HC Deb 11 January 1994 vol 235 cc123-35

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill ("the Bill"), it is expedient to authorize—

  1. (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—
    1. (a) for making grants—
    1. (i) in connection with measures intended to prevent crime or reduce the fear of crime;
    2. (ii) towards security costs incurred in relation to party conferences in Great Britain;
    1. (b) for making payments under contracts made by him with other persons for the provision by those other persons of premises, services or the discharge of functions for or in relation to offenders and other persons;
    2. (c) in respect of administrative expenses incurred by him under the Act;
    3. (d) for defraying the expenses of members of lay panels of observers charged with duties in relation to offenders transported or held in pursuance of escort arrangements made by him under the Act; and
  2. (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

10.18 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

We should not let this motion be passed on the nod. Although the sums contained in the clause dealing with the financial effects of the Bill are not astronomical, some questions should be asked. For a start, clauses 1 to 15 relate to the design and building of secure training centres. It is made clear that no cost is expected because such centres are to be built by the private sector. However, it is made clear also that the costs in relation to the provision of secure training centres and the cost of care in the community will be about £30 million minimum.

That is not a sum that we can lightly ignore and I would like the Minister to give me the information as to what proportion of the estimated £30 million a year—the paragraph makes it clear that it is in excess of that amount —will be devoted to servicing the private construction of the secure training centres. Clearly, the private sector will build secure training centres not because of its concern for the huge rise in crime levels under the Conservative Government but because the investment will have some sort of return.

I assume that the return will be paid for from the £30 million mentioned in the first paragraph, dealing with clauses 1 to 15 under the financial effects of the Bill. We should know what sort of investment and reward there will be in private secure training centres. Will it be calculated on the basis of an annual return of, say, 5, 6 or 7 per cent.? What proportion of the £30 million-plus per year which is authorised in the money resolution will be paid to the private sector by the taxpayer?

As the Government are placing such emphasis not only on clauses 1 to 15 but on others, I should have thought that they would provide the House with information about such expenditure. We should know just how much of the taxpayer's money authorised under the money resolution is available as rich pickings for the private sector.

I do not want to stray down different roads, but there have been controversial revelations about abuse of legislation by wealthy Tory Members of Parliament, and we want to see that the expenditure is authorised by the House in as cast iron a way as possible. We expect the Government to have made very precise calculations so that they can place them before the House before we agree to the money resolution.

My second point relates to clauses 52 and 53, which deal with aggravated trespass. This is a new set of powers and I understand perfectly well that the Government may have some difficulty in making precise calculations. In the paragraph they say that it is difficult to predict the costs and that the best available estimate, apparently, will be of the order of £300,000. What concerns me is the fact that—there is universal agreement about this—police forces are badly stretched and very much in need of every possible allocation of money to stem the rising tide of Tory crime.

Under clauses 52 and 53, expenditure is estimated at around £300,000, but it could be more and is likely to be more. Those powers have never been exercisable by the police before and the costs will come out of existing resources. It is expected that they are to be met from existing resources. What will happen under the money resolution?

The West Yorkshire police authority needs to put more bobbies on the beat, but the allocation of resources to it by central Government does not permit that. The cuts in central Government funding prevent the police having a presence on the streets, the highways and byways and the estates.

If the police say to the Minister that the exercise of the powers has been such that expenditure cannot be contained within the estimates of the Home Office because the Home Office has got it wrong—that would come as no great shock—will he use his powers to give them an additional grant so that other areas are not deprived of police services because of that Home Office miscalculation? It would be ironic if that happened.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

It is possible to get the money needed because in 1984, during the miners' strike, the Government decided that they needed more police, on more overtime, in all the coalfield areas. The police arrested 9,000 miners. That cost a small fortune, but the Government found the money. Now the Government are refusing the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council an extra 112 police officers to combat crime. Finding the money is a matter of political will. The Government did it before when it served their purpose to try to smash the National Union of Mineworkers. They could do it now.

