§ '. The Secretary of State shall produce a Code of Practice regarding appropriate liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities regarding the most effective use of non-custodial sentences and other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending.'.—[Mr. Michael.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. MichaelI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 11, in the Title, line 21, after 'drugs', insert
'to make further provision with regard to disposals.'.
§ Mr. MichaelBefore I speak to new clause 1, may I offer a personal word of explanation? I am sure that the Minister did not intend to insult me by suggesting that my past was so murky as to have been in the legal profession. I should make it clear that my professional background is that of journalist, youth and community worker and representative of the people, not as a—
§ Mr. MacleanThe hon. Gentleman was a magistrate.
§ Mr. MichaelThe Minister was referring to my period as a magistrate; I take that as a compliment.
New clause 1 would fill a major gap in Britain's system for tackling crime. It would put right something which is wrong. I remind the House that this is the second Criminal Justice Bill in recent years which has failed to deal with the real problem facing communities and individuals across the country—and, indeed, the police on our streets. That real and urgent problem is the enormous rise in crime, which the Government have failed to tackle.
Crime and its prevention are matters of enormous concern to everyone today. In 1992, a staggering 5,594,416 offences were recorded by the police. That figure represents an increase of 121 per cent. on the figures for 1979 when the Conservative party came to power. It includes an increase of 324 per cent. in robbery, an increase of 149 per cent. in burglary and an increase of 162 per cent. in car crime compared with the 1979 figures.
That is an appalling record, by any definition. The actuality of crime on the ground is far worse than the figures suggest, because we know that only about one third or one quarter of offences that are committed arc reported to and recorded by the police. In other words, about 20 million crimes are being committed each year.
4.45 pm
The reality behind the statistics is grim: women and the elderly are afraid to go out at night, and the fear of crime affects the quality of life of many people. Surveys of local concerns put crime at or near the top nearly every time. In such circumstances, the Government should be launching a comprehensive policy to fight crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the shadow Home Secretary, said pointedly yesterday. They should be spearheading a strategy to reduce the level of crime in society.
The elements of that strategy are quite clear if one listens to the advice of those with experience of crime and crime prevention. There is a remarkable degree of consensus on how to tackle crime locally. It involves a partnership between the police, the local authority, local residents, local business and local statutory agencies, as well as voluntary organisations to analyse crime patterns in any given locality and then to develop a package of measures to tackle the problem.
The Government frequently pay lip service to that concept. Indeed, the press release machine at the Home Office works overtime, using some of the words that I shall use in my speech. However, the Government have consistently failed to develop a mechanism to ensure that such a partnership materialises on the ground.
The Government have a project mentality on crime prevention, which is perfectly exemplified by the safer 847 cities project. Twenty projects were set up and proved successful, but they will now have their funding withdrawn as the Government move on to another 20 cities, which will receive vastly reduced funding for the same work. The projects have proved successful, but they are shorttermism of the worst type. We do not need endless projects; we need a national approach and a national plan for tackling crime.
The new clause would provide a mechanism for liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities to reduce crime and reduce reoffending. It deals not only with discussions on effective non-custodial sentences but with early informal intervention when young people start to go off the rails—and, my goodness, that certainly needs to be done with a greater sense of urgency and with greater Government support. I refer to, for example, the informal advice and help which can follow a caution, and bail support and enforcement, which we shall discuss. It is vital that steps are taken at that stage to stop reoffending.
I must point out to the Minister and to the House the degree of attrition in the criminal justice system. If one takes the figure of 100 to represent the number of crimes committed and then considers the number recorded before reaching the number of crimes that are before the courts and in which sentences are passed, one gets as low as 2 per cent.
Only 2 per cent. of offenders end up being sentenced in court. That figure is deteriorating—it is down from 3 per cent. last year, according to the Home Office's own figures and reports. The figures underline the need to consider not only what happens in court—sentences and punishment—but what happens in the community where most crime occurs.
It maddens me to hear the Home Secretary and junior Ministers talk about partnership, because they clearly do not believe in a partnership approach. If they do, the litmus test will be the vote on the new clause. The litmus test of the Government's sincerity will be their acceptance and support of new clause 1. I hope that they will support it, but I shall be surprised if they do.
The Morgan report was published in August 1991. It was followed by delay and procrastination. Labour Members, understanding the importance of preventing and reducing crime, continually demanded that the Government give their response to the report.
In December 1922, the then Home Secretary smuggled out his response, which was to reject "Safer Communities". I remind the House that that report is subtitled "The Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the Partnership Approach". Ministers pay lip service to that approach, which is what the new clause is all about.
The Morgan report's recommendations are directly relevant to the new clause. The report stated:
The lack of a clear statutory responsibility for local government to play its part fully in crime prevention has inhibited progressin reducing crime. It continues:There is confusion at local level about the various centrally funded schemes with a crime prevention element, and concern about potential overlap and duplication of effort".I confirm that that is the case, and it is, if anything, getting worse as time goes on.The Morgan report then lists the advantages of local authority involvement. The local authority is responsible for so many services which impinge on crime prevention.
848 It provides permanency and continuity, and it provides for the legitimate and productive involvement of local people. The report therefore concludes:
Local authorities working with the police should have clear statutory responsibility for the development and stimulation of community safety and crime prevention programmes, and for progressing at local level a multi-agency approach to crime prevention.Sadly, that approach was rejected.Although Ministers pay lip service to the concept of local partnership whenever they visit a project or local area and see success on the ground through the voluntary co-operation of agencies or a little seed money, they do not seek, and have not sought, to put in place the necessary nationwide framework to support and encourage the effectiveness of local initiatives. That is what the new clause seeks to provoke them into doing.
