will not vote against the Third Reading is that we believe that the measure goes at least some of the way towards what we want to do. If we were of the view that it was entirely a mockery, for such a committee would serve no purpose, obviously we would vote against Third Reading, as we would have done against Second Reading, but that is not our view. I accept, as I said a few moments ago, that it goes down the type of road that we want to travel, but how much better it would have been if it had gone down the road of other western democracies.
How much better it would be if we could say, apart from anything else tonight, that the campaign has now ended. It will not end. From time to time, hon. Members such as I will no doubt make the arguments that we have made before.
Nevertheless, I wish the proposed committee every success. I hope that it will carry out the type of functions that it should carry out. I have never disputed that we need the security and intelligence services, and would need them even if we were not confronted by the curse of continuing terrorism. I know of no country—no democracy—that does not have some type of intelligence and security services and I cannot anticipate any circumstances in the future in which the facilities of such a service will not be necessary. A democracy has a right to defend itself.
My criticism of the security services has been largely connected with the scandals and abuses that have occurred. I have never questioned the need for such services, and, as I have said, I see no reason for us to work on the assumption that such assistance to the democracy in which 345 we live will not continue. Nevertheless, the intelligence and security services should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the same way as other arms and agencies of Government. The need for such scrutiny explains why parliamentary control was introduced, why Select Committees were set up in 1979 and why some other Committees existed before then.
If we could assume that the committee would do the job that I consider necessary, we should be far happier tonight. Notwithstanding all those criticisms, I believe that we should give the committee an opportunity to work, and to see how far it goes in its work; but I am certain that the matter will return to the House at some future date. I am convinced, as I was before, not only that there should be parliamentary oversight but that a Select Committee should be established—and one of these days such a committee will come into being, along the lines that we advocate.
§ Mr. Allason
The Bill puts on a statutory footing an agency that has existed since 1909, and establishes a commissioner and a tribunal to hear complaints from the public. It is not a consequence of an investigation conducted by Otis Pike or Frank Church—the kind of investigation that was undertaken in the United States; there has never been any sabotage of a Greenpeace vessel like Rainbow Warrior. The only scandals to have preoccupied the SIS, MI5 and GCHQ in recent years have been the unauthorised disclosures made by retired security and intelligence personnel. More than £1 million of taxpayers' money was wasted in the fruitless, counterproductive pursuit of Peter Wright, thereby-ensuring that "Spycatcher" became an international best-seller.
Wright was resident abroad, and had acquired Australian citizenship. Accordingly, the public watched the unedifying spectacle of an Australian judge, in an Australian court, with an Australian defendant, deciding what was or was not in the British national interest. GCHQ avoided a similar fiasco by taking out an injunction against a former radio officer, Jock Kane; as a retiree—a pensioner now working as a milkman in Hampshire—he has been unable to produce his memoirs, but no doubt he will be one of the complainants before the tribunal and the commissioner.
As for the SIS, it is in a curious position following the enactment of the Official Secrets Act in 1989. Two books have driven a coach and horses through the Act. Desmond Bristow was engaged in an acrimonious correspondence with the Treasury solicitor; he is resident in Spain and his publishers are American, so he held a strong hand when he ignored the threats and released "A Game of Moles" last year. Similarly, Brian Crozier received a series of threats from the Cabinet Secretary regarding his book "Free Agent".
The bottom line is that both books, written by retired SIS officers, were perceived by their former employers to be prejudicial to national security: that is quite clear from the exchanges between the various parties. However, absolutely no action of any kind has been taken against them—or, indeed, against the late Nicholas Elliott, who told me shortly before his tragic death some 10 days ago that he he had applied for and received permission to publish a third volume of his memoirs. The first did not mention his lengthy career in the SIS; the second was a 346 delightful account of his clandestine life. Alas, the third will never be published; but it is certain that other such books will follow. With compulsory redundancies being imposed on the SIS for the first time in the 85 years of its history, perhaps we should anticipate that disenchanted early retirees will capitalise on their experiences.