Mr. Cryer

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I am asking the Minister whether the additional finances will be available and authorised under the money resolution. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is sitting below the Gangway, will recall that he brought a money resolution before the House and some of us raised some criticisms of it, which he brushed aside. Later on, he had to come back to the House for another money resolution because some of the activities resulting from the Bill were not covered by the first one. As I recall, he also served in the Home Office, which is now the subject of the money resolution.

That is why I am asking the Minister to assure us first that any additional funds which should be paid to police authorities under that clause are authorised and secondly that he will provide the political will so that police forces are not handicapped by these additional responsibilities.

On clauses 54 and 55, which deal with mass trespass, the Home Office draftsmen use the same phraseology. They cannot make an accurate estimate because it is difficult to estimate the number of additional operations that might be mounted, but they say that the combined cost of 10 operations per annum is expected to be about £300,000. That is £600,000 in two parts of the Bill which will be expected to come from existing resources.

Will the funding of the provisions on mass trespass come from own resources or additional funding? I see here my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who were with me at a meeting of the West Yorkshire police authority. It was said that resources for the police authority are stretched to the utmost and that it needs more money, rather than more obligations which will simply make policing much less effective.

I know that others wish to speak—I welcome proper examination and deliberation of money motions and I hope that this new trend will continue—but I wish to refer to the provision for contracting out prison services in England, Wales and Scotland and prisoner escorts in Northern Ireland. The Government say that this will introduce competition, thus reducing costs in the long run. I find that surprising. Does the motion cover the possibility of additional expenditure?

If those services are contracted out, will the prison officers and prisoner escorts who are currently employed —and who, so far as I know, are doing a perfectly good job —be made redundant? If so, will redundancy payments be made? Given the smug scale suggested by the paragraphs covering clauses 69 to 77, 78 to 93 and 94 to 101, there may well be a significant number of redundancies.

Will people who are currently doing routine, decent. law-abiding jobs be put on the scrap heap, or will they receive the sort of redundancy pay that Ministers have received—under House of Commons legislation—when they have been kicked out of the Government for whatever reason? Whether they have been kicked out because their faces do not fit any more, because they have fallen out with the Prime Minister or because they have not accurately revealed the background of relationships in which they have indulged, they have received money.

The motion should have provided that those who are made redundant as a result of the Government's ideological obsession with sacking people in the public service and handing over the work to their friends in the private sector should receive adequate compensation and not just the legal minimum. If they are to be kicked out, why should the Government not give them a fair deal? Why should the Government not give them enhanced redundancy pay to ensure that they can deal with the uphill task of finding a new job in difficult circumstances? I want the Minister to give a guarantee that there will be no redundancies: the motion would then not need to cover the question of extra payments.

If people are made redundant, however, they will have a job finding new employment. Beneath this facade—which will cost between £40 million and £50 million a year, and which we are being asked to authorize—is the underlying corruption: the Government's failure to produce an economic policy that will provide full employment. Study after study now demonstrates the clear link between the cancer of unemployment and the rising tide of crime—and the Government have made no effort to solve that problem.

10.33 pm
Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport)

None of the Government's legislation has ever been backed by sufficient money to make it workable or effective. Clauses 1 to 15 deal with the financial consequences of providing secure training places. Is the Minister aware of the current cost of secure accommodation? It costs approximately £2,000 a week per child. At the end of March 1992, 238 children were in secure accommodation, at a cost of £2,000 a week: the total cost was nearly £25 million a year.

The cornerstone of the Government's fight against juvenile crime is plainly to increase the number of children in secure accommodation/training centres. Doubling the number of children in secure training centres will cost about £50 million a year. That is far in excess of the £30 million that the Government say will cover the costs of secure training centres. I refer here to the revenue costs, not the capital costs; the private sector may build the centres, but someone will have to pay for the places in them. And the private sector is not averse to putting the revenue costs sky high so as to recoup the capital costs incurred.

Will the Government regulate the revenue costs of these centres? If not, they will find themselves paying a mammoth bill to the private sector for secure places. The same thing happens in the private rented sector—landlords charge far more than the market rents assessed by the rent officers, and the taxpayers pick up the bill. Again and again, public money is ploughed into the private sector. The private sector is bleeding the public services dry, and the same will happen again with this legislation.