The new clause does not go all the way, but it would provide a starting point for effective crime prevention work. In the longer term, I hope that the modest proposal will in due course be followed by a statutory duty on local authorities. The then Home Secretary failed the litmus test in December 1992, when he rejected the Morgan report. Will the Minister fail today? Is the present Home Secretary serious about dealing with crime? The code of practice which we propose would enable him to implement a clear Labour policy. That might upset him, but it would not upset victims throughout the country who suffer because of lack of that type of policy. Nor would it upset the police, who see the value of it. It would certainly not upset local authorities, who have been crying out for it.
That clear Labour policy says, in effect, that the Government should take responsibility for supporting a new dynamic partnership between the police, the local authorities and the community to tackle at a local level, where most crime takes place. The Minister must heed the warnings that have been flooding in from experts on every side in recent years. I refer to statements by experts that have led to headlines speaking of a
nightmare scenario warning over inner cities.The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said recently that, unless the Government took action to stem developments today, the police would be armed as a matter of course within 10 or 20 years. Such statements have led to headlines about achoice of gun law or regeneration.The partnership approach that we seek has support locally in many communities. Local Labour councillors have increasingly sought to work with the police. The police have increasingly recognised the value of working closer with local authorities. We must make it clear that the police, local authorities and local communities are on the same side in the fight against crime. By dragging their feet, the Government are failing to provide the framework and structure to allow that to develop.The new clause also calls on the Government to enable those local partnerships to make proper and effective use of non-custodial sentences. There are offenders for whom prison or secure accommodation at a younger age is the only option. But there are two problems. The first is that the right ones often do not seem to reach that point quickly enough, and serious concern is again being voiced about the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and its failure to prosecute effectively and successfully. Some hon. Members heard that very complaint today from representatives of the Police Federation.
849 The second is that the lack of early intervention and a failure to achieve the full potential and effectiveness of community-based sentences leads to people returning after committing ever more serious offences.
If simple common sense does not dictate the need for a new initiative to make community-based sentences effective, we must consider the costs of imprisonment. Recent estimates—they have no doubt increased since they were prepared—put the cost at £386 per week per man in prison and £563 per week per woman. The figures are far higher for young offenders.
Save for those for whom there is no alternative, there should be a way of using the money more effectively. Making community-based sentences more effective, more challenging and more stringent must be good sense, and the Government should give that their full support.
Many other aspects should be tied in with the initiative proposed in the new clause, one being to make cautioning more effective. There is concern that, after the first caution, it becomes of less meaning to some youngsters. The Government could do something about that, by accepting some of the practical suggestions that my hon. Friends and I made in Committee.
In relation to drugs—a major aspect of the Bill—cautioning-plus is needed for those who are cautioned for the possession of a small quantity of drugs. Immediate counselling is vital, as has been shown in experiments in south Wales. It is clear from those experiments that, in the normal course of events, many people starting to take drugs are not brought to the attention of voluntary organisations until a late stage.
Let us adopt a common-sense approach to the problem. We must make the system effective, by cutting crime and giving new confidence to the police, to the community in general and to every individual. That is the agenda of the Opposition, which we address in the new clause.
My hon. Friends and I support the Government strongly in dealing with drug trafficking, just as we support them in the other issues that appeared in the Bill when it was first presented to us and in some of the provisions that have been added since, such as those relating to terrorism. But we have made it clear that what the Government propose is not enough. Crime must be tackled now, in the community, where most of it is committed.
The new clause would enable the Government to enhance that initiative and to do a little to change the Conservative party's well-deserved image of being soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime. In that connection, Conservative Members may now be embarrassed about the fact that, on 1 June 1993, the Home Secretary stated in a departmental press release:
It is time we changed the 'its-nothing-to-do-with-me' attitude which has crept into our communities. Crime is everyone's concern. We must involve the whole community in working with the police and the courts to face up to this challenge.I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to put his money where his mouth is. We are beginning to believe that every incoming Conservative Minister receives an injection which enables him to grind out identikit phrases, criticisms of others and appeals for partnership.We need to rewrite what the Home Secretary said on 1 June. He should have said, "It is time we changed the 'it's-nothing-to-do-with-me' attitude which has crept into the present Government. Crime must be the concern of 850 every Minister. The Government will back the whole community in working with the police and local authorities to face up to the challenge."
Had he said that, he would have been saying something sensible about the need to tackle and reduce crime. But having made such a statement, he would then have had to act on it. The way for the Government to show that they are serious in wanting to do that is for them to accept our new clause, which represents the litmus test of the Government's seriousness in wanting to tackle crime.
§ Mr. Mike O'Brien (Warwickshire, North)I support the new clause. The Morgan report showed that we must have a partnership in the community with the police and local authorities if we are to achieve what we desperately need, which is to fight back against crime. Unfortunately, the Government have not been prepared to respond as positively to that need as we would have liked.
The Government seem not to appreciate that every individual in the land who pays taxes or buys goods in the shops, who is insured against anything or who pays charges to enter any public building, is likely to be paying towards the massive cost of the increasing crime rate in Britain.
We need more policing and more effective sentencing, and we must ensure that the criminal justice system operates more effectively, but we must also ensure that the whole community is involved in the fight against crime. Only by that means shall we succeed.
Since the Conservatives came to power in 1979, when they claimed that they would be tough on law and order and would reduce the crime rate, crime in my county of Warwickshire has increased enormously. The rate of car thefts and household burglaries has not trebled but quadrupled, and it is clear——
§ Mr. ShersbyOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been paying close attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I understood that the new clause was concerned with the establishment of a code of practice. We seem to be debating the whole question of criminal justice. Is that in order?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI had presumed that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) was giving some background in order to put forward his views in favour of the new clause, but it is always important that the background does not become the foreground.
