Amendments made: No. 11, in line 11, after 'indictment' insert
'orders restricting the access of the public to the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or to any proceedings ancillary
to such a trial and orders restricting the publication of any report of the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or any such ancillary proceedings.'.
No. 19, in line 17, at end insert
'torture and an offence of'.
No. 70, in line 23, after 'detention', insert
'to make provision in relation to the taking of body samples by the police in Northern Ireland'.— [Mr. John Patten]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ 11.5 pm
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I have no intention of interrupting the breakneck speed of this legislative process, which I hope will be widely imitated in future. I wish to clarify one point that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) mentioned earlier. She said that an article in the New Scientist suggested that mouth swabs would not yield material suitable for DNA profiling. I am advised that mouth swabs can produce useful evidence. We do not accept the contention in the article that another test should be used in conjunction with it. I understand that the ICI cellmark diagnostics people say that the article does not accurately represent their views and that they accept that DNA profiles can be obtained from mouth swabs, provided that sufficient cells are available in the sample.
It has been a long journey for the Bill. I spent more time with it on the first leg of its journey during the last Parliament than I have on this part. It is therefore easier for me to say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Standing Committee. That is partly the result of the way in which the Opposition handled the measure, and I pay tribute to the skill with which the hon. Member for Dewsbury grasped and ran with the subject.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their contributions and support. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State bore most of the burden in Committee and I congratulate him on the way that he did so —not least because he surmounted a hurdle that I did not always manage to surmount. Whenever I appeared in Committee—or, indeed, in the Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) greeted me with a glare because I was not a lawyer and I was contributing to discussions that he thought should take place within a slightly closed circle. Clearly, my hon. Friend managed to overcome that obstacle and showed that one does not have to be a lawyer to legislate on these matters. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has given much help during the Report stage, and who admirably restrained his natural belligerence on such occasions.
When the Bill first appeared, it was criticised as something of a ragbag, but that criticism has died away. On important subject after important subject—extradition, peremptory challenge, lenient sentences, video links, criminal injuries compensation, to give but a sample —the Bill represents the satisfactory end to a long argument both inside and outside the House. As the Bill has progressed, we have inserted provisions of substantial value, such as that on knives.
The other day, one of the wisest of my predecessors advised me that, whatever we did, we should not have another Criminal Justice Bill, because so many people thought it necessary or desirable to include matters that were not originally intended. I have no intention of peering 327 into the future. I just believe that the House can, with confidence, give a Third Reading to a thoroughly sensible and effective piece of legislation.
§ 11.9 pm
§ Mrs. Ann Taylor
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for clarifying the point that we raised earlier about DNA profiling. I hope that the information that he has given will prove accurate in practice.
I do not wish to follow the Home Secretary completely down the road of mutual congratulation, but I agree that the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill has been something of an epic—more so for some people than others. I must extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) who has acted as Whip on this Bill twice round. To have spent one year on the Bill is punishment enough, but to have spent two years on it—my hon. Friend has spent nearly all of her time in the House on it—is a feat in itself.
The House has spent a considerable amount of time discussing this Bill and, even on Report, we have had more than 200 Government amendments. The Home Secretary has denied that the Bill is still a ragbag, but I would call it a hotch-potch of measures. It is a mark of our discussions that a bad Bill will always remain so, no matter how much debate takes place.
On Second Reading, we ought to be positive; we welcomed those parts of the Bill that we considered constructive—the reduction in the length of prison sentences for unpaid fines, limiting custodial sentences in police cells, encouraging the use of bail hostels, creating a, single detention centre for young offenders and giving the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board a statutory basis. Unfortunately, after many hours in Committee and on Report, we have little to add to that list.
Fortunately, at times, the Government displayed an unusual characteristic by listening to some of the debates and accepting some of our amendments. We welcome that, and pay tribute to Ministers for doing so. The Government accepted our proposal to ratify the United Nations convention on torture. We welcome the Minister's acceptance of our amendment this evening to lessen the worst effects of the Nottingham justices' decision. We were pleased that the Minister accepted Opposition arguments that it was inappropriate to make custody the sanction for a young person's failure to undergo psychiatric treatment. We are also pleased that education authorities should be consulted before school attendance becomes the requirement of a supervision order.