Who will pay for after-care and supervision? After-care demands social work time and often it demands special educational provision, because these young people frequently cannot be accommodated in local schools. Such extra provision is costly. Will local authorities have the money to pay for it? We should remember that the. Government have in effect capped every local authority in the land, so what authorities spend on one item, they cannot spend on another. Will this legislation further bleed local authorities of their finance so that they cannot put money into genuinely needed preventive measures to stop the cycle—

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

I am interested in the line that my hon. Friend is taking. As I read the Bill, the Government are saying that they are not too sure how much is involved. They give a rough estimate of £30 million, but my hon. Friend suggests that they do not intend to pay all the costs. Surely the Minister intends to meet all the costs implicit in the range of services and after-care that will be involved. It would be scandalous if the Minister did not intend to provide all the necessary finance for the implications, as well as the direct costs, of this Bill.

Ms Coffey

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. At present, local authorities pay for secure accommodation. In Stockport there are four children in such accommodation, at a cost to the social services budget of £500,000 a year. Surely the Minister does not expect local authorities to carry such costs. I hope that the Home Office will pay the full costs of providing training places. I hope for an assurance to that effect from the Minister tonight.

Perhaps the figures that the Minister has provided are naive; perhaps not. Perhaps this is just the latest example of a recurring phenomenon: legislation burdening local authorities with more and more costs. I remind the Minister that cost cutting has already led to valuable crime prevention measures not being introduced. Because of the overwhelming rise in the tide of crime, the police can no longer put time into crime prevention activities, or speak to informal groups, or get involved in the valuable work of drawing the community into a partnership with them. Owing to a lack of money, street lighting programmes, which the evidence shows reduce both crime and the fear of crime, have been stopped by many local authorities.

I was horrified to learn of the consequences of another cost-cutting exercise. I have been told that, from time to time, the prison service considers it financially inappropriate to produce a prisoner at court. There was a recent example when a prison outside Greater Manchester considered that it was not cost-effective to produce a defendant at court because the likely sentence would not materially affect the sentence that he was currently serving. Clearly, the prison was exercising a judgment about justice on cost-cutting grounds.

We have heard today about the Government's commitment to justice and to bringing criminals to book for the offences which they commit. Do they not understand that their own legislation and meanness, and their failure and refusal to put resources into the criminal justice system, have caused the crime which is rampant on our streets? It is not acceptable for the prison service to make a judgment that somebody should not be produced at court because of the cost. People should appear at court to be charged with the offences they commit, and the public are concerned about that.

Never mind the justice system—half the offences committed are not detected, and people are not charged. That is not surprising if the prison service will not take them to court because it is concerned about the cost. The Government must seriously look at the money that they are prepared to provide, and they must give the House an assurance that they will provide finance for secure training centres for after-care and the supervision for preventive measures.

The legislation will mean that money will be taken out of the preventive services. I would hate to see local authorities being unable to provide pre-school education or nursery education because they had to provide extra costs for special education for young offenders, necessary though that may be. Everybody knows that there is a link between pre-school and nursery education and later offending. A child's failure within the education system is a significant factor in his later patterns of behaviour.

If we had universal education for the under-fives—I believe that the Prime Minister supports that—we would have fewer children failing in the system, and fewer children who were being disruptive as young offenders. If the legislation goes through, and if the Government do not provide the money to local authorities, we will not see the preventive measures which are necessary. I ask the Minister again for assurances on who is providing the costs for training centres.

10.43 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)

My remarks will follow along the same lines as the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) but will relate to a part of the country that I know well.

Mr. Skinner

Tower Hamlets?

Mr. Hughes

I have spent rather a lot of time dealing with Tower Hamlets in recent months, but tonight I shall concentrate on Southwark, which in many respects has some of the same attributes as Stockport.

