§ `A court imposing a fine on an offender convicted of an indictable offence shall, so far as the disposable income of the offender appears or is known to the court, impose a fine of the number of days' disposable income which it appears to the court that the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender require.'.— [Mr. Worthington.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Worthington
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause proposes to increase the credibility of the fine systems by ensuring that fines are related more directly to the ability to pay. This is known as the day-fine system, and there are two sides to it. One is to ensure that those with limited incomes are not threatened with an overwhelming fine that is not related to their ability to pay. The other is to ensure that the fines imposed on those with sizeable incomes make an impact on them.
Day-fine systems have been introduced, and have apparently worked well, in a number of countries, including West Germany, Sweden and Austria. The amount of the fine is arrived at by multiplying a number reflecting the gravity of the offence by a sum that varies in proportion to the offender's income. It is a kind of tariff system, which I think is much fairer.
This needs to be seen in the context of the general crime position in this country, and also the problem of overcrowding in our prisons. Fines are the principal non-custodial sentence that is imposed. Although they have fallen proportionately in recent years, they still form 39 per cent. of the penalties imposed for all indictable offences.
As a Scottish Member, I am especially pleased to move the new clause. Scotland has a particular problem of fine defaulting—even larger than the problem in England and Wales. In 1985, half of all admissions to Scottish prisons were due to fine defaulting. Only 6 per cent. of all offenders in prison at any one time were fine defaulters, but their impact on the prison system is colossal, because the overwhelming majority of such sentences are short-term. There are over 400 movements in and out of Barlinnie prison in Glasgow each day, and a significant proportion of those prisoners are fine defaulters. That imposes a considerable logistical problem on the prison. It means that many of the staff can be used not for positive duties, but simply for duties involved in maintaining the prison.
We wish to consider fines in the context of all other disposals. It is important that those who commit offences receive the appropiate punishment. Sometimes fines are imposed when it is inappropriate, and that leads to people ending up in prison. The opening of a designated place for drink offenders in Albyn house, Aberdeen, had an almost miraculous effect. In the previous year there had been 600 prosecutions for drunkenness. After the opening of Albyn house there were only three, and that meant that there was a significant reduction in the number of fine defaulters.
Our proposal for day fines is linked to the need to ensure that fines are not imposed inappropriately. I am sure that there is common ground on that. We wish to ensure that there are appropriate disposals for those with drink problems, that the probation service is developed to its full and useful extent, that community service orders are used and that day attendance centres receive more attention than they have done previously.
§ Mr. Hanley
Will the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to the serious problem of assessing a person's income if he is self-employed? Would it be assessed on the previous year's income as declared for taxation? Would it be assessed before, or after, business expenses have been considered, and would it include factors that are not allowed for taxation, such as depreciation? Would the present year's income be considered for a person in employment, and, if so, is the hon. Gentleman not further discriminating against people who are assessed under schedule E?
§ Mr. Worthington
Before I answer that question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us how income is assessed at present.
§ Mr. Hanley
I shall not answer that question, for the simple reason that I know how to assess an income for tax purposes. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to tell us how he will get an accurate assessment of a person's income for the purpose of fines.
§ Mr. Worthington
The reason why I asked the hon. Gentleman to intervene again is that at present there seems to be a limited system for calculating whether people can afford to pay the fine that is imposed. We should move to a system that gives a clearer appreciation of a person's disposable income so that magistrates and Crown courts can be more aware of people's ability to pay. It is sheer foolishness to take a sum out of the air and impose it if the consequence of that will be a waste of public resources. The average cost of maintaining someone in prison is about £250 a week—it ranges from £150 to £500 a week. That is what it costs to imprison people who have defaulted on fines which are on average about £100. It is folly not to examine the size of fines much more closely than we do at present in terms of public resources.
§ Mr. Hanley
I merely suggest that the hon. Gentleman should perhaps look to a reform of the taxation system before a reform of the fine system.
§ Mr. Worthington
I am working simultaneously on this Bill and the Finance Bill. I am thus attempting to deal with the fine and taxation system at the same time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if my proposals for a taxation system were adopted many more people at the bottom end of the income scale would be in a position to pay their fines.