The current arrangement for dealing with the authorisation of the memoirs of security and intelligence personnel is manifestly unsatisfactory. It is conducted on the basis of nods, winks and threats that amount to impotent bluff. If there is a single issue that affects the operational capacity of all three agencies covered by the Bill, it is disclosure of the kind that I have described.
Although I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his handling of the Bill, I hope that the commission and the tribunal will be allowed to interpret their briefs sufficiently widely to avoid more lapses of the type that brought the security services so unfairly and unnecessarily into disrepute.
§ Mr. Mullin
The security services have been brought into disrepute over the years because of their own actions, which they no doubt thought would never see the light of day. However, many of those actions did see the light of day, partly due to the disclosures to which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) has referred.
My problem with what has happened in the past—I do not suggest that it is still happening, although I suppose that we shall have to wait a few years to find out—is more fundamental than that expressed by the hon. Member for Torbay. It is a matter of record that, in the past, the security services have to a great extent been targeted against the party which, for 17 of the past 45 years, has formed the Government and that they have on occasion been used to subvert the elected Government.
I do not know whether it is still the case but, at least until fairly recently, the security services were permanently under the control of the friends of one political party. That was certainly the experience of previous Labour Governments. In another place, Lord Jenkins referred to the "in-growing monoculture" of the security services which he found when he was, nominally at least, in charge of them. Unhappily, it has also been the case that the security services have been targeted by their political masters against people involved in legitimate activities—that was the reason why Cathy Massiter resigned.
I suppose that it could be said that the services have for many years been out of everyone's control, and certainly out of Parliament's control. Indeed, until the Bill came before the House, no one had ever suggested that Parliament should have any say in the matter. I believe that they have been out of the control of all Secretaries of State and most Prime Ministers of either party.
There is a wider problem. It is also a matter of record that the security services have been paralysed by internal feuding. People who care about national security—many, especially Conservative Members, say that they do—should at least be concerned about the extent to which the operational capability of the security services has been entirely diverted by such feuding. Many Conservatives also claim to be concerned about getting value for money, so they should be concerned about the fact that millions of 347 pounds have been wasted by being invested in enterprises that were not effective even within the terms of reference that the security services set themselves.
A further problem was outlined by Robin Robison, a chap who worked in the Cabinet Office until a couple years of ago. He said that domestic telephone tapping had increased massively in recent years. I have no way of confirming his suggestion, although the issue was raised in Committee, that, although GCHQ was supposed to target foreign communications, its vast facilities have been used for domestic tapping. He worked in the Cabinet Office and says that he saw the product of some of those taps.
The litmus test of the new committee to be established by the Bill will be the extent to which it is able to oblige the security services to put a stop to the nonsense that has occurred in the past. The problem will not arise immediately because it is in the nature of things that, whichever Government happen to be in office, the security services tend to be under the control of the friends of one political party—the party which is presently in government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The test would come after the next election, were there to be a change of Government. Would a Labour Government be able to receive the same loyal service from the security services as the present Government believe that they receive? I do not think so. The record suggests that that would not happen. At that point, we would find out whether the committee established by the Bill makes any difference.
I shall cite an example from the 1970s. If forged documents about Swiss bank accounts in the name of, say, the deputy leader of the Labour party suddenly-appeared on the market, as happened in the 1970s, would the committee be able to pursue an inquiry and follow the trail wherever it led? I do not know, but it should be able to do so.
How easily could the committee be nobbled? Others have commented on that problem, so I shall do so only in passing, but that will be easy. As others have remarked, the Bill gives the security services carte blanche. There is no definition of the national interest, of serious crime or of economic well-being; there is no definition that limits their activities in any way. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, there is no definition of what constitutes legitimate dissent.
The second problem with the committee is that, as others have also said, it is a creature not of Parliament but of the Government. It will be appointed by the Prime Minister and will report to the Prime Minister, and it will be the Prime Minister who decides what it sees.