I want to relate specifically to the part of the money resolution which allows the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to pay money provided by us for making grants specifically in connection with measures intended to prevent crime or reduce the fear of crime. I intended to cite the figures, but in tonight's edition of the Evening Standard there is a small news item which states that 14 boroughs in London are among the poorest in the country. The item quotes a survey carried out by the Association of London Authorities which shows that the borough of Southwark is the second most deprived borough in England. It also shows that under the new local government allocations for the coming financial year the borough's funding will be reduced by 1.4 per cent. to £3.5 million. I should add in fairness that the article makes a similar point about other local authorities, and Newham is the local authority at the top of the list.

I represent one third of the borough of Southwark. One of the things which a borough such as ours suffers from as part of its deprivation is high unemployment. It gives me no pleasure to represent a borough with one of the 10 highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom. The Government always contend that crime and unemployment are not related, but it does not look that way to people who live in areas where there is high unemployment and who see from the figures that there is a high incidence of crime.

On Friday 7 January another study, which was reported in The Guardian and carried out by Cambridge economist David Dickinson, suggested—it is not the first survey to do so—that rising unemployment means rising burglary, which by definition clearly means rising crime.

The local community, in collaboration with the police —

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he seems to be going rather wide of the money order. He must relate his remarks more closely to it.

Mr. Hughes

I hope that you will understand that I am not going wide of the subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am seeking to make a bid for money for Southwark for schemes to reduce the fear of crime and to prevent crime. I was merely explaining why that is especially important in a borough such as ours because we have such high crime levels and such high unemployment. That was the background, but it is also right to concentrate on the foreground and on the schemes that I have in mind.

Mr. Michael

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it should be our aspiration not to put things right in the odd borough here and there but to plan comprehensively for safer communities in every town and city and in every part of every city in England and Wales?

Mr. Hughes

Of course it should. The hon. Gentleman knows that I would agree with that, but he should also understand that I am speaking in support of my community, which has particularly high unemployment and crime levels.

I am asking the Minister to deal with a request that comes not only from me but from the community consultative group of the Metropolitan police, the local authority and the other forums that have been set up. We face the prospect that significant amounts of funding will be withdrawn from Southwark. The money for the North Peckham task force is to be withdrawn at the end of March. We had a lock-fitting service for pensioners, disabled people, single parents and victims of crimes—3,000 locks have been fitted in three years—but that service will come to an end.

Under the money order, the Government have the power to grant money to reduce the fear of crime and to prevent crime. One obvious way to do that must be by enabling people to have securely locked homes and by protecting the victims of crime. The figures clearly suggest that about 80 per cent. of crimes are committed where there has previously been a crime. Someone burgles a house, looks around and goes back for more, so the victims of crime are the most vulnerable. We cannot have a situation in which a borough with a particularly high crime rate and fear of crime does not get the money that it needs.

I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether, if this provision is approved by the House, Southwark's high crime level and the fear of crime there will be recognised. Will money be granted to reimburse the Metropolitan police, who are about to carry out a £10,000 survey, which they are paying for, to detect the causes of the fear of crime? Will he ensure that boroughs such as mine and the police do not end up out of pocket? They have to put more of their resources into our area, but that is not reflected in the assessed requirements of a community such as mine.

One of the schemes that has been set up is a three-month pilot project for personal alarms in the homes of victims of violent crime who are still at risk from their attackers, whether the attacks involve domestic violence, racial harassment or other crime. If that pilot project is seen to work, as many people believe that it will be, will it and similar projects be able to be the subject of a bid under the Bill and under the money resolution? Will they allow the funding of such initiatives, which will hugely improve the quality of life in inner-city boroughs such as mine? It is no use the Government dealing with generalities unless they also ensure that things are fair area by area, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) argued. On behalf of the people of Southwark and the people of Bermondsey, I want to know whether we shall get some money specifically to achieve the objectives of the money resolution—to reduce the fear of crime and to prevent the amount of crime from which many of my constituents now suffer.

10.50 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)

I shall be brief because I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak and that we are short of time. I shall refer to two points on the money resolution, both of which have been referred to by previous speakers. The first concerns clauses 1 to 15, and the design and build of secure training centres and their operation being put out to private tender—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there are too many private conversations taking place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—on both sides of the House: I repeat, on both sides of the House.