Such concessions do not amount to much in a Bill that has been universally criticised as an attack on civil liberties and for its failure to deal with the problems of our criminal justice system. Serious disquiet has been expressed in this House and in another place about the removal of the prima facie rule in extradition, which forms a large part of the Bill. Likewise, the Bill retains the removal of the right to peremptory challenge. Jury trials will be removed from some driving and criminal damage cases. The Bill advocates the increased use of documentary evidence as opposed to oral evidence, and extends the time between bail hearings from eight to 28 days—we believe that that may become the norm in future.
328 The Government have moved in the right direction in their attempts to provide more for the victims of crime. but even in that they have failed. The Government are putting the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on a statutory footing but they are also setting off on a petty, penny-pinching exercise that will deny compensation for small items such as damaged clothing and deprive victims of crime of their supplementary benefit when they are awarded compensation. By those examples, which represent major parts of the Bill, the Government have shown their disregard for public and expert opinion.
The Government have ignored the views of the people who know best and who are directly affected by the changes. The Law Society, the Association of Chief Probation Officers, the National Association of Probation Officers, the Police Federation, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the National Council for Civil Liberties, to name but a few, have all opposed major parts to the Bill. In the face of such opposition, the Government have not moved an iota on the measures.
Despite this major piece of legislation, our criminal justice system is likely to remain in crisis. The Government have done nothing to get to the source of the problems that we face. The Opposition maintain that a successful criminal justice system must begin with the premise that it seeks to provide equal rights under the law and equal access to it. At present, all that many people experience is alienation from a system that treats them inappropriately and often unfairly.
In other measures that they are introducing, the Government are now seeking to offload their responsibility for the incidence of crime by telling us that we must take more care to lock up our property and take better control of our children. Of course we must do those things, but the Government cannot escape the fact that the environment that they have created has also created a divided community in which crime breeds. The Criminal Justice Bill is a mish-mash of measures. The Government want to be seen to be doing something to respond to a public who are increasingly worried by the failure of our criminal justice system to deal with rising crime rates.
We are left with the immutable fact that the Bill will not deal with the main problems. Crime will continue to increase; prisons will continue to be overcrowded. The prison, probation and police services will find it increasingly difficult to do their jobs. Worst of all, the number of victims will continue to increase. Those are the issues the Government should be tackling, rather than eroding our civil liberties. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.
§ Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his ministerial team on a Bill which, although it cannot tackle all the problems listed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), goes a long way to tackling some of them well.
I have had the doubtful privilege of being involved in the Committee stages of the Criminal Justice Bill, and of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, in both Parliaments —and my right hon. Friend played a distinguished part. I also served on the Committees which considered the Drug 329 Trafficking Offences Bill, the Public Order Bill and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, but not, I am thankful to say, on the Committee examining this Bill.
The sheer volume and complexity of the legislation that my right hon. Friend has taken through the House constitutes a distinguished record. I heard what he said about the wise advice of a predecessor who suggested that, whatever else my right hon. Friend did, he should not introduce another Criminal Justice Bill; and I make a prediction. If my right hon. Friend remains, as I hope he will, in his office for another year or so, he or his successor will be almost bound to introduce yet another Criminal Justice Bill. Some things remain to be tackled, notably in the areas of the right to silence and of the video recordings that Mr. Justice Pigot is examining. I and the hon. Member for Dewsbury made common cause on that matter.
Ultimately, we shall get on top of the crime problem not by means of legislation, but by personal responsibility and legislation. When the hon. Member for Dewsbury sought to place all the responsibility for crime and disorder in our midst on the Government, she let down herself and her party.
Finally, most of us are in the fortunate position of being able to walk away from this Bill, although no doubt their Lordships will have to put a few finishing touches to it. The police service will have to carry it out. As I said at the end of the debates on all the Bills I have mentioned, we should have a care for the additional duties that we constantly lay on the police service, and should understand that the more complex the law, the more difficult is the task that the police must undertake on behalf of us all. I wish the Bill well and congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.
§ Mr. Alex Carlile
Although the Home Secretary believes that I glared at him during the proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, I assure him that during the Committee stage of this Bill I missed his jousting style, as I missed the fencing style of the former Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), on the Criminal Justice Bill mark I. The present Minister of State has more of a knife-thrower's style, attempting to surround us with knives so that we cannot move outside the ring that he has created. That was enjoyable, too.