§ Mr. O'BrienI am conscious of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. The new clause refers to local authorities. I am seeking to demonstrate the need for the whole community to work together, as the new clause suggests, with the police to ensure that crime is reduced and that crime prevention is enhanced. That is really what the new clause is all about.
5 pm
Since 1979, in my county of Warwickshire, car theft and burglary have quadrupled. Crime in Warwickshire has risen from 13,000 offences in 1979 to 45,000 in 1992. No doubt the 1993 figures will also show an increase. Rural areas in particular would benefit from such a new clause and a code of practice. In rural areas there is fear about the increasing crime rate. That fear is not readily recognised by the media. In the village of Arley in my constituency, we recently had severe problems with increasing crime. Various meetings have had to be held, bringing together 851 not only the police, myself and the local authorities but the whole community in the effort that the new clause envisages. Various elements of the community understand the need to work together to ensure that a fight back against crime is conducted by a united community.
The public will not be deceived by calls for longer sentences or for more prisons to be built if the resources to implement what we are calling for in the new clause and in our policy are not forthcoming from the Treasury. The real fight back against crime requires that we put more funding into police forces in particular. If the police and the local community are to have a code of practice, that code of practice must include a police force which is able to play its full part in the fight back against crime and resources must be made available for it.
We know that the Government are not prepared to put resources into increasing the number of full-time police officers. We know that the Government propose that there should be a freeeze on spending on future police recruitment over the next few years. That will not enable the police to fulfil the role that we envisage in the new clause.
It is essential that the police are provided with resources to do what the local community wants, and the local community wants more police officers on the beat, dealing with crime in the community. Therefore, the community needs a Government who are prepared to back the police and provide the necessary resources for more police officers, for more equipment to be provided, and for local communities to be able to understand that they have the protection that they so desperately need and demand.
Unfortunately, the Government have decided that they will put their restrictions on spending before the fight back against crime. They do not seem to accept that we lose one way or the other. We lose if we do not put money into the fight back against crime. The community will end up having to spend more money on charges, insurance, prisons, and on providing resources to deal with the end result of crime rather than trying to deal with the crime problem at the start, as the new clause envisages, by encouraging the community and the police to work together and by providing the necessary resources to enable that to be done.
The Government are deluding themselves or providing themselves with a false economy by trying to restrict spending, whereas spending is very much needed——
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the new clause, which incidentally makes no reference to communities.
§ Mr. O'BrienIt certainly refers to local authorities. I am trying to suggest that local authorities and communities are synonymous, but perhaps I am wrong to do so. I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Local authorities provide many of the facilities which support local communities, such as youth services and council housing, but much of the provision has been reduced by the Government's policies. We seek to ensure that we establish the necessary liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities. That liaison must be backed up by resources and provision for decent housing, job creation and, most important, youth services.
Over the past six years, the Home Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, has been investigating increasing juvenile crime. In my county we 852 have seen severe cuts in the youth service. If the police, local authorities and the courts are to have the liaison that will ensure effective crime reduction and crime prevention policies, we need to put resources into youth services, effective housing and job creation. If we undermine that community provision and the community values upon which that provision is based, crime will fester and many of our young people will be alienated.
The writer Alan Massie once said:
A civilisation in decline digs its grave with relentless consistency. The hallmark of such a decline is the selfish ego and a lack of concern and caring about community values.The new clause is aimed at promoting those values and that co-ordination. The undermining of community values, community provision and community support has led to many of our young people living in an alienated sub-culture. Thankfully, few of them are turning to crime. They are told by the Government that they are supposed to stand on their own two feet without being given any opportunity to do so through the provision of accommodation, jobs, or any of the—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have been very tolerant of the hon. Gentleman. He must not use this new clause, which, after all, advocates a code of practice, to make a general statement about the ills of the country.
§ Mr. O'BrienThe code of practice is part of the policy which is needed to provide back-up—community support—for what the Labour party calls its policy of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That phrase can be repeated time and again because it sums up what is needed in this country. A code of practice would embody what we want in terms of provisions to be tough on the causes of crime. It would emphasise that we cannot allow the individualism and lack of community spirit that the Government have allowed to develop to undermine the fight back against crime.
We on this side of the House are prepared to put our words and our support behind the need for a tougher policy of that kind, but we would also be prepared to put the resources behind it. The code of practice suggested in this new clause is the start of the basis of a policy of bringing together the police, the community and local authorities, and ensuring that the Morgan report is implemented, as it should have been implemented, by the Government, and ensuring also that there is recognition of the appalling problems which exist in my constituency and my county and are not being addressed by the Government. I call upon the House to support the new clause.
§ Mr. ShersbyThis is an interesting new clause. The proposal has been discussed by the Police Federation from time to time. It has also come up in the Home Affairs Select Committee, and there has been a good deal of debate about the need for some sort of code of practice over the past couple of years.
This new clause, which calls upon my right hon. and learned Friend to produce a code of practice, is designed, it appears, to provide liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities concerning the use of non-custodial sentences, and other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffending. I wish to talk about some of those other measures, as well as the code of practice referred to specifically in the new clause. 853 First, there is a need for more secure accommodation for juvenile offenders—a matter of great concern to local authorities. Unhappily, we do not have enough such accommodation in this country. That is a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruchcliffe (Mr. Clarke) addressed his mind when he made his announcement a month or two ago about the new secure accommodation order that he was contemplating.
However, every hon. Member knows that there are great difficulties in finding suitable secure accommodation for juvenile offenders. It therefore behoves all local authorities to take very careful account of this, because it is one of the other measures that need to be addressed.
§ Mr. MichaelThe hon. Gentleman said that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) addressed his mind to these matters. I do not think that he did. It was his predecessor, well over two years ago, who addressed his mind to the need for secure accommodation. Since that date, not one extra place has been provided—partly, I think, owing to the conflict between the Home Office and other Government Departments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a scandal that, after that length of time, the problem to which he has pointed, and on which I agree with him, has not been addressed?