§ Mrs. Ann Taylor
Does my hon. Friend agree that, at any specific time, it is relatively simple to determine someone's disposable income? If all courts had the debt counselling system that the Government have advocated, and which Opposition Members would certainly support, we could help people who find it difficult to pay their fines and develop the expertise for working out people's disposable income when a fine is about to be imposed.
§ Mr. Worthington
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I said earlier, we hope that, following acceptance of our proposal for day fines, there will also evolve a much more satisfactory system of ensuring that fines are paid, by making sure that the proper social services support or money advice is available. At the moment it seems to be a hit and miss system.
It would not be sensible to impose a large fine on someone on social security without taking into account all 933 the other outgoings that that person may have, particularly in the present circumstances. Two of the Government's measures will increase the problems of those on social security. One such measure is the poll tax, which will mean that at least 20 per cent. of the country's average poll tax will be paid by people on social security. If anyone imagines that the Government will increase the amount of benefit to compensate for that, he is slightly more naive than I am.
§ Mr. Alex Carlile
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, every day, courts are in the business of assessing defendants' disposable income and that that is done for single applications for legal aid? The criminal legal aid form applies a test that is aimed at finding out a person's disposable income. The term "disposable income" is used in the new clause. Therefore, there is no difficulty in assessing disposable income.
§ Mr. Worthington
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. Of course that is so. As always, the worst possible case has been presented, that of the self-employed person, but the vast majority of people who come before the courts are likely to have no difficulty in declaring their disposable income. It is a familiar request. It is made on numerous occasions in respect of income tax or benefits. It is not a major obstacle.
This proposal reflects a social fact. The value of money is not the same to everybody. A fiver to one person is not the same as a fiver to another person. Fifty pounds to one person is one family's disposable income for a week. To another person, £50 is lunch. We would not treat offences with the same seriousness if we were to impose the same lines upon people.
Unfortunately, some judges and magistrates have lost touch with the value of money to those who are poorer than they are and impose fines that are out of all proportion to the ability to pay. One would want to set limits for those in the social security system and never require them to pay back more than £1.50, or some such sum, per week.
I mentioned that the poll tax is one imposition on people with limited incomes. The social fund is another. Those who find it necessary to use the social fund will have to repay whatever loans they receive from that benefit. It is unrealistic to impose a hefty fine on that family, who may also have fuel debts. It is easy to forget that we are largely talking about the impact of fines as they affect families, because behind every fine defaulter there is a family in difficulty.
Before fines are imposed, much more information should be available to the courts about the disposable income of the offender. Instead of a standard rate tariff there should be a sliding rate according to the ability to pay. That would make for a much fairer system and ensure that our prisons were not filled with people who should not be there—a goal which I know the Minister shares.
§ Mr. Cash
What the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said was dangerous. If people guilty of the most appalling crimes could escape with a small fine because they did not have many resources, we would have a most appalling mess in no time.
934 Recently a magistrates court fined a student £1,100 for a driving offence, which by any reasonable standards was incredible. During the proceedings an examination—not an effective one as it turned out—was made of his income, and, although the facts were examined, they did not seem to bear any weight with the magistrates. Not only did they ban him from driving for 18 months, but they imposed a fine of £1,100. The student, deciding that he had not had a fair trial, appeared in person before the Crown court and managed to get his fine reduced to £400. A sensible judge, in a formal sensible proceeding, reduced the fine, with the result that the student could pay. Everything was done as it should have been done and a reasonable result ensued.
§ Mr. Alex Carlile
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he is saying is a strong argument for the proposal of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)?
§ Mr. Cash
I was about to say that, although l have grave doubts about a sliding tariff, which is what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie proposed, there is some merit in the notion that when courts are considering such questions they should, and often do, have regard to the requirements and circumstances of the offender. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to say something about that.
The hon. Gentleman made a further important pointߞ that the punishment should fit the crime. There is a prison in my constituency, Stafford. We are anxious, as is the prison service as a whole and the Home Office, not to fill prisons with people who are not suited to be there. Too many people are being given the wrong punishment.
