|Previous Section||Home Page|
Column 327evidence. However, elsewhere in the review is the assertion that the police have built up considerable expertise in that very area. Which are we to believe ?
I suggest that applications to extend a person's detention--as with the reviews of exclusion orders--are akin to a cosmetic exercise which has been designed to paper over the gross abuses of personal freedom which are allowed by the Act.
I shall not go into detail on the right to a solicitor, but I remind the Home Secretary of one case. It is the case of a constituent of mine, a middle-aged man called Patrick Murphy, coming up to Christmas in 1992. He was an alcoholic. He did not remember where he was. He was charged on the say-so of a cab driver. He was identified and charged with bombings in London. If it had not been for the generosity of spirit of people in the Alcoholics Anonymous organisation, who went to the police after he had been charged and said that he was at a meeting that they held, his charge would have proceeded and he would have been in no position whatever to make a defence. That is another example of how this type of legislation can go so badly wrong.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew) : If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the procedures were a cosmetic exercise for covering up gross abuses of personal liberty. Will he accept from me that officials--I speak of the Northern Ireland jurisdiction--first subject applications to very careful scrutiny before they are referred to the Secretary of State or, in his absence, another Minister, and that it is certainly the practice to cut down on applications or even to refuse them completely ? I do not have the statistics in my head, but I am well familiar with cases in which I have refused the full amount that has been requested. So to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that the procedure is a cosmetic exercise does great injustice to officials--I leave aside any concern for Ministers.
Mr. Mallon : I take the point that the Secretary of State makes. I could have put my point better. I should like to withdraw the word "cosmetic". I do that with the same grace as the Secretary of State has made the point to me. May I ask him to read into the record the number of times that he has refused requests for an extension on grounds which were sustainable by him ? That is the point that I am trying to get at. I regret that I have used words in a way which would cast aspersions on both the Secretary of State and the officials involved. I adjust the wording accordingly. Nevertheless, I should like to see the figures.
The rate of charging worries me greatly. Yet another element of the Act which causes concern not only to people in Northern Ireland but to members of the legal profession is the very low rate of charging. That may seem strange coming from someone who argues from the point of view from which I argue. Of the 145 people detained in Britain in 1993, only 30, or less than a quarter, were subsequently charged. Let us remember that those 145 had been detained, so that the police had ample time and opportunity to question them at length.
When one considers that a total of 309 people were examined for more than one hour under the Act, one gets a truer picture of how low the charging rate is. Only 30 out
Column 328of the combined total of 354 means that fewer than 10 per cent. of those whom the police wanted to question were subsequently charged. I am trying to see what is the problem. Are detentions being made on a basis for which there is no reasonable suspicion that would lead to charges ?
Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle) : Neither I nor, I am sure, anyone in the House doubts the hon. Gentleman's courage in facing terrorists and all their works. However, he gives the impression that his main concern is civil liberties. As one who has been on the receiving end of an IRA bomb and has been hospitalised as a result, as was my wife, I perceive the greatest threat to civil liberties to be terrorism itself. I feel that the hon. Gentleman is getting the balance wrong. I accuse him of no more than that. It is an important point that I wish he would take on board.
Mr. Mallon : I thank the hon. Gentleman for making it. It is a valid point. However, the real bulwark against terrorism and the means of defeating terrorism is not legislation such as this but the attitude that we can foster within the entire community. Of course I am concerned about civil liberties. They are the very basis of our society and the basis of that within our society which the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force seek to undermine. We should not facilitate them in that.
The position in Northern Ireland in 1993 was even more worrying in terms of charging. Out of a total of 1,641 people detained, 379 were charged. The significant point is that 445 people had their detention extended. I shall leave that question with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that he will want to respond to it. I pose the question whether the legislation, as it exists, can be properly accommodated within a civilised society without doing irreparable damage to the process of law, to the police and to those who are charged with enforcing the law. There must surely be a question over that. Will damage be done to the process of justice ? Its highest standards and integrity have in the past been eroded by gross miscarriages of justice. Will it do damage to the body politic ? Will it erode the proper conviction that the law, the courts, the police and legislators are there to protect people's rights, not diminish them ; to defend the innocent, not to make him or her a potential subject of detention for the purpose of intelligence gathering ? Lastly, will it do damage to society as a whole and the highest standards of civil liberties which are part and parcel of any decent society ?
Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) expressed some indignation that his meetings with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had been leaked. I do not condone the leaking of the details of that meeting, but I find it somewhat ironic and not a little amusing that the Labour party is now suffering some embarrassment as a result of those leaks. We have seen the Labour party only too happy to take advantage of other leaks and play party politics with them. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is a pastmaster at using leaks from Government Departments to his party political advantage.
The history of the debate is clear enough. The Labour Government in 1974 introduced the prevention of terrorism Act. That followed some shocking atrocities, not
Column 329least the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombings. The Act was supported by the Conservative Opposition. In 1976, the Conservative party's support was required by the then Labour Government because 35 Labour Members of Parliament voted against the renewal of the PTA. That was a foretaste of things to come.
Until 1980 the Labour party supported the annual renewal. That was important because it is necessary to have a united, all-party response to terrorism. So what changed thereafter ? Sadly, the threat posed by the terrorists did not recede. What changed was the political outlook of the Labour party. As we all know, it was hijacked by the left wing. Today, 14 years later, there is a sufficient number of left-wing Labour Members of Parliament who believe in Irish republicanism and who have enough power within the Labour party to stop the so-called modernisers, of whom the hon. Member for Sedgefield is a prime example, from swinging today's Labour party behind support for the renewal of PTA.
There is a clear message here for the electorate. While the left wing of the Labour party may be keeping its head down, it is clearly still a force to be reckoned with in the Labour party. Last year we had the shocking spectacle of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) travelling to the United States of America, of his own volition, to give evidence on behalf of a convicted terrorist and against the British Government, who sought that terrorist's extradition to the United Kingdom. That was disgraceful behaviour. It sent completely the wrong message to the terrorists and to many Irish Americans who, sadly, do not understand the position in Northern Ireland and believe that there is majority support there for the republican movement. The hon. Member for Brent, East contributed to that lack of understanding in America.
The truth is that the prevention of terrorism Act plays a most important role in the battle against terrorism. It is both vital and necessary, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has said. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already given us some figures of the number of people who were detained under the Act in Northern Ireland last year : 450 were detained for longer than 48 hours, of whom 114 were later charged with serious offences. In Great Britain 13 people were given long custodial sentences for serious terrorist offences, following detention under the Act.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned the concern expressed by the Ulster Unionists about exclusion orders. He also referred to the concern expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about the lack of a judicial element in the authorisation of detention orders. Despite their concerns, however, they vote for the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and a failure to do so would send the wrong message.
Labour's failure to vote for renewal of the Act sends the wrong message. I will not claim that Labour is soft on terrorism, but if its members vote against the Act, on what I must say, having listened to the hon. Member for Sedgefield, are not very convincing grounds, it will suggest to the terrorists a certain lack of determination, will and unity on the part of the whole political establishment in the fight against terrorism.
I hope that the hon. Member will throw off the shackles of his own republican-leaning left wing and vote with us when we come to renew the Act this time next year. In the meantime, however, I am only too happy to vote for the renewal of the Act this evening.
Column 3306.31 pm
Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan) : Because of the shortage of time, and not because I want to be discourteous to the hon. Members who have already spoken, I hope that they will forgive me if I do not directly refer to their contributions, apart from the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) which I thought was pathetic and shoddy. But never mind, perhaps it is par for the course on this subject.
Very few people listening to the Home Secretary in the House today were present when the Labour Government introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act in 1974 in response to the bombings in Birmingham and Guildford. In the aftermath of those terrible atrocities and in response to justifiable public outrage, we rushed this emergency legislation through the House--I think it took 36 hours non-stop. At the time, practically every member of the Labour party, myself included, believed that the Act was a necessary but temporary measure. I voted for it and continued to do so. The prevention of terrorism Act, however, has now been in existence for 20 years and self-evidently can no longer be called temporary. Provisions that in 1974 were felt to be justified as emergency, short-term measures cannot be justified as permanent features of a parliamentary democracy. I speak, in particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has done, of exclusion orders and of seven-day detention by executive order. Those powers threaten the very basis of a free and democratic society and this can only strengthen the paramilitaries.