Thirdly, the committee has no powers to compel persons and papers to come before it. In Committee we moved amendments to introduce such powers, and they were rejected. There is no power comparable with Select Committees' reserve powers to require witnesses to give evidence on oath. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) rightly made much of that issue in Committee, but when the idea was put to the Government they rejected it.
The committee will be staffed not by servants of the House but by civil servants, probably supplied by the Cabinet Office. To a great extent it will be in the hands of people who are servants not of Parliament but of the Government. Furthermore, it appears to be committed to the obsessive secrecy that has surrounded the activities of 348 the security services for so long. The committee has no power that I can detect to hold any public sessions. I do not see why it should not hold some. As a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I was one of the people invited to lunch with the director of MI5, Mrs. Rimington. Nothing took place at that lunch that could not easily have been said in public.
I do not see why, now or at some time in the future, the committee should not have the power to interview those in charge of the security services, at least about the general principles of their work. I do not see why it should not be able to do what is done in other mature democracies, and interview candidates for the top jobs in those services. Why should they not be interviewed, so that their commitment to parliamentary democracy can be tested in public?
For example, if Mr. Spedding, who has just been appointed as head of MI6, were to come before the committee, one would want to know what he was doing in Chile in 1973. That was a time when the democratically elected Government of that country were overthrown, with much violence. It would be a test of Mr. Spedding's commitment to parliamentary democracy if we asked whether he, representing the security services there, played any part in that process.
If Mrs. Rimington were up for the job of head of MI5, as she was a few years ago, and we had the power to conduct such interviews, one would want to talk to her in general terms about her commitment to parliamentary democracy, especially in relation to some of the activities in which F branch of MI5 engaged during the early 1980s—the activities that caused Cathy Massiter to resign.
The only concession that we succeeded in extracting from the Government in Committee was an increase in the size of the oversight committee. Although we are grateful for that, it is not adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made the point that it is much in the interests of the security services that the exercise is credible. I am sure that there are genuine democrats in the security services and that many of them—perhaps the majority—want the services to be properly accountable. In the last few years, there has been a large clear-out of what one former Home Secretary described to me as dead wood, and it is at least arguable that the majority of those in the services are firmly committed to parliamentary democracy and proper accountability, and the Bill does not provide that.
The Bill is the first step on a long road—which is why, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, I shall not vote against its Third Reading. I am glad that the committee is being established, and were a future Government so minded, there would be nothing to prevent them from making amendments to rectify some of the problems that I and others outlined.
There has been much speculation about likely candidates for membership of the oversight committee. Some of them were depressingly predictable, and I hope that the committee will include one or two inquiring minds. As the committee is presently empowered, it will not be good enough merely to have inquiring minds. It must have the power to do the job properly—on behalf of Parliament, not the Executive.
§ 11.1 pm
§ Dr. Gilbert
I do not usually detain the House at this time of night, and I rise to speak only because I am filled with a great sense of disappointment over missed possibilities. Right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee ought to know that we were faced by a Minister who was not only extraordinarily unbriefed but extraordinarily obdurate.
Normally, it would not matter if a Minister were unbriefed, provided that he had some experience of committee matters. Apart from the GCHQ debate, not one of the amendments with which the two Ministers had to contend had any partisan flavour, yet the Minister of State did not know the powers of Select Committees. He had to go away and be instructed that they have powers to swear witnesses. He did not know the powers in his own Bill with respect to the committee that he was establishing. He had to take advice as to whether it would be able to swear witnesses.
We even had the spectacle of a Queen's counsel, a man of considerable intelligence—to which I pay tribute—and a man who, given the disarray of the Government's Law Officers, has a distinct future as a Law Officer, although that is no great compliment to him, choosing to say that, for all practical purposes, the country no longer needs a law of perjury. It defeats me why the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the law of the land should be as it is in that respect.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman kept telling us that the oversight committee was not a Select Committee, which we all knew, but he never said why. Amendment No. 37, which was understandably not selected, and my hon. Friends pointed out that it is really a prime ministerial committee. In addition, the Minister is totally lacking in ability to master simple arithmetic up to a sum of five. He finds it necessary for the oversight committee's chairman to have two votes—one to create a tie and one to break a tie. That is not the case in a Select Committee, but as the committee is not a Select Committee it shall be different. If we have a five to three to one committee—we must assume that the Minister sensibly relies on there being partisan votes—that is virtually a five to four committee and the chairman will not need two votes because he will have a vote to break a tie. If there is a defection from the Government ranks, it becomes not a five to three to one or a five to four committee but a four to five committee. In that event, the chairman's second vote is of no use to him because he will not be able to use it.