I have much respect and time for my hon. Friend the Minister, who performs a distinguished service to the country. We have not yet had an opportunity to read his new proposals, but no doubt we shall in time. Then we may be able to congratulate him on his proposals for hard labourߞ [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and others laugh at the thought of hard labour, but hooligans—especially football hooligans—should not be allowed to get away with fines when hard labour should be meted out to them. I do not mean indiscriminate, mindless hard labour, but effective hard labour that would make them think twice. It would go a long way towards solving the problems on the terraces.
§ Mrs. Ann Taylor
We were smiling at the phrase "hard labour," because the Government are schizophrenic in their attitude to community service. They say that they appreciate the work that is done as part of community service orders, many of which entail very hard work. But the term "hard labour"—certainly as employed by some Conservative Back-Bench Membersߞhas negative connotations. The Minister is trying to ride two horses: he is trying to be constructive and support the community service scheme, and he is also trying to use language that will appeal to some of the backwoodsmen behind him.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not follow the hon. Lady down that road. We are discussing fines.
§ Mr. Alex Carlile
She started it.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is a matter not of who started it, but who finishes it. The buck stops here.
§ Mr. Cash
Fines are appropriate on some occasions. The hon. Lady has fallen straight into the Socialist trap. It is what I call Socialist claptrap: confusing an important matter with Socialist middle-speak. She forgets that the expression "hard labour" means something, and in the contextߞߞ
§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman not to follow that road. I am a most tolerant individual in the Chair, but my tolerance has now expired. We must return to the new clause.
§ Mr. Cash
I agree absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is much merit in what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, and I look forward to the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. I suspect that he will have some important statements to make.
§ Mr. Alex Carlile
I apologise for flippantly taking the Chair in vain a little earlier, but I was perplexed as to how hard labour related to a day fine system.
The problem with fines is that, proportionally, they tend to be much higher for the lower-paid. Courts are embarrassed in two respects. First, they are embarrassed by imposing what appear to be extremely high fines, albeit on people who may have extremely high incomes. However, who could say that it was unjust for the person who earns £100,000 a year to pay a fine of £3,000 and for the person who earns £10,000 to pay a fine of 300 for the same offence? That must be elementary justice. The courts also appear embarrassed to impose low fines on the low-paid. A fine of £300 may sound little for a fairly serious offence, yet it may be imposed on someone whose net income is only £300 a month. The new clause seeks to strike justice, so that high-earners and low-earners can be fined by the same set of standards.
This proposal is not a kite that is being flown out of the imagination of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). He has pointed out that countries in northern and central Europe successfully operate a day fine system. They use simple forms to assess people's income and there is no difficulty in doing so. Those who falsely declare their income are committing the extremely serious offence of perverting the course of public justice. That offence is always punished by imprisonment.
§ Mr. Hanley
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that a custodial sentence should be imposed in proportion to the length of life that the accused has had upon the earth or in proportion to a person's life expectancy? Should one impose a hard labour sentence according to the strength of the individual? Where does the argument end?
§ Mr. Carlile
The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his lack of experience in such matters. If a 70-year-old man is charged with a serious offence, he will generally get a much lesser sentence than a 25-year-old man who has committed the same offence—unless the sentence is fixed by law. If a sick man is convicted of a serious offence, he will receive a lighter sentence than a healthy man who has committed the same offence. That is only fair and just.
Sentencing is not merely an objective exercise; it has a strong individualised element. The day fine system is a 936 simple and fair way to ensure that fines are such that they strike that balance between the objective and the subjective at which every sentencer should be aiming.
Sentencers have a public duty to perform—the duty to impose a sentence that, broadly speaking, fits the category for which the crime calls. They also have a duty to perform by the accused that involves sentencing that person within the broad framework in a way that is not unduly harsh on that individual.
The two embarrassments of which I spoke would be removed if a court was able to use the day fine system. I do not support the argument that courts should use only the day fine system. In many instances small, standard monetary fines for everyone convicted of a particular offence—for example, a byelaw offence—are justified.
§ Mr. John Patten
Where would the hon. and learned Gentleman draw the line between the common use of the day fine and the use of other forms of set fines?
§ Mr. Carlile
I believe that the court should have available to it a day fine system. It could choose between fixing a monetary fine and imposing a day fine.