We have opposed and continue to oppose the Act as presently constructed not only because of its corrosive effect on civil liberties but because it simply has not worked. After 20 years of the Act, Northern Ireland is internally the most politically violent unit in the European Union. The draconian powers that it contains have not prevented terrorism ; if anything, they have created a vicious cycle of paramilitary violence and state repression which have become mutually reinforcing. That can only undermine the rule of law and the prospects for a political settlement in Northern Ireland. It is for those reasons that the Labour party withdrew its support for the Act in 1983 and it is for those reasons that the Labour team thereafter has consistently articulated its objections to the use of seven-day detention without judicial review and the use of exclusion orders. It is a pity that it now becomes clear that the Government have rejected the offer by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield of bipartisanship on this important issue. The Government's decision to continue seven-day detention without judicial review means that Britain will have to derogate from its international obligations, which damages our reputation for integrity and the rule of law. In the holding centres, detainees can be questioned without knowing what crime they are accused of and without the right to a solicitor for two days. To make matters worse, they are also denied the safeguard of audio-taping of interviews. When the Home Secretary replies to the debate, I should be grateful if he would inform the House if the taping experiment in England will cease at the end of 1994. If so, will he confirm that the experiment will be properly and independently evaluated ? Now that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have had time to adjust to taping under the Police and Criminal Evidence
Column 331Act 1984, there can be no excuse for further delay in the introduction of taping for suspects detained under emergency legislation.
Several hon. Members mentioned Sir Louis Blom-Cooper's report. It is a pity that it is not before us today.
I am conscious of the shortage of time, but there is one issue that I wish to draw to the attention of the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and other hon. Members have spoken about the appalling consequences of exclusion orders. The House may recall that last year a young man by the name of John Matthews was returning from London to his home in Derry when he was arrested by security forces at Heathrow. John Matthews is a young graduate who could not find work in Northern Ireland ; he came over to this country to live with his aunt and became a hospital porter. He was arrested under the prevention of terrorism Act and was held in police custody for seven days.
John Matthews was brought before a magistrate and charged with causing an explosion in the City of London that was likely to endanger life. He was accused of hijacking a taxi in north London and ordering the driver to take a bomb to Downing street. The taxi was abandoned in Holborn where it exploded without causing injury. John Matthews was then sent to Belmarsh prison as a category A remand prisoner and he remained there for 10 weeks.
I became involved in his case when members of Mr. Matthews' family came to see me. After a long and detailed discussion, they convinced me that their son had never been involved in IRA terrorism and was not a member of any terrorist organisation. I decided to go and see him in Belmarsh prison. I arrived with his uncle, to be informed by the prison authorities that he was about to be released and would shortly appear in the magistrates court.
On hearing this, his uncle and I went to the court, where we were joined by John Matthews's mother and father. When he was brought before the stipendiary magistrate--by coincidence, it was the same magistrate who had sent him to Belmarsh originally--the solicitor representing the Crown Prosecution Service announced that all charges were being withdrawn since, having reviewed the evidence available, it could not offer a realistic prospect of a conviction.
At that point the magistrate cross-examined the prosecuting solicitor, pointing out that, at the previous hearing, it had been indicated to him that the prosecution had identity and forensic evidence. It now appeared that there was no evidence whatever against John Matthews. The stipendiary magistrate then turned to John Matthews, in my hearing and in that of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and told John that he had received references of the utmost distinction about him and that he could leave the court without a stain on his character. Ten minutes later, he was rearrested and placed in a police cell and shortly afterwards the Home Secretary--the right hon. and learned Gentleman sitting across from me now- -signed an exclusion order on him. It was made almost immediately after he had left the court a free man.
I have subsequently seen John Matthews in his home city of Derry. He is worried that the exclusion order placed on him and the subsequent comments by the Home Secretary could make him a target for loyalist paramilitaries. He has absolutely no chance of finding a job
Column 332and his movements are restricted to Northern Ireland. John Matthews and his lawyers have not been, and will not be, told the reason why the Home Secretary signed the exclusion order.
John Matthews's case is the most disgraceful example of the effect of the power invested in the Home Secretary. If it was thought that evidence could be prejudicial on national security grounds, why was not evidence brought forward and submitted to a judge in camera ? If the Home Secretary had evidence against John Matthews, why did not the security services and the Home Secretary produce it in a court of law, which was never done ?