Mr. Gerrard

Leaving aside the issue of who in the private sector will be interested in taking on such work and why, it is not just the design and build, but the operation that is being put out to tender. I recall what happened when a decision was made, under money resolutions, to put out to private tender the operation of prisons.

A consequence is that, when hon. Members try to obtain information about what is happening inside those prisons, they are told, "You cannot have that information. It is the subject of commercial confidentiality. Because it has been put out to tender, it is now commercially confidential." Can the Minister tell us whether we shall face exactly the same problems when trying to find out what is going on in the secure training centres when they are being operated by a private tenderer?

The other issue is grants, to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred. The point has been made many times about the need for measures to prevent crime. The power for grants to reduce the fear of crime is contained in clause 114. I should include within that the making of grants for victim support schemes. At present, we have a victim support scheme that rests on volunteers, which is funded to the tune of £10 million a year.

The Minister should consider seriously whether it is time for us to look to much more professionally run and professionally funded victim support schemes, especially schemes that can give long-term advice to people, such as the families of murder victims, who need it. How much money, specifically, will be made available?

The explanatory and financial memorandum outlines the financial effects of the Bill and concludes: No other provisions of the Bill are expected to have significant financial effects. Clause 114 relates to the provision of grants to prevent crime and to reduce the fear of it, but it is not mentioned under the section dealing with the Bill's financial effects. Can we therefore assume that that clause will not have any significant financial effect and that no significant money will be found under the Bill to prevent crime and to reduce the fear of it?

10.54 pm
Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South)

I am aware of the time constraint, so I will be extremely brief.

I spent election day 1992 waiting for the police to come to investigate a burglary at my constituency home. Since then, I have been the victim of crime seven times. I have suffered two other burglaries, two car thefts and three instances of vandalism. I would therefore greatly welcome any measures that contained crime, given that I have suffered so much as a victim of it in the short time since I was elected.

Has sufficient money been provided under the Bill to finance the measures necessary to cope with young people? The Government have not told us why the arrangement in Leeds, whereby a certain capital sum was accepted to cover an extra 10 secure places, has not been followed up. Why are Ministers unwilling to come clean on the fact that the bed bureau in Leeds has revealed that there is a grave shortage of local authority secure accommodation? Will money be made available to provide the necessary local accommodation? That is a major issue.

Mr. Michael

I notice that the Minister is silent. He is even yawning, because he does not seem to be interested in such issues. According to the figures in the money resolution, it appears that there will be only just enough money, at a minimum level, to cover the servicing of the capital costs—the payment of interest—plus running costs, also a minimum level, for ordinary secure accommondation. No adequate provision has been made for profit on top of those costs. Therefore, no money will be available to cover all the other issues contained in the Bill. The Minister should come clean and answer my hon. Friend's question. He should also say whether what I have said is an accurate calculation.

Mr. Gunnell

It is obvious that the clauses on trespass will create a new class of law breakers. The time and resources that the police will devote to dealing with them will therefore detract from the current use of police resources.

Under clause 61, the number of genuine camping sites for gipsies will be reduced. I helped to provide the capital for two such sites, but they will no longer receive any Government grant towards their maintenance. That means that fewer sites will be available and that those who use them will lose their current stability. They will be found parking illegally because of that shortage of legal sites, and will be moved on by the police. That often creates conditions that are distressing to local residents, and I am afraid that the incidence of such illegal parking is bound to increase, because those who have travelled for years will be unable to find a genuine site on which to stay.

Clause 76(2)(b) provides for private contracting for prison ships. Can the Minister tell me what discussions led to the introduction of that clause? Clearly, we would not be providing for a prison ship unless there was some definitive proposal in mind. One would like to know what sums of money are being talked about for contracting out in such an arrangement.

Evidence from abroad suggests that prison ships are not that secure. In view of the record of the private sector so far in fulfilling the remit given to it by the Home Office, an insecure prison ship would be a recipe for great distress for those who lived anywhere near the coastline where the ship was moored. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what discussions have taken place, what costs have been spoken of and what are the value-for-money implications of a prison ship as opposed to other forms of centre.