Courts often face the problem of ascertaining at the hearing the precise earnings of the accused, especially if that person is unrepresented. Those practising solicitors who are in the Chamber know that they can face such a problem in court. It is not always easy for solicitors to ascertain, at the moment of sentence, the precise earnings of their client. If a court, faced with such a dilemma, was able to say, "We impose a fine of five days' or five weeks' disposable income", it would enable the appropriate inquiry to be made afterwards if necessary. In that way the precise figure for the fine could be assessed.
I urge the Minister, either now or during the review, to which we look forward with great interest, to study closely the possibility of introducing a practical and also pragmatic measure that would make life for sentencers much simpler and the consequences for criminals much fairer.
§ Mrs. Ann Taylor
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that the measure has considerable practical and pragmatic appeal, but it is also right in principle that punishments should mean the same to each person who is being punished for roughly the same offence. If we had a system of day fines, or income-related fines, that would be fairer, because each person would be punished according to the extent to which the punishment hurt him, was meaningful and affected his everyday life.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, it would have the practical consequence of reducing prison overcrowding, because many of those who are in prison for the non-payment of fines are there because they cannot pay the fines imposed on them, not because they wilfully refuse to do so. That imposes an undue burden on our prison system, because the vast majority of fine defaulters spend a short time in the prison system, and the administration that is caused by that creates considerable difficulties.
We should all try to seek systems by which fewer people end up in prison because of defaulting on fines. We must also be realistic and recall that many women end up in prison because they cannot afford to pay their fines. The 937 day-fine system that we suggest is particularly appropriate to many women, because many of them have a low disposable income. That should be taken into account.
The new clause outlines the situation clearly and should deal with some of the concerns raised by Conservative Members, although often from sedentary positions. The new clause makes it clear that we are talking about disposable income and that the seriousness of the offence is to be taken into account by the court. It would be helpful if the court had that as an option, although I should like to go slightly further than the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and hope that if it were introduced it would not be left simply to the courts, but that clear guidelines would be issued as to when it was considered appropriate to use the system.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's thinking on the issue.
§ Mr. Hanley
My hon. Friend is always clear.
§ Mrs. Taylor
The Minister's hon. Friend accuses him of always being clear, but I have to tell the House that in Committee the Minister resisted our amendment on this topic, but the Home Secretary, when he made his statement on overcrowding in prisons, hinted that he would like to move towards an income-related fine system. It appears that the Home Secretary has slightly more of an open mind than has the Minister of State. Perhaps we shall hear tonight that the Home Secretary has been able to open up the Minister of State's mind a bit further. Perhaps, along with my hon. Friends, the Home Secretary will have given the Minister cause for thought. I hope that we shall have a more favourable response now than we did in Committee.
§ Mr. John Patten
As the then Prime Minister of France, M. Fabius, said when there was a dispute about whether there was any disagreement between him and the President of the Republic, M. Mitterrand, there was not a centimetre's difference between his position as Prime Minister and that of the President of the fifth Republic. I can say exactly the same. There is not a centimetre's difference in policy between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself. I have combed the statements by my right hon. Friend in reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and he has never said that he wishes to see the introduction of a day-fine system. What he has said clearly, which I think is common ground across the Floor of the House, is that he wishes to see the fine system related to income. As with M. Fabius and President Mitterrand, so with the Home Secretary and his junior Minister.
The hon. Lady gave notice in Committee that she wanted to pursue this point. This evening it has been pursued by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who is a glutton for punishment. He is serving on the Committee examining the Finance Bill, and he has come to take part in this debate, too. I share his aim: we do not want inappropriate fines to be imposed on offenders.
The courts are already encouraged to take full account of means when determining the size of fines. The problem is that it is said that they sometimes do not—hence the sort of problems that emerged in the speech by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, and the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
938 Sometimes people who default on fines go to gaol. The numbers who go to gaol are still higher than the Government want. That is a strain on prison administration. We can take only a little comfort from the figures. It might interest the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie if I gave him the most recently available figures. In 1982 there were 24,500 receptions into prison following fine default. By 1986, that had fallen to about 19,000—a substantial, although not astounding, reduction. Equally, and probably more importantly, the average number of people in prison at any given time for fine default fell from about 900 in 1982 to about 500 in 1986.