Individuals subjected to exclusion orders have not been found guilty of any specific offence in a court of law. They have not even had the opportunity to hear the charges against them. By the end of 1993, 71 people remained the subject of exclusion orders, none of whom had the right to be told why they faced internal exile. The only examples of similar powers in 20th century Europe were those exercised by those notable democrats, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and General Franco-- [Interruption.] They were the only such examples in contemporary 20th century history that I could find of such powers being used to place people in internal exile.
I profoundly regret the fact that the Government, particularly the Home Secretary, appear unable to accept the offer made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield--especially as the Ulster Unionist party and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) of the Social Democratic and Labour party have said that both those parties would be willing to participate in a review. Even at this eleventh hour, I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider. If he does not, for the reasons so eloquently given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, we shall not vote to renew the order tonight.
Mr. Howard : I cannot remember a debate in the House in which there has been such a marked contrast between the tone and approach of the Opposition spokesman who opened the debate and that of the Opposition spokesman who wound up the debate.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was at pains to suggest that all he wanted was a review. He seemed to be saying, "Let us have a review and consider whether there is a different way of achieving the objectives that have been sustained by the exclusion order and the extension of detention." The implication of what the hon. Gentleman was saying--he did not go so far as to say it--was, "If we can be persuaded that there is no other way of achieving those objectives, perhaps we might think again."
From the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) we heard--to use his own words-- a sustained, angry denunciation of the powers contained in the Act in terms that made it absolutely clear that he would not be persuaded by a review. He does not want the powers at any price. That dichotomy lies at the heart of the Opposition's attitude to such matters--and has done so from the word go.
Mr. Blair : I shall repeat the offer to the Home Secretary so that there is no doubt about it. It is particularly important to try to unite the House tonight. We have asked for an independent full judicial review-- we can discuss the circumstances of it--of those two aspects of the legislation. We wish the House to unite tonight. That has
Column 333been agreed by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), on behalf of the Ulster Unionists and by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on behalf of the SDLP. I make the Home Secretary that offer tonight with sincerity and ask him to respond in the same way.
Mr. Howard : I was merely describing the contrast in the approach taken by the hon. Member for Sedgefield and that taken by the hon. Member for Wigan. I shall discuss the review in a moment. It has been a heated debate, touching on fundamental issues. The consequences of our decisions are serious and it is not surprising that passions should run deep. A case can be made for putting civil liberties first. That case was put by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. My hon. Friends and I reject it for precisely the reasons given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)--I quoted the language that he used in my opening speech--in the debates in the House in 1974. One can make a case--as did the hon. Member for Upper Bann--for querying some of the powers and reconsidering them while voting to support the powers in the order because they are necessary in the fight against terrorism. I do not believe that one can make the sort of arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Sedgefield in his opening speech and then lead one's party in the Lobby against the renewal of the order. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said--he speaks with the benefit of great experience in such matters--we have difficult decisions before us. But government is about difficult decisions. If we were not prepared to face up to difficult decisions, we would face accusations of dereliction of duty-- the accusation that I level against the Labour party this evening.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield repeated his request for an independent review. We have had an annual independent review, which is not confined to the way in which the Act works. It is open to the person conducting the review to consider representations on the extent of the powers. Some of Mr. Rowe's predecessors have received representations to that effect, considered them and included them in their report.
When I announced in a parliamentary answer in December the appointment of Mr. Rowe, I invited representations to be made to him. It was open to the hon. Member for Sedgefield and the Labour party that he represents to make representations to Mr. Rowe at that time in the context of the review that he was undertaking so that they could be given full and proper consideration. The hon. Gentleman should have suggested a review and offered his specific proposals then if he intended them to be taken seriously. The hon. Gentleman failed totally to take advantage of that opportunity. At the appropriate time, the Labour party made no approaches to Mr. Rowe, who was in charge of that review. That was what it should have done.
Mr. Blair : As has been said by other hon. Members, Mr. Rowe is not the person to conduct such a review. If the Home Secretary is interested in achieving agreement on the matter--I cannot see what possible objection there can be--he should agree to the appointment of a senior, respected figure to undertake a review of the specific powers. It would make sense to appoint a judge. Such a review is long
Column 334overdue and we could then come to an agreement. I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with such an arrangement.