11 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)

I have listened carefully to this short debate, and I shall respond in a few moments to the particular points raised by hon. Members. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is a big piece of legislation. It takes forward most of the 27 measures that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced at the conference in October. It underlines the Government's commitment to take firm action against crime and to protect the public. As one would expect from such a large and significant package of measures, and as the money resolution makes clear, the Bill will create new charges on public funds.

The money resolution makes it clear that some of the provisions in the Bill will, in effect, be delivered by the private sector entering into a contractual relationship with the Government. We are proud of the link that is developing between the public and the private sectors, and there is no reason why the two should not work together closely to their mutual benefit.

Mr. Michael

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean

I have one minute left to answer the debate; I shall not give way.

There are certainly lessons that the public sector can learn from the private sector in terms of providing services efficiently, effectively and economically. Equally, there is much that the private sector can learn from the public sector.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked about secure training centres. Those centres and related services will be provided after a period of competitive tendering. Of course we cannot declare in advance our precise estimates of the likely contract cost. The financial memorandum to the Bill states the overall cost, including supervision in the community following the secure part of the order. We recognise that the cost is likely to be just in excess of £30 million.

The framework for involving providers will comply to contracts. The contracts will be entered into following a tendering process between the Home Office and a private sector company for the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the centre. On the basis of that contract—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business):—

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 111.