We are by no means unsympathetic to the thinking behind the new clause. But we doubt whether the pure day-fine system, as operated in some western European countries, would work well here. That system requires the courts to express the fine as a number of units on all or most occasions. Courts impose fines on more than a million occasions a year, so this would be a considerable strain on the court system.
We think that the system would be unduly mechanistic. It could be rigid, and it would certainly be bureaucratic. There are all sorts of practical problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) put his finger on them earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford also pointed to the sort of problems that can arise. The essence of the day-fine idea should be explored and promoted, if that essence has to do with ability to pay.
This is why, as I said in Committee, we are setting up some experimental projects in several parts of the country. They are designed to do exactly what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), with all his experience as a deputy recorder and the times that he has appeared in Mold Crown court—the centre of the United Kingdom judicial universe—rightly wants us to do: to examine the possibility of relating fines to income We are introducing the projects to devise a systematic way of relating fines to the means of offenders. As part of the experiment, we shall introduce a new form, which will make for consistent decision taking about fine levels across the country. The aim is to establish a procedure that is not unduly bureaucratic—which a strict day-fine system, whether compulsory or available at the discretion of the court, might well be—but which will relate fines more closely to income.
In Committee, I said that we hope to have two of these experimental schemes quite soon. One will be in Bradford and the other in Swansea. I can announce to the House that, with the agreement of the court authorities, we will be able to have a further experiment, which will begin almost immediately, in Teesside. Therefore, there will he three experiments—one naturally in Wales, one in Bradford and one in Teesside. These experiments will run for six months and the Home Office will get reports about the findings not in 1995 but in 1989.
I think that in trying to relate fines much more closely to income we are travelling along much the same road as the Opposition. However, we think that the day-fine system is too rigid and too bureaucratic, at least for the moment, and would prefer to experiment on the basis that I have described.
939 In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Dewsbury and her hon. Friends will be content to leave matters as they are and not press the new clause to a Division.
§ Mr. Worthington
We wish to press ahead with the new clause. Before I sum up, I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to apologise to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), because we should have added his name to the list of proposers of the new clause. That was an omission.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for telling me that she knew the Minister would not accept the new clause. She has worked out his body language and knows that when he is about to say no he has his arms folded. My hon. Friend has never persuaded him to say yes. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for the moment of exquisite pain that he inflicted on the Minister when he used the term "hard labour". The Minister tries to be loved by everybody and the term "punishment in the community" is exquisitely balanced but is hardly how the Minister wanted to see his new proposal described.
None of the Conservative Members who spoke tackled seriously enough the problem that I posed in proposing the new clause. It is that in Scotland 50 per cent. of the admissions to prison are for fine default. In England and Wales it is about half that, about 25 to 30 per cent. That is an enormous problem for the prisons. The Minister said that our proposals would impose a strain on the court system. What on earth does he think the present procedures impose on the prison system?
We must tackle the problem of some unpaid fines being disposed of by an inappropriate, short sentence. We accept that that is a difficult problem because, while over 90 per cent. of fines are paid, it is quite difficult to identify the fines which will not be paid and which, because of their large number, create a considerable problem for the prison system. We must press the new clause because we think that it would make the courts much more systematic than they are at present.
As I said, there are two sides to this argument. Someone who has committed an offence should have imposed upon him a penalty that makes him think about the serious consequences of his actions. The penalty should be such that it causes people to say that society seriously disapproves of their actions. There is no doubt that if a substantial fine is imposed upon a poor person he will get that message. If one imposes a moderate fine on a wealthy person, one has not penalised him. Therefore, there should be more substantial fines, or disposals, which have an impact on the life of that person.
§ Mrs. Ann Taylor
Does my hon. Friend recall the support that the Home Secretary gave to this concept, when he said in the House that the answer to many of the problems outlined by my hon. Friendis to make the level of fine realistic in the first place"? —[Official Report, 30 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 1090.]
§ Mr. Worthington
The Home Secretary has said some sensible things, and I wish that they could be codified into a day-fine system.
As the Minister knows, we have the massive problem that in England and Wales we imprison more people than 940 are imprisoned almost anywhere else in Europe. I am delighted to see present the Under-Secretary with responsibility for prisons in Scotland, because the problem is even worse there. Only the record in Turkey exceeds the number of people who are imprisoned in Scotland.