The Minister may have mastered the law but it is clear that he has not mastered the most simple addition tables. He had not appreciated before the Bill came before the House that it was nonsensical to require that one member of the quorum be a Member of the House of Lords, even though the practical absurdities of that requirement were pointed out to him personally before the Bill reached the Floor of the House. We had to wait until today before he conceded that point.
Why should such an intelligent Minister behave in such a way? The word is being put about that it is nothing to do with his Department and nothing to do with the Foreign Office, which was prepared to be reasonable. It is said that the Home Office created the difficulties. If that should be the case, my only hope is that some Home Office officials come before a Select Committee before too long.
350 The Bill is the product of Ministers who individually have no Committee experience to speak of. The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science was kind enough to admit that. Equally, his ministerial colleague has no Committee experience. The Bill is the product of a Government who are terrified of facing a Select Committee.
For all these reasons a great opportunity has been missed. That is a sad thing to have to say. It could all have been so much easier. We could have completed today's proceedings in a fraction of the time that it has taken to reach this stage. However, I welcome the Bill, despite my reservations—[Interruption.] There is not the slightest inconsistency. I welcome the Bill because it sets a precedent.
§ Dr. Gilbert
The hon. Gentleman would be surprised by what happened if the Government did that.
As I have said, the Bill sets a precedent for some parliamentary scrutiny of these operations. I hope that the committee will have success. I hope also that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who will respond on behalf of the Opposition, will assure us that one of the first tasks of a Labour Administration will be to ensure that the committee is converted into a full-blown Select Committee.
§ 11.7 pm
§ Mr. Rogers
Our consideration of the Bill in Committee was extremely interesting. For many of us—those not obsessed with the secret and security services—it was quite a learning experience. I thank all my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and Conservative Members for the positive way in which they approached our debates.
I do not know whether I agree with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) about the Minister of State. On occasions, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was too well briefed. I wish that he had been a little briefer in expounding some of his briefs. It was an experience, however, for many of us to learn about some fundamental matters that are extremely important to society.
We are talking about the security of the nation, the balance of security in the process of law, the balance of security and the rights of individuals, the assertion of parliamentary democracy and accountability and control over the state and the Government. On many occasions it was right to pay tribute to members of the security services for the dedicated work that they have undertaken over many years. It was right also to say on other occasions that there were members of the security services who had let down their comrades as well as letting down the nation by defecting and acting to the detriment of society.
The Opposition recognise that the effectiveness of the country's security and intelligence services depends on a degree of secrecy that would be unacceptable in other institutions. However, that latitude puts the services in a unique position. That is why we tabled amendments to clause 1 and clause 10 in particular so as to focus on the rights and privileges of the security services and on the accountability of those services to Parliament and to democracy.
351 Our main concern has always been the control aspect—the process of accountability that is enshrined within the Bill. We regret the Government's minimalist approach. It does not fulfil the Bill's original intention, which was to create a more open society and more open government. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East that the Government have missed an opportunity to bring about an openness in an aspect of society that has been secret for too long. We are probably the most secretive society of all the western democracies.
Unfortunately, clause 10, which sets up the Intelligence and Security Committee, does not also set up a process of accountability. There is no breaking of the ring of secrecy. There is no way of operating outside the ring of the Secretary of State and the Joint Intelligence Committee tasking the security services, of the Secretary of State issuing a warrant so that they can operate outside the law where they feel that that is necessary, of the services reporting back to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State filtering information before it comes to the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Prime Minister and the head of the agencies using their right to sideline information. The circle is too tight and too complete.