The Bill contained some things that were a great disappointment to me, especially—I say this as a practitioner—the incomprehensible reasons that were given for the removal of the right of peremptory challenge. Although a significant concession was made tonight on the procedure by which the courts will deal with challenges for cause, I still believe that there will be practical difficulties in dealing with jury challenges in the future. But I hope that I shall be proved wrong.
The Bill also contains some useful changes relating to video recordings—I would like that provision to go much further—forfeiture, confiscation, indecency and offensive weapons. What it cannot claim to be, although it makes significant improvements to the law, is a strategy. I suspect that we shall hear it spoken of as part of a great master plan of law and order. Although the Minister of State issues more press releases than any Minister ever known to the House, and although the Home Secretary holds more 330 press conferences per week than any Cabinet Minister ever known to the House, I fear that their master plan has yet to be revealed. This is not it.
§ Mr. Ashby
Earlier this week, the Home Office told us about the amnesty on knives. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has now told us what has happened to some of those knives—the Minister of State has been surrounding the hon. and learned Gentleman with them.
I was not a member of the Committee that examined the Bill, but I followed the proceedings carefully night after night—sometimes burning the midnight oil later than those who served on the Committee. I thank Ministers and Home Office officials for their great assistance in helping me to follow the Bill.
It would be wrong to say that the Bill is a hotch-potch. It is a portmanteau. A Bill that deals with so many matters cannot always be cohesive. I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in one sense: I believe that the Bill will be remembered, because it is the first step in the direction of radically changing the rules of evidence. Lawyers like to think that the rules of evidence are written in stone, have been devised over the centuries and must never be changed. That is not so. It is important that we should not be stuck with these tablets of stone for ever. We should examine our rules on the way in which evidence is given and be prepared to change.
Substantial changes have been made in the Bill. including the fact that the unsworn testimony of a child will no longer require corroboration. The rules on first-hand testimony and documentary evidence have also been changed.
I regret only one part of the Bill—that relating to jury challenges—but I am grateful that the Bill did not abolish juries in fraud trials. Perhaps that is the quid pro quo. As some of my hon. Friends have said, we shall see more challenging for cause. Jury trials will be extended as a result of getting rid of the peremptory challenge. Problems with juries will arise because jurors will not have been challenged, and that is the only aspect of the Bill that I regret. We will regret removing the right to jury challenge and have to introduce a measure to restore it or to formalise challenges for cause.
§ Mr. Bermingham
Just as Mary had "Calais" engraved on her heart as a sign of shame, so those of us who have served on two Criminal Justice Bills in quick succession fear that we may have those engraved on our hearts also as a sign of shame.
In two years of parliamentary time, a number of grave issues have been bypassed and a number of others have been pushed into law because it was expedient to do so. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) thought jury challenges were bad. Those hon. Members who were not in the previous Parliament will not appreciate the way in which such arguments prompted the Government to remove the peremptory challenge, a step that we shall learn to regret.
I fear that many Conservative Members do not understand many of these issues. [Interruption.] They are chattering like children pecking on the walls of nowhere. For example, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr 331 Fallon), whose manners in this place are becoming increasingly bad, may live to regret the day when we set up the American system of challenging, which may be the price we pay for this measure.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on mastering the technicalities of the Bill and leading for the Opposition in a way which does credit to the procedures of the House. I also pay credit to the Minister of State who, although not a lawyer, mastered the technicalities. He has often disgreed with me on some issues covered by the Bill. That matters not, for education is a wonderful thing and it comes with time. When we reach the third Criminal Justice Bill in the lifetime of two Parliaments, perhaps we shall be able to convert him, too.
It sometimes happens— [Interruption.]—that hon. Members come into the Chamber late at night full of ale and chatter and do not understand what is going on. That tends to spoil our proceedings, because at the concluding stages of a Bill, when those who served on the Standing Committee are being serious, they should listen to us. We are saying, in effect, "The Bill will be passed, even though we shall vote against its Third Reading; we must look at the realities. We thank the Government for the concessions they have made. They have listened to our arguments, and perhaps next time they will listen harder." On rare occasions when members of the Opposition feel able to be nice to the Government, the least that Conservative Members should do is listen to us.
This Bill now passes into history. It passes over to the practitioners, of whom I am one, and I declare that interest. Those of us who will have to deal with the practicalities of the measure fear that we shall be left with many problems. Many members of the community will have to pay the price for the inaccuracies the Bill contains, for they will lead to appeals, to delays and to suffering. For those and other reasons, I oppose the measure.