We shall never be able to deal with this problem unless we can tackle the supply side. There is also the problem, which in a way is a good one, that the judiciary is independent and is not the judicial arm of the political system. We must ensure that there are no rogue courts that are taking up more of the country's resources than they should by imposing fines or other disposables, with the result that people are being sent to prison needlessly.
A good court will have an informal day-fine system anyway, and a good judge will take into account people's ability to pay, but all the experience is that we cannot simply leave it to good practice. There has to be a codified system of day fines, which lays down on a formula basis how fines should be calculated, taking into account both the seriousness of the offence and the ability to pay if we are both to use the fining system sensibly and avoid the needless use of our prison space.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:ߞߞ
§ The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 197.942
|Division No. 368]||[11.7 pm|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Home Robertson, John|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Hoyle, Doug|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Battle, John||Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Lewis, Terry|
|Boateng, Paul||Livingstone, Ken|
|Boyes, Roland||Livsey, Richard|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||McCartney, Ian|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||McNamara, Kevin|
|Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)||Maxton, John|
|Clelland, David||Michael, Alun|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Murphy, Paul|
|Cohen, Harry||Nellist, Dave|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||O'Brien, William|
|Corbett, Robin||Parry, Robert|
|Cousins, Jim||Patchett, Terry|
|Cryer, Bob||Pike, Peter L.|
|Dalyell, Tam||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||Rooker, Jeff|
|Dewar, Donald||Rowlands, Ted|
|Dixon, Don||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Eadie, Alexander||Skinner, Dennis|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Faulds, Andrew||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Fearn, Ronald||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Flynn, Paul||Wallace, James|
|Foster, Derek||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Gordon, Mildred||Worthington, Tony|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Mr. Frank Haynes and|
|Mr. Allen McKay.|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Arbuthnot, James|
|Alexander, Richard||Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)|
|Amess, David||Ashby, David|
|Amos, Alan||Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)|
|Baldry, Tony||French, Douglas|
|Batiste, Spencer||Gale, Roger|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Gill, Christopher|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Gow, Ian|
|Boswell, Tim||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Bottomley, Peter||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Gregory, Conal|
|Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)||Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Bowis, John||Grist, Ian|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Ground, Patrick|
|Brazier, Julian||Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)|
|Bright, Graham||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Harris, David|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Hayward, Robert|
|Burns, Simon||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Burt, Alistair||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Butcher, John||Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)|
|Butler, Chris||Hind, Kenneth|
|Butterfill, John||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Holt, Richard|
|Carrington, Matthew||Howard, Michael|
|Carttiss, Michael||Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)|
|Cash, William||Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)|
|Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)|
|Chope, Christopher||Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hunter, Andrew|
|Cope, Rt Hon John||Irvine, Michael|
|Couchman, James||Jack, Michael|
|Cran, James||Jackson, Robert|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Janman, Tim|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Day, Stephen||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Devlin, Tim||Key, Robert|
|Dorrell, Stephen||King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Dover, Den||Knapman, Roger|
|Dunn, Bob||Knight, Greg (Derby North)|
|Durant, Tony||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Knowles, Michael|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Fallon, Michael||Lang, Ian|
|Favell, Tony||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Forman, Nigel||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Lilley, Peter|
|Franks, Cecil||Lord, Michael|
|Freeman, Roger||Lyell, Sir Nicholas|
|Macfarlane, Sir Neil||Stevens, Lewis|
|Maclean, David||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Summerson, Hugo|
|Madel, David||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Malins, Humfrey||Taylor, Teddy (S'end F.)|
|Maples, John||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Tracey, Richard|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Trippier, David|
|Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick||Trotter, Neville|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Miller, Sir Hal||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Mills, Iain||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Waller, Gary|
|Mitchell, David (Hants NW)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Morris, M (N'hampton S)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Morrison, Sir Charles||Whitney, Ray|
|Moss, Malcolm||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Moynihan, Hon Colin||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Neubert, Michael||Wilshire, David|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Paice, James||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Patten, John (Oxford W)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Rowe, Andrew||Wood, Timothy|
|Ryder, Richard||Yeo, Tim|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Squire, Robin||Mr. David Lightbown and|
|Steen, Anthony||Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Further consideration of the Bill adjourned. ߞ [Mr. Dorrell.]
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.