Mr. Howard : We have had a review of which the hon. Gentleman could have taken advantage, but he conspicuously failed to do so. The suggestion of a review is yet another of the smokescreens for which the hon. Gentleman is becoming famous.
We know the points that are at issue between the parties. There is no mystery about them ; they are crystal clear. We know that the Labour party objects to the exclusion order. I have sought to explain to the House today why, in practice, there is no alternative to the exclusion order if we are to achieve the benefits in the fight against terrorism about which the Association of Chief Police Officers has told us.
We also know the issues between us on the subject of the extension of the detention order. I say to the hon. Members for Sedgefield and for Upper Bann that I do not think that there is any mileage in the suggestion of a sort of halfway house between judicial consideration of the matters and allowing the decision-taking process to rest in the hands of the Minister. That option was considered in the Hurd-Waddington review, to which reference has been made, but it was found not to be satisfactory.
In addition, it is extremely unlikely that such a course would find favour with the European Court of Human Rights. The hon. Gentleman placed great emphasis on that aspect of the matter. The European Court of Human Rights would look not at the label attached to the person carrying out the function but at the nature of the function. As, because of its nature, the evidence cannot be made available to the defendant--the defendant cannot be shown the intelligence material that is being relied on--it follows inevitably that the function is not a judicial one and that the benefit, in terms of the European Court of Human Rights, to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be available.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked about detention extension applications turned down by my right hon. Friends and myself. I confirm that it is unusual for applications to be refused, but there are examples of refusal. In the United Kingdom there have been just two such occasions in the past two years. There have been other occasions when a period of detention shorter than that sought by the police was authorised. But, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I counsel the hon. Gentleman against coming to a wrong conclusion about the very great care with which both officials and my right hon. Friends and I consider these applications. After 20 years of exercising these powers, the police, in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, are well aware of the clear case that they are expected to make out under one of the 14 separate criteria that were codified by Lord Colville in his 1987 report.
I have a sad announcement to make to the House before we conclude this debate. It appears that in the past hour five mortars were fired from the back of a vehicle towards Heathrow airport. The House will be relieved to learn that, from initial reports, it appears that there are no casualties or serious damage. I do not know whether that incident is supposed to send some signal to the House as we conclude our debate on these matters. If it is, there is only one conclusion that the House can responsibly reach. We know that the Association of Chief Police Officers unequivocally
Column 335considers this legislation in its present form to be essential in the fight against terrorism. Over the past few days and during the course of the debate we have had many appeals for unity across the House. There could be no more appropriate moment for displaying unity than in the aftermath of the attack that I have just announced. I appeal to the Labour party to listen not to me but to the Association of Chief Police Officers and to go into the Aye Lobby in support of the order so that the police may continue to have available to them powers that they consider to be essential. This is the Labour party's opportunity to display unity and to show those who are responsible for the mortar attack that the House of Commons is united and is determined to face them down and to make available to the police the powers that they need to fight terrorism. It is not too late for the Opposition to respond to this appeal. Will they join us in the Aye Lobby in support of these powers ? I commend the Order to the House.
Question put :
The House proceeded to a Division :
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) (seated and covered) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I left my office in No. 7 Millbank immediately the bell went. I walked briskly all the way here but was unable to get through the door by a fraction of a second. I believe that we now do not have enough time for Members to reach the Chamber walking at a legitimate pace.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : I hear the hon. Lady. I took the normal time. The hon. Lady will have read today's Order Paper and she will have recognised that a Division was expected three hours after the commencement of the proceedings. She is an assiduous Member. She would doubtless have worked out when the debate started and when it was going to finish, and I suggest that in future she prepares herself just a few minutes beforehand.
The House having divided : Ayes 328, Noes 242.
Division No. 157] [6.50 pm
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Beresford, Sir Paul
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Column 336Bowden, Andrew
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Deva, Nirj Joseph
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Durant, Sir Anthony
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Fenner, Dame Peggy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Fry, Sir Peter
Gardiner, Sir George
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hannam, Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Kilfedder, Sir James
King, Rt Hon Tom
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Knox, Sir David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Lynne, Ms Liz
McCrea, Rev William
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Madel, Sir David