§ Mr. ShersbyI certainly do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Two or three previous Home Secretaries have had representations from me on behalf of the police, as has the Secretary of State for Health. This is an area which is divided between the Secretary of State for Health, who is responsible for juveniles and for providing additional secure accommodation for youngsters who cannot be sent to prison, and the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the generality of secure accommodation.
My point—I do not make it in a party political spirit—is that there are some local authorities in this country who are not very keen on providing secure accommodation, whereas it is in the national interest that every local authority should address itself to the problem.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made some comments about the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute. This is a matter of considerable interest at the present time to magistrates courts in this country, and not least to the Uxbridge magistrates court, which has lobbied me recently about the lack of work and is puzzled by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service is apparently not prosecuting as vigorously as it might. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies, will say a word or two about that.
We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate on this new clause, and I do not intend to go down the same road, but I want to pick up some of the points that have been made.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth quoted the remarks of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the carrying of firearms by police officers in 10 years' time. I want to place it on record that the Police Federation of England and Wales is strongly opposed to the carrying of firearms. That is why it welcomes very much indeed the prompt action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in authorising trials of the side-handled baton and other 854 equipment which will enable police officers to defend themselves and to provide local communities and local authorities with the kind of policing that they require to deal with crime in 1993.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) referred to the problem of crime in rural areas. Local authorities, and indeed the local police, have a very considerable problem, because there are often only two police officers on duty in a rural area. If they suddenly receive a large visitation of individuals from an urban area, they may find themselves considerably extended in dealing with it.
The new clause asks the Government to produce a code of practice that would involve the courts, the police and the local authorities in a combined effort. I have some sympathy with that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to tell the House what steps the Government intend to take to involve local people more widely.
My own feeling is that the police and community consultative councils have a valuable role to play in this process. I attend my local police and community consultative council whenever I am able to get away from the House—which has not been very often during the past year—and I believe that these councils play the kind of role that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North and his hon. Friends have in mind. They are groups of individuals drawn from the local authority, chaired by a local man or woman, and attended by senior officers, to discuss local policing matters and the way to tackle crime in the area concerned.
Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for the new police authorities. They have one very considerable benefit: they will give local police commanders very much more say in the way resources are deployed in future, working together with the police authorities. They will give them the power to decide how the money allocated by the Home Office will be spent—whether on more manpower, or on a combination of manpower and equipment, and all the other things that the police need in order to do their job.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have something constructive to say on this new clause. It is an idea that has been mooted in the House by hon. Members on both sides, as well as in the Select Committee, over the past year, and I believe that it deserves serious consideration.
§ Mr. MacleanI listened to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) with growing interest, and then amazement, as he introduced the new clause. I thought for a moment that I had perhaps been transported to Thursday's wide-ranging debate on all aspects of law and order, because we heard recounted—to borrow a phrase from you, Madam Deputy Speaker—all the ills of society. A strong impression was given that this new and wonderful Labour party clause would cure those ills.
§ Mr. MichaelI hope that, in responding, the Minister will take seriously what we said at the beginning, which was that the new clause would be merely a start. It is the best that we can get into the geography of the Bill, which, as the Minister knows, limits the possibility of putting amendments forward. It is therefore a starting point—not 855 the solution to all the problems. I hope that the Minister will address it with that in mind and in the positive and helpful spirit in which the motion was moved.
§ Mr. MacleanI shall address myself to the exact contents of the new clause but, in coming to that, I shall also attempt to deal with some of the wide-ranging issues on which Opposition Members touched and on which, in some cases, Madam Deputy Speaker, they were pulled up by you for wandering far and wide.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was trying to wear a cloak of the party that has suddenly discovered in the opinion polls that the public are worried about crime. In trying to wear the cloak of being tough on crime, the hon. Gentleman urged tougher community sentences. The Government have delivered those. He urged that we look at cautioning-plus. I said last week in Committee that I was attracted to that concept and that I wanted to see wider use of it.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. M. O'Brien) made pleas about housing and jobs. I thought that I must be missing something and I turned to see what this powerful new clause, which was going to lead the fight back against crime, was going to do. The new clause would introduce a code of practice. The agencies concerned, the courts, the police and the local authorities, would be obliged to comply with a prescribed Labour party code of practice, lifted from its manifesto, in pursuing their joint considerations in the use of non-custodial sentences.
I accept that that is perhaps just the start of that fight back against crime. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has assured me that the code of practice is just the start, and that the Labour party wants there to be a statutory duty. If the Labour party wants to begin the fight back against crime, I suggest that the starting point should have been some time ago.
Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—that is a funny fight back. Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Public Order Act 1986—that is an odd way to fight back. Perhaps it should have been when the Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991. The fight back that the Labour party now wants to conduct against crime has been not a fight back against crime but a fight against every single measure that the Government have introduced to crack down harder on crime and criminals.
The Labour party also said that it wanted to involve the whole community. That makes sense, but I do not see how the whole community can be involved, participating in a partnership, by ordering them to comply with a code of practice. The Government recognise the need for good liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities. We have been active in promoting good practice and encouraging the setting up of many liaison structures.
Following the Woolf report, 24 area committees were set up, which bring together under the chairmanship of a resident judge senior representatives of the various agencies involved in the criminal justice system. Those committees firmly placed the emphasis on the promotion of better understanding, better co-operation and co-ordination within the system. They held their first meeting in the autumn and need time to develop further. The Government would not wish to see those arrangements disturbed at such an early stage in their development.