§ Mr. Dickens
When I hear praise from lawyers and then a few squeals, and when I hear praise from those representing the police, and then a few squeals, I think that we may have got it right on behalf of parents in Britain.
No Criminal Justice Bill has done more for parents and children than the one on which we shall be voting in a few minutes. Hon. Members will know that, together with them, I have fought and campaigned for about nine years for many of the things that are now in the Bill.
What a terrible thing the rules of corroboration were for a child—to be encouraged to tell when someone had abused him and yet to find that no one would listen, and when they did, to find that the judge directed the jury that it would be unsafe and improper to convict on his uncorroborated evidence. When the Bill becomes an Act, children in Britain will at last be listened to in a proper way like an adult and be entitled to be believed as an adult.
Then there is the video link which enables a child to give evidence in a comfortable room away from the court, where the child does not have to face the abuser or the accused across the court room, look at the judge and barristers in their wigs, or suffer the drama of the court that makes many of us turn to jelly. [Interruption.] Perhaps not me, but certainly many of those hon. 332 Members who did not vote for capital punishment would have turned to jelly. Those children can now be listened to in a more sensitive way.
I hope and pray that the inquiry that the Government have promised us to look into the taking of evidence from a child in the early stages of an inquiry will decide in favour of that, because a child forgets many things by the time he gets to court.
How many times have we criticised judges for living in a different world, for not reflecting public opinion, for giving too lenient a sentence? The prosecution can now seek leave to appeal against a too-lenient sentence. It is in the Bill. If I and many other hon. Members had not been right in criticising a few of our judges, our legislators and departmental people would not have included that in the Bill. But it is there, and it will be voted through tonight.
Many hon. Members were not here a few minutes ago, but we were saying that horrible photographs or videos of children mean that a child has to be procured, sometimes snatched from the roadside. It could be the child of an hon. Member one day. Children have to be procured to produce such muck, and when they are, the material is used to corrupt other adults and to entice them to look towards a child in a sexual way.
That will now come to an end, because previously when a man was found with a house full of child pornography, his defence was that it was for his own use, and he was free. Now, if any police officer goes to a house and finds anybody in possession of child pornography, in a briefcase or in the office, he will not be protected by the words, "It is for my own use." It will now be a criminal offence to be in possession of such material for one's own use.
I have waited nine years for this. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary goes to the next Conservative party conference, he will be able to hold his head high because at last he has struck a blow for the parents of Britain and for the victims. I congratulate him, his Ministers and his Department.
§ Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood)
I would like to follow on, not from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) but from a comment made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). He said that Third Reading gave an opportunity for members of the Committee to raise certain items, but it also gives those who were not on the Committee an opportunity to raise one or two points. I particularly welcome clause 34 of the Bill, which gives the prosecution the right to appeal against lenient sentences.
In my constituency, on 31 May last year, Mark Couzons was murdered in most tragic and violent circumstances. He was, by the admission of everybody who knew him, quite a lad. Some people thought badly of him; some did not. But nobody would have said that he warranted being murdered in such a way. When the case came to court in December, James Nelder was tried and found guilty of manslaughter, late on a Friday afternoon, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. That was the sentence of the judge.
Up to now, that has been the final stage of the legal process. As a result of this Bill it will be possible for the prosecution to appeal, if it believes that it is appropriate. 333 There is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my constituents that that sentence was far too lenient. It was not in the mind of the judge that it was too lenient.
It is appropriate that in cases such as this, the prosecution should have the right to consider an appeal. If there is not, the impact that such a sentence may have on the morale of the police and the community is very substantial indeed. People will have confidence in sentences if they are subject to review in these or similar circumstances. If they are not, there is a danger that the law will be brought progressively into disrepute; people will believe that they have been treated unfairly in comparison with others whom they see as receiving more lenient sentences for more violent crimes.