Division No. 59] [11.02 pm
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Aitken, Jonathan Baldry, Tony
Alexander, Richard Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Bates, Michael
Alton, David Batiste, Spencer
Amess, David Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Ancram, Michael Bellingham, Henry
Arnold, Jacques(Gravesham) Bendall, Vivian
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) Beresford, Sir Paul
Aspinwall, Jack Biffen, Rt Hon John
Atkins, Robert Blackburn, Dr John G.
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) Body, Sir Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Booth, Hartley Gillan, Cheryl
Boswell, Tim Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bowden, Andrew Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Bowis, John Gorst, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Brandreth, Gyles Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brazier, Julian Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bright, Graham Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Hague, William
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Browning, Mrs. Angela Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Hampson, Dr Keith
Budgen, Nicholas Hanley, Jeremy
Burns, Simon Hannam, Sir John
Burt, Alistair Hargreaves, Andrew
Butler, Peter Harris, David
Butterfill, John Haselhurst, Alan
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Hawkins, Nick
Carlisle, John (Luton North) Hawksley, Warren
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Hayes, Jerry
Carrington, Matthew Heald, Oliver
Carttiss, Michael Hendry, Charles
Cash, William Hicks, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Chapman, Sydney Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Churchill, Mr Horam, John
Clappison, James Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Coe, Sebastian Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Colvin, Michael Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Congdon, David Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Conway, Derek Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) Hunter, Andrew
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Jack, Michael
Couchman, James Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Cran, James Jenkin, Bernard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) Jessel, Toby
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Davies, Quentin (Stamford) Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Davis, David (Boothferry) Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Day, Stephen Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Deva, Nirj Joseph Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Devlin, Tim Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Key, Robert
Dover, Den Kilfedder, Sir James
Duncan, Alan King, Rt Hon Tom
Duncan-Smith, Iain Kirkwood, Archy
Dunn, Bob Knapman, Roger
Durant, Sir Anthony Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dykes, Hugh Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Eggar, Tim Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Elletson, Harold Knox, Sir David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth) Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Evennett, David Legg, Barry
Faber, David Leigh, Edward
Fabricant, Michael Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Fenner, Dame Peggy Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Lidington, David
Fishburn, Dudley Lightbown, David
Forman, Nigel Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Lord, Michael
Forth, Eric Luff, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) Lynne, Ms Liz
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger MacKay, Andrew
French, Douglas Maclean, David
Fry, Sir Peter McLoughlin, Patrick
Gale, Roger McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Gallie, Phil Maddock, Mrs Diana
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan Madel, Sir David
Garnier, Edward Maitland, Lady Olga
Gill, Christopher Major, Rt Hon John
Malone, Gerald Sims, Roger
Mans, Keith Skeet, Sir Trevor
Marland, Paul Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Marlow, Tony Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Soames, Nicholas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Spencer, Sir Derek
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mellor, Rt Hon David Spink, Dr Robert
Merchant, Piers Spring, Richard
Milligan, Stephen Sproat, Iain
Mills, Iain Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Moate, Sir Roger Steen, Anthony
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James Stephen, Michael
Monro, Sir Hector Stern, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Stewart, Allan
Moss, Malcolm Streeter, Gary
Needham, Richard Sumberg, David
Nelson, Anthony Sweeney, Walter
Neubert, Sir Michael Sykes, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Tapsell, Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Norris, Steve Thomason, Roy
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Oppenheim, Phillip Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Ottaway, Richard Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Paice, James Thurnham, Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian Townend, John (Bridlington)
Patnick, Irvine Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Tracey, Richard
Pawsey, James Tredinnick, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Trend, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Twinn, Dr Ian
Porter, David (Waveney) Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael Viggers, Peter
Powell, William (Corby) Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Rathbone, Tim Wallace, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John Waller, Gary
Rendel, David Ward, John
Ronton, Rt Hon Tim Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Richards, Rod Waterson, Nigel
Riddick, Graham Watts, John
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm Wells, Bowen
Robathan, Andrew Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Whitney, Ray
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Whittingdale, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Widdecombe, Ann
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Ross, William (E Londonderry) Wilkinson, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) Willetts, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela Wilshire, David
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Sackville, Tom Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim Wolfson, Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas Wood, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover) Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian Tellers for the Ayes:
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Mr. James Arbuthnot
Shersby, Michael
Adams, Mrs Irene Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Clapham, Michael
Armstrong, Hilary Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Austin-Walker, John Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Clelland, David
Barnes, Harry Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Battle, John Coffey, Ann
Bayley, Hugh Cohen, Harry
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret Connarty, Michael
Betts, Clive Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Boyes, Roland Corbyn, Jeremy
Bradley, Keith Corston, Ms Jean
Caborn, Richard Cryer, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence Meale, Alan
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Darling, Alistair Milburn, Alan
Davidson, Ian Miller, Andrew
Dewar, Donald Moonie, Dr Lewis
Dixon, Don Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Etherington, Bill O'Neill, Martin
Fatchett, Derek Parry, Robert
Faulds, Andrew Patchett, Terry
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Pickthall, Colin
George, Bruce Pike, Peter L.
Gerrard, Neil Pope, Greg
Godman, Dr Norman A. Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Golding, Mrs Llin Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Gunnell, John Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hain, Peter Primarolo, Dawn
Hall, Mike Purchase, Ken
Hanson, David Raynsford, Nick
Harman, Ms Harriet Reid, Dr John
Henderson, Doug Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Heppell, John Rooney, Terry
Hill, Keith (Streatham) Short, Clare
Hood, Jimmy Simpson, Alan
Hoon, Geoffrey Skinner, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN) Snape, Peter
Hutton, John Spearing, Nigel
Illsley, Eric Spellar, John
Ingram, Adam Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) Steinberg, Gerry
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) Straw, Jack
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn) Turner, Dennis
Kilfoyle, Peter Vaz, Keith
Lewis, Terry Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Llwyd, Elfyn Wigley, Dafydd
Loyden, Eddie Wilson, Brian
Macdonald, Calum Wise, Audrey
Mackinlay, Andrew Worthington, Tony
McMaster, Gordon Wray, Jimmy
McWilliam, John
Mahon, Alice Tellers for the Noes:
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) Mr. Bill Olner and
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) Mr. George Mudie.
Maxton, John

Question accordingly agreed to.


That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill ("the Bill"), it is expedient to authorize—

  1. (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—
    1. (a) for making grants—
      1. (i) in connection with measures intended to prevent crime or reduce the fear of crime;
      2. (ii) towards security costs incurred in relation to party conferences in Great Britain;
    2. (b) for making payments under contracts made by him with other persons for the provision by those other persons of premises, services or the discharge of functions for or in relation to offenders and other persons;
    3. (c) in respect of administrative expenses incurred by him under the Act;
    4. (d) for defraying the expenses of members of lay panels of observers charged with duties in relation to offenders transported or held in pursuance of escort arrangements made by him under the Act; and
  2. (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money provided by Parliament.