856 The Government also recognise the need to spread best practice on crime prevention to local practitioners. As part of the new phase in the Government's crime prevention strategy announced in January, we have commissioned Crime Concern, the independent crime prevention organisation, to produce a good practice guide. The guide will provide clear, practical advice on what works in crime prevention and how to make it work, as well as guidance on working in partnership. It will be distributed widely to local practitioners when it becomes available later this year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will accept that that might satisfy the Police Federation's requests.
§ Mr. ShersbyMy hon. Friend's announcement that he is to commission Crime Concern will be welcomed by the Police Federation, and I hope that it will be most welcome to many hon. Members who have sympathy with some of the concepts that we have debated. I congratulate him on making that important statement.
§ Mr. MacleanI am obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I hope that the House will accept that a practical, best practice guide produced by Crime Concern may be better than lifting something from the Labour party manifesto, as I was urged to do.
The Government regard it as important to ensure that there are more local discussions so that local mechanisms are designed and developed to meet local needs. Discussions on the implementation of community penalties continue to take place in local liaison groups, such as court user groups and probation liaison committees, as appropriate to meet their local needs.
A code of practice produced by the Secretary of State which would impose a single solution throughout the country would not, in my view, be desirable. The Government accept the need for good liaison between the police, local authorities and other local agencies on crime prevention so that co-ordinated efforts are made to make towns and cities safer for the people who live and work in them. The Government applaud the police and community consultative councils, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
Following guidance issued by the Home Office in 1990, taking forward the partnership approach to crime prevention, an increasing number of local authorities are developing their own crime prevention and community safety strategies in consultation with the police and others. Local strategies provide a framework for concerted action and for carrying forward the multi-agency approach to tackling local crime problems. The Government wholeheartedly welcome those developments at local level.
§ Mr. ShersbyHas the London borough of Lambeth agreed to participate in those measures?
§ Mr. MacleanThe honest answer is that I do not know. However, I should be very surprised if it had. I am willing to let the Opposition inform me if Lambeth council is participating in those measures. I assume that that council has so many internal problems with law and order that such measures are not high up on its agenda.
The Opposition commented on resources. If people believed the Opposition, they would be led to believe that resources for all aspects of the criminal justice system were in decline. Between 1979 and 1992—the period of office of this Government—resources for the criminal justice 857 system increased by 105 per cent. in real terms, above the level of inflation. That is a considerable amount of resources for all aspects of law and order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge raised a query about the Crown Prosecution Service. There has been some public concern recently, expressed by some bodies, about the number of cases that were not followed through to prosecution. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be considering the matter, with my colleagues, and we will want to discuss it with the Crown Prosecution Service in due course.
The Government are not convinced that the code of practice suggested by the Opposition for local government, the police and others in the area of crime prevention is necessary, desirable or would do any good. Local crime problems essentially require local solutions. A code of practice written by the Secretary of State would be prescriptive and would not allow for flexible, local responses. I urge the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw the motion and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.
§ Mr. BoatengThe Opposition have no intention of withdrawing the motion; on the contrary, we intend to push it to its very limit. For the Minister to have the nerve to point to a Labour local authority as having internal problems on law and order, when his Government are rotten with problems on law and order, is a diabolical liberty. He ought to address the Government's problem of the way in which the general public perceive their competence on law and order. The Government's competence on law and order, as on so much else, stands at an all-time low. It is to the Labour party that the country looks for a lead on law and order.
§ Mr. MacleanTry to keep a straight face.
§ Mr. BoatengThe Minister asked me to keep a straight face. It is disturbing that we have no problem in keeping a straight face on the issue of law and order because we recognise that outside, in the big wide world, there is a problem about safety and security in communities.
Out there, in the big wide world, the general public thirst for and desire Ministers to give a lead. The general public want the Home Secretary to be prepared to put his authority behind a code of practice and to give that code of practice the force of statute. The general public look to the Government to give a lead. The Conservative Government and the Conservative party have failed time and time again to give such a lead.
5.30 pm
This small new clause would be a modest start for this notoriously reluctant Government. The Government should embark on the proposals in it as a response to the public's perception of their incompetence and to the public's demand that they be seen to take a lead. That is all that we seek through the new clause. We ask that the Home Secretary take on board the need for a code of practice and recognise the appropriateness of liaison between the courts, the police and local authorities to make the most effective use of non-custodial sentences and other measures for the prevention of crime and offending.
The new clause emphasises effectiveness because there is a widely felt and increasingly loudly expressed concern 858 out there. I hope that the Minister will listen to the word that is coming back to the House from the communities most affected by crime. There is a widely held belief that the non-custodial option is not always utilised as effectively as possible.
The public want the reassurance that there are no soft options for those convicted of criminal offences. They want the reassurance that, when we talk about a non-custodial sentence, we mean something that tackles the issue of recidivism. Non-custodial sentences should also address the legitimate public demand for punishment and retribution. There is absolutely no reason why it should not be possible to deal with all those elements of the public's concern by way of a non-custodial sentence.
The only way to achieve that aim is to begin to address the content of a non-custodial sentence. Our concern, which is shared by others, is that, if local resources are not co-ordinated, if local authorities, social services, the probation service and the courts do not work in tandem, the quality of the content of non-custodial sentences will be inferior, will not provide a rigorous and disciplined framework for sentences and will not bear down on the dangers of recidivism—of slipping back into the criminal culture that led to the offending in the first place.
Through the new clause, we ask for the force of statute to be given to a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary, which requires appropriate liaison between the courts, the police and the local authorities. The code of practice should say, "You must talk to each other. You must talk to the Government about how the will and the resources will be applied to give the non-custodial option teeth and relevance." We are determined that noncustodial sentences should not be regarded as a soft option. They should have teeth and relevance, and they should have an impact on offenders to ensure that the opportunities for and likelihood of recidivism are reduced.