For that reason, and because of the experience of my constituents, I wholeheartedly endorse this Bill and welcome in particular clause 34.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 105.336
|Division No. 390]||[11.37 pm|
|Alexander, Richard||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Day, Stephen|
|Allason, Rupert||Devlin, Tim|
|Amess, David||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Arbuthnot, James||Dicks, Terry|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Douglas-Hamillton, Lord James|
|Ashby, David||Dover, Den|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Dunn, Bob|
|Atkins, Robert||Durant, Tony|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)|
|Baldry, Tony||Evennett, David|
|Batiste, Spencer||Fallon, Michael|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Favell, Tony|
|Benyon, W.||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Forman, Nigel|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Boswell, Tim||Forth, Eric|
|Bottomley, Peter||Franks, Cecil|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Freeman, Roger|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||French, Douglas|
|Bowis, John||Gardiner, George|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Gill, Christopher|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Brazier, Julian||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||Gow, Ian|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Gregory, Conal|
|Burns, Simon||Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')|
|Burt, Alistair||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Butcher, John||Grist, Ian|
|Butler, Chris||Ground, Patrick|
|Butterfill, John||Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Cash, William||Hannam, John|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Harris, David|
|Colvin, Michael||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Conway, Derek||Hawkins, Christopher|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)||Hayes, Jerry|
|Cope, Rt Hon John||Hayward, Robert|
|Couchman, James||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Cran, James||Heddle, John|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)|
|Curry, David||Hind, Kenneth|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Holt, Richard||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Portillo, Michael|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Price, Sir David|
|Hunter, Andrew||Raffan, Keith|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Redwood, John|
|Irvine, Michael||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Jack, Michael||Riddick, Graham|
|Janman, Tim||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Key, Robert||Ryder, Richard|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Knapman, Roger||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Knowles, Michael||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Knox, David||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Lamont, Rt Hon Norman||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Lang, Ian||Shersby, Michael|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Sims, Roger|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)||Speller, Tony|
|Lightbown, David||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|Lilley, Peter||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Squire, Robin|
|Luce, Rt Hon Richard||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|McCrindle, Robert||Steen, Anthony|
|Macfarlane, Sir Neil||Stern, Michael|
|MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)||Stevens, Lewis|
|Maclean, David||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Sumberg, David|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael||Summerson, Hugo|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Madel, David||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Malins, Humfrey||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Mans, Keith||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Marland, Paul||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich)|
|Marlow, Tony||Thorne, Neil|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Thurnham, Peter|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Tracey, Richard|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Trippier, David|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Miller, Sir Hal||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Mills, Iain||Walden, George|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Waller, Gary|
|Mitchell, David (Hants NW)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Moate, Roger||Warren, Kenneth|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Watts, John|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Wells, Bowen|
|Morrison, Sir Charles||Wheeler, John|
|Moss, Malcolm||Whitney, Ray|
|Neale, Gerrard||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Nelson, Anthony||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Neubert, Michael||Wilkinson, John|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley||Wood, Timothy|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Woodcock, Mike|
|Page, Richard||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Patnick, Irvine||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Patten, John (Oxford W)||Mr. Robert Boscawen and|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.|
|Allen, Graham||Bell, Stuart|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Bermingham, Gerald|
|Battle, John||Boateng, Paul|
|Beckett, Margaret||Boyes, Roland|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Caborn, Richard||Leighton, Ron|
|Callaghan, Jim||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Clay, Bob||Loyden, Eddie|
|Clelland, David||McAllion, John|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Macdonald, Calum A.|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||McFall, John|
|Cryer, Bob||McKelvey, William|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||McWilliam, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||Madden, Max|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Dewar, Donald||Meale, Alan|
|Dixon, Don||Michael, Alun|
|Doran, Frank||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Eastham, Ken||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Morley, Elliott|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Mullin, Chris|
|Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)||Murphy, Paul|
|Foster, Derek||Nellist, Dave|
|Foulkes, George||O'Neill, Martin|
|Fyfe, Maria||Pendry, Tom|
|Galloway, George||Pike, Peter L.|
|George, Bruce||Prescott, John|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Gordon, Mildred||Randall, Stuart|
|Graham, Thomas||Rogers, Allan|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Rooker, Jeff|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Grocott, Bruce||Rowlands, Ted|
|Henderson, Doug||Salmond, Alex|
|Hinchliffe, David||Skinner, Dennis|
|Holland, Stuart||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Hood, Jimmy||Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Turner, Dennis||Worthington, Tony|
|Vaz, Keith||Wray, Jimmy|
|Wardell, Gareth (Gower)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Wareing, Robert N.||Mr. Frank Haynes and|
|Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)||Mr. Frank Cook.|
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.