The committee will be a charade, a pretence at accountability. The Minister responsible for open government may shake his head, but the proof is in the pudding. I hope that the committee has a better record than the tribunal that was set up under the Security Service Act 1989. That tribunal has been what I feel this committee will be—a pretence at accountability.
We will not force a Division because the Opposition accept that we need secret services, and that they need to be secret. We commend the Government for going as far as they have, but we wish that they had taken this opportunity to go a little bit further, accepted many of our constructive amendments and ended up with a better Act.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 10.
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)|
|Alexander, Richard||Browning, Mrs. Angela|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Amess, David||Burns, Simon|
|Arbuthnot, James||Burt, Alistair|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Butler, Peter|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)||Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)|
|Ashby, David||Carlisle, John (Luton North)|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Carrington, Matthew|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Carttiss, Michael|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)||Cash, William|
|Baldry, Tony||Clappison, James|
|Beggs, Roy||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Coe, Sebastian|
|Booth, Hartley||Congdon, David|
|Boswell, Tim||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Coombs, Simon (Swindon)|
|Bowden, Andrew||Cope, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Bowis, John||Cran, James|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)|
|Brazier, Julian||Davies, Quentin (Stamford)|
|Bright, Graham||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Day, Stephen|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Marlow, Tony|
|Devlin, Tim||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Mates, Michael|
|Dover, Den||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian|
|Duncan, Alan||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Duncan-Smith, Iain||Merchant, Piers|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Mills, Iain|
|Elletson, Harold||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Moate, Sir Roger|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Moss, Malcolm|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Faber, David||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Fabricant, Michael||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Forman, Nigel||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Norris, Steve|
|Forth, Eric||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Ottaway, Richard|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||Page, Richard|
|Freeman, Rt Hon Roger||Paice, James|
|French, Douglas||Patnick, Irvine|
|Gallie, Phil||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Gill, Christopher||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Gillan, Cheryl||Portillo, Rt Hon Michael|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Rathbone, Tim|
|Gorst, John||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Renton, Rt Hon Tim|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Richards, Rod|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)||Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn|
|Hague, William||Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Ryder, Rt Hon Richard|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim|
|Harris, David||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Hawkins, Nick||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Hawksley, Warren||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Hendry, Charles||Soames, Nicholas|
|Hicks, Robert||Speed, Sir Keith|
|Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|Horam, John||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)||Spring, Richard|
|Hunter, Andrew||Sproat, Iain|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Jack, Michael||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Stephen, Michael|
|Jessel, Toby||Stern, Michael|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Streeter, Gary|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Sweeney, Walter|
|Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)||Sykes, John|
|Kilfedder, Sir James||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Taylor, John M. (Solihull)|
|Knapman, Roger||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Knight, Greg (Derby N)||Thomason, Roy|
|Kynoch, George (Kincardine)||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Lamont, Rt Hon Norman||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Lang, Rt Hon Ian||Thurnham, Peter|
|Legg, Barry||Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Leigh, Edward||Tracey, Richard|
|Lennox-Boyd, Mark||Tredinnick, David|
|Lidington, David||Trend, Michael|
|Lightbown, David||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Viggers, Peter|
|Lord, Michael||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Luff, Peter||Walden, George|
|Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Waller, Gary|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Maclean, David||Waterson, Nigel|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Watts, John|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Wells, Bowen|
|Madel, Sir David||Whitney, Ray|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Whittingdale, John|
|Malone, Gerald||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Mans, Keith||Wilkinson, John|
|Willetts, David||Yeo, Tim|
|Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Wolfson, Mark||Mr. Sydney Chapman and|
|Wood, Timothy||Mr. Derek Conway.|
|Barnes, Harry||Loyden, Eddie|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Mahon, Alice|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||Wray, Jimmy|
|Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Hood, Jimmy||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Lewis, Terry||Mr. Dennis Skinner and|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Mr. Alan Simpson.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.