The element of returning to society something that one has taken away from it by one's criminal action must be incorporated in the non-custodial option. I have nothing against Home Office projects. However, the important thing about projects is that they should be a pilot, a start and a model for something that is then to be extended. What we find so depressing is that, although good projects come out of Home Office initiatives and flower briefly, like a desert bloom, they are gone until the next thunderstorm.
That should not be the way in which we proceed. Thought should be given to the most effective manner in which to ensure that the non-custodial option has bite. The product of that thought, of experimentation and of the models tried in the course of projects should inform and direct the impact of a code of practice. That is a legitimate call for us to make through the new clause. It should not be sneered at or discounted, as the Minister has done this evening.
I welcome the good practice guide. If the new clause has led to the announcement of the good practice guide, that is all to the good. However, that is no substitute for a code of practice. Good practice needs to begin at home. I make no apology for giving hon. Members a little homily about where they can begin in terms of good practice. I notice the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) in an unaccustomed seat at an unusual time of the afternoon.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames)An unaccustomed suit?
§ Mr. BoatengNot "suit"; I said "seat". The suit, I fear, is of a quality and nature to which we are only too well accustomed. It is good to see the hon. Gentleman in his seat. He will know that the problems of Crawley arc not very different from the problems of similar towns throughout the land in terms of law and order and the safety and security of the inhabitants.
Will the Government begin to take on board some good practice? Would it not be good practice to implement locally based crime prevention policies? Would it not be good practice for there to be a statutory requirement for local authorities, backed up by proper resourcing, to have such policies implemented?
Would it not be good practice for the youth service to be put on a statutory footing? Would it not be good news if the Minister and his colleagues were prepared to announce their backing for the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) in that regard? I declare an interest as a vice-president of the London Association of Youth Clubs. Would that not respond to the call from those concerned with youth provision throughout the country for just such a measure, which would provide a structure for local youth work? That in turn would provide security for the valuable work being done by youth clubs and organisations. We could do with some good practice from the Governmnent in that regard.
Would it not be a good idea if the Government buried their obsessive dislike of local authorities and recognised, in a code of practice of this sort, the valuable role that local authorities play in real partnership with others? Would it not be good practice if the Government sponsored important and valuable initiatives, instead of laying down strictures for local businesses? Would not it be good practice if the Government said to local businesses, "We value and appreciate the sponsorship that we are asking you to give, and that you are giving as best you can in these recession-ridden times, to local initiatives, but we will play our part, too. We will enter a partnership with you and local authorities in undertaking crime prevention on the ground"?
In terms of my local authority, I cannot be alone in having a chamber of commerce that takes crime prevention seriously, especially in the major shopping centres at Wembley and Harlesden. That can be replicated in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is only a limited amount of money that local businesses are capable of generating in that regard. They are happy to take a leadership role, but they need to know that there is some hope that the Home Office will join them and the police in supplementing the resources that are available.
The work of voluntary organisations is valuable and much needed. The voluntary ethic has a vital role to play in the battle against crime and creating safe and secure communities. However, it also requires a framework, and new clause 1 provides just that. The
other measures for the prevention of crime and reoffendingin new clause 1 relate to the partnership that can be built between local authorities, the police, the courts and voluntary organisations when there is the will to ensure that there is a way to do so. A code of practice would bring that about.Obviously, the role of the courts is important. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to that role and the limitation that is inevitably placed on the courts in the implementation of the aims and objectives of 860 the Bill and the proposed working of new clause 1. At present, they make disposals only with regard to offenders who are brought before them. That matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who expressed a concern that is widely held by the police, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
Such lamentable circumstances exist up and down the country. Time and time again, the lists for the Crown court and the magistrates court have vacant spaces; at the same time, the perception of those who serve as magistrates and those who serve on juries up and down the country is that the level of crime in their communities is increasing. The court lists have never had more vacant spaces or been shorter than they are at present.
5.45 pm
We are entitled to ask why. We will continue to ask that question at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere until we get a satisfactory answer. Why does such a level of crime exist? Given the public perception and fear of crime that exist at present, vacant spaces in the lists of the magistrates court and the Crown court and disposals that are meeting the needs and concerns of society, why are so few cases being brought before the courts and so few criminals emerging at the end of the criminal justice system? Why do Ministers fail time and time again to provide any answer on that?
We hear vague mutterings about paperwork. Paperwork is a problem. However, it is important that the police are not burdened with unnecessary paperwork. That matter must be addressed. From time to time, cautioning is mentioned. Rightly and properly, the police are increasingly using the cautioning mechanism. However, that does not account for the lack of work that is currently in the magistrates court and the Crown court.
Ministers should be asking themselves and the Crown prosecutor why that is happening. What is the explanation for the lack of work currently before the courts? In Committee and on the Floor of the House, the answer that we received from Conservative Members was, "None." It may be that we will receive some response from the Government today. If and when we receive such a response, that may help the House to adopt policies that ensure that current levels of crime are borne down and the morale of the police is boosted. At present, morale is adversely affected because the police apprehend offenders and bring their force to bear on offending, only to find that the Crown Prosecution Service, for whatever reason, does not carry cases through.
The code of practice provided for in new clause 1 would bring all the elements of the criminal justice system—the courts, the police and the local authorities—together in an appropriate liaison, so that problems on the ground could be more readily identified and the necessary action taken to alleviate them.
This has been a useful debate. We have addressed in some detail the proposals of, admittedly, a modest new clause. The way in which the Government have approached the new clause—dismissing it out of hand and failing to recognise its wisdom or to move in any way towards it—is a cause of considerable disappointment. However, it is par for the course for a Government who have witnessed, since coming into office, a 120 per cent. increase in offences involving violence against the person; a 149 per cent. increase in burglaries; a 162 per cent. 861 increase in vehicle crime; a 182 per cent. increase in criminal damage offences; and a 324 per cent. increase in the incidence of robbery.
§ Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the crime rate has been increasing, the police have spent an increasing amount of time in court waiting rooms, waiting to give evidence which is often never heard? Surely that should be the subject of liaison between the courts and the police. The chief constable of Strathclyde has estimated that, on some day shifts, up to 30 per cent. of police officers are sitting in court waiting rooms.
§ Mr. BoatengMy hon. Friend has drawn on his experience in Glasgow to make a useful point, which identifies precisely the sort of issue that should be addressed by a code of practice.
The issue of liaison between the police and the courts should be addressed. No doubt my hon. Friend will be able to draw on his experience of the sessional court in Paisley to tell us how the local police service is informed about the state of the court lists.
I know of two recent cases that were listed for trial in the same court at 10.30 in the morning. When both cases were effective, the officers required to give evidence in the second case were obliged to hang around in the lobby of the court—while all sorts of mischief may have been going on in their local manor—until their case was called. That happens time and again.
§ Mr. McMasterDoes my hon. Friend agree that, if everyone were given the same appointment time of 10.30 in the morning under the health service charter, that would not be acceptable to the Government? Surely practical and sensible steps could be taken to establish regular liaison between the prosecution service and the police. Would not this code of practice ensure that the best practice was always followed?
§ Mr. BoatengI wish that my hon. Friend's expertise had been available when we considered the contents of the code of practice. I hope that any code of practice promulgated under the new clause will contain a little more bite, and be a little more realistic, than the discredited citizens charter. It reached its nadir when it was——
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down that path. What he is now discussing is far removed from the clause under consideration.
§ Mr. BoatengI did say "nadir" not "Nadir". I recognise only too well, as the clock approaches 6 o'clock, the dangers of being drawn down that path.
Any code of practice arising from the acceptance of the new clause would be subject to the courts charter, and I hope that that charter will be given more substance.
A number of Conservative Members, who represent the shires and small towns, are no doubt here because of their interest in this subject, and a desire to reassure their constituents of their concern for law and order. Such hon. Members will no doubt be interested to hear how the small towns and shire counties compare with other areas in respect of the increase in crime. The number of recorded burglaries in the shires since 1979 makes salutary reading.
862 In Staffordshire, for example, the number of burglaries committed has increased by 302 per cent.——
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman will recall that his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) went down that road, and that I suggested that it was wide of the clause. What is applicable to Back Benchers is applicable to those on the Front Bench.
§ Mr. BoatengQuite so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regard myself as suitably chastened.
How will such crime be addressed under the new clause? our approach to crime prevention does not eschew the nuts and bolts of the issue. Local authorities have a role to play in ensuring that the police—and the expertise they have available through the nuts and bolts of crime prevention measures—have access to those areas most severely affected by burglaries.
Local authority premises can be used to disseminate information relating to crime prevention; local authority dust carts can be used to display information about the basic steps that can be taken by people to secure their own homes. It is very simple stuff, but it is important to get the message home and to use all the resources that are available to local authorities for that purpose.
6 pm
During this debate, we have covered fully the nuts and bolts of crime prevention. We have demonstrated only too clearly the importance of ensuring that there is in place a code of practice bringing together local authorities, the police and the courts in an effective partnership against crime. That is the way forward to counteract recidivism and ensure that the importance of bearing down effectively on crime always remains at the forefront of the minds of the courts and those concerned with the criminal justice system.'
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
§ The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 278.
865| Division No. 310] | [6.00 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Burden, Richard |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Byers, Stephen |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Caborn, Richard |
| Allen, Graham | Callaghan, Jim |
| Alton, David | Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Campbell-Savours, D. N. |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Cann, Jamie |
| Ashton, Joe | Chisholm, Malcolm |
| Austin-Walker, John | Clapham, Michael |
| Barron, Kevin | Clark, Dr David (South Shields) |
| Battle, John | Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Clelland, David |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Bell, Stuart | Coffey, Ann |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Cohen, Harry |
| Bennett, Andrew F. | Corbett, Robin |
| Benton, Joe | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Corston, Ms Jean |
| Berry, Dr. Roger | Cousins, Jim |
| Betts, Clive | Cryer, Bob |
| Blair, Tony | Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) |
| Blunkett, David | Dafis, Cynog |
| Boateng, Paul | Dalyell, Tam |
| Boyes, Roland | Darling, Alistair |
| Bradley, Keith | Davidson, Ian |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) |
| Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Denham, John |
| Dewar, Donald | McFall, John |
| Dixon, Don | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Dobson, Frank | McLeish, Henry |
| Donohoe, Brian H. | Maclennan, Robert |
| Dowd, Jim | Madden, Max |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Mahon, Alice |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Mandelson, Peter |
| Eastham, Ken | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Etherington, Bill | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Maxton, John |
| Fatchett, Derek | Meacher, Michael |
| Faulds, Andrew | Meale, Alan |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Michael, Alun |
| Fisher, Mark | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Flynn, Paul | Milburn, Alan |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Miller, Andrew |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Foulkes, George | Morley, Elliot |
| Fraser, John | Morris, Rt Hon A, (Wy'nshawe) |
| Fyfe, Maria | Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Galbraith, Sam | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Abersvon) |
| Galloway, George | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Gapes, Mike | Mudie, George |
| Garrett, John | Mullin, Chris |
| George, Bruce | Murphy, Paul |
| Gerrard, Neil | O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | O'Brien, William (Normanton) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | O'Hara, Edward |
| Gordon, Mildred | Olner, William |
| Gould, Bryan | O'Neill, Martin |
| Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) | Patchett, Terry |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Pendry, Tom |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Pickthall, Colin |
| Grocott, Bruce | Pike, Peter L. |
| Gunnell, John | Pope, Greg |
| Hain, Peter | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Hall, Mike | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E) |
| Hanson, David | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Prescott, John |
| Harvey, Nick | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Henderson, Doug | Radice, Giles |
| Heppell, John | Randall, Stuart |
| Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Raynsford, Nick |
| Hinchliffe, David | Rendel, David |
| Hoey, Kate | Robertson, George (Hamilton) |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Roche, Mrs. Barbara |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | Rogers, Allan |
| Hoyle, Doug | Rooker, Jeff |
| Hutton, John | Rooney, Terry |
| Illsley, Eric | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Ingram, Adam | Rowlands, Ted |
| Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) | Ruddock, Joan |
| Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Jamieson, David | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Janner, Greville | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side) | Short, Clare |
| Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) | Simpson, Alan |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) |
| Jowell, Tessa | Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E) |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S) | Snape, Peter |
| Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn) | Soley, Clive |
| Khabra, Piara S. | Spearing, Nigel |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn) | Steel, Rt Hon Sir David |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Leighton, Ron | Stevenson, George |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Strang, Dr. Gavin |
| Lewis, Terry | Straw, Jack |
| Livingstone, Ken | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Llwyd, Elfyn | Tipping, Paddy |
| Loyden, Eddie | Turner, Dennis |
| Lynne, Ms Liz | Tyler, Paul |
| McAllion, John | Vaz, Keith |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| McCartney, Ian | Wareing, Robert N |
| Watson, Mike | Wray, Jimmy |
| Wicks, Malcolm | Wright, Dr Tony |
| Wigley, Dafydd | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) | |
| Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Wilson, Brian | Mr. Gordon McMaster and |
| Wise, Audrey | Mr. Peter Kilfoyle |
| Worthington, Tony | |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Dover, Den |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Duncan, Alan |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Duncan-Smith, Iain |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Dunn, Bob |
| Amess, David | Eggar, Tim |
| Ancram, Michael | Elletson, Harold |
| Arbuthnot, James | Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) | Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) |
| Ashby, David | Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Evans, Roger (Monmouth) |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Evennett, David |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Faber, David |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Fabricant, Michael |
| Baldry, Tony | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Fishburn, Dudley |
| Bates, Michael | Forman, Nigel |
| Batiste, Spencer | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Forth, Eric |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) |
| Booth, Hartley | Freeman, Rt Hon Roger |
| Boswell, Tim | French, Douglas |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Gardiner, Sir George |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia | Garnier, Edward |
| Bowden, Andrew | Gill, Christopher |
| Bowis, John | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Brazier, Julian | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Bright, Graham | Gorst, John |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW) |
| Browning, Mrs. Angela | Greenway, Harry (Eating N) |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Burns, Simon | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Burt, Alistair | Hague, William |
| Butcher, John | Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Butler, Peter | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Butterfill, John | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Hannam, Sir John |
| Carrington, Matthew | Harris, David |
| Carttiss, Michael | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Cash, William | Hawkins, Nick |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Hawksley, Warren |
| Chapman, Sydney | Hayes, Jerry |
| Churchill, Mr | Heald, Oliver |
| Clappison, James | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hendry, Charles |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) | Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L. |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Hill, James (Southampton Test) |
| Coe, Sebastian | Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) |
| Congdon, David | Horam, John |
| Conway, Derek | Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) | Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) |
| Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) | Hunter, Andrew |
| Davies, Quentin (Stamford) | Jack, Michael |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Jackson, Robert (Wantage) |
| Day, Stephen | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Deva, Nirj Joseph | Jessel, Toby |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Robinson, Mark (Somerton) |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Key, Robert | Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) |
| Kilfedder, Sir James | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| Knapman, Roger | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | Sackville, Tom |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) | Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Knox, Sir David | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Kynoch, George (Kincardine) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan | Shersby, Michael |
| Legg, Barry | Sims, Roger |
| Leigh, Edward | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Lennox-Boyd, Mark | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Lidington, David | Soames, Nicholas |
| Lightbown, David | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| Lord, Michael | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Luff, Peter | Spink, Dr Robert |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Spring, Richard |
| MacKay, Andrew | Sproat, Iain |
| Maclean, David | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick | Steen, Anthony |
| Madel, David | Stephen, Michael |
| Maginnis, Ken | Stern, Michael |
| Malone, Gerald | Stewart, Allan |
| Mans, Keith | Streeter, Gary |
| Marland, Paul | Sumberg, David |
| Marlow, Tony | Sweeney, Walter |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Taylor, John M. (Solihull) |
| Mawhinney. Dr Brian | Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) |
| Mellor, Rt Hon David | Thomason, Roy |
| Merchant, Piers | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Milligan, Stephen | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Mills, Iain | Thornton, Sir Malcolm |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Moate, Sir Roger | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Tracey, Richard |
| Moss, Malcolm | Tredinnick, David |
| Needham, Richard | Trend, Michael |
| Nelson, Anthony | Trimble, David |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Viggers, Peter |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Walden, George |
| Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) | Waller, Gary |
| Norris, Steve | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley | Waterson, Nigel |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Watts, John |
| Page, Richard | Wells, Bowen |
| Paice, James | Whitney, Ray |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Whittingdale, John |
| Pawsey, James | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Wiggin, Sir Jerry |
| Pickles, Eric | Wilkinson, John |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Willetts, David |
| Portillo, Rt Hon Michael | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Redwood, Rt Hon John | Wolfson, Mark |
| Renton, Rt Hon Tim | Wood, Timothy |
| Richards, Rod | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Riddick, Graham | |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Robathan, Andrew | Mr. Irvine Patnick and |
| Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn | Mr. Timothy Kirkhope |
§ Question accordingly negatived.