HC Deb 26 April 1995 vol 258 cc912-23

'.The Commission shall defray any reasonable costs incurred by any police authority in the carrying out of inquiries or investigations by any of its police officers in pursuance of a direction given by the Commission under the terms of this Act.'.—[Mr. Beith]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Beith

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 7, in schedule 1, page 23, line 25, at end insert—

'The report shall include a breakdown of the costs of investigations during the relevant year, including—

  1. (a) the Commission's own costs,
  2. (b) the costs falling to each police authority, and
  3. (c) the costs falling to any other body during the year covered by the report.'.

Mr. Beith

The explanatory and financial memorandum appended to the Bill when it was first presented to the House was seriously misleading because it implied that there were no additional costs to public bodies other than those specified, which the commission would incur and which are provided for. Police forces carrying out investigations which the commission directs them to carry out will incur enormous costs. Some investigations may cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, which will make a significant mark on those police authorities' budgets.

Police authorities are newly created authorities of a quite different form from the previous local authority committees and joint committees which ran the police service outside London. The Home Office has given the new police authorities budgets and they are just beginning to implement that system. Because they are new, they will not have accumulated reserves; nor can they call on the general reserves of a local authority, as might have been possible under the old system when they were local authority committees. Thus they have no recourse to alternative financing if they are hit by the significant costs of an investigation.

7.15 pm

The Association of Chief Police Officers raised concerns from the beginning about how the costs were to be met. Most police authorities are under severe pressure and believe that the new budgets cannot achieve the level of service that the Home Office assumes, partly because of difficulties such as the high cost of police pensions, which in many authorities are significantly higher than the figures assumed by the Home Office when it set out the budgets. That is for a series of reasons, such as the pattern of retirement relating to the years in which officers were recruited in larger numbers and the consequences of the Sheehy report, and it is one of many factors which lead many police authorities to say that their budgets are under severe pressure.

The Home Secretary has told police authorities that they are free to appoint extra officers under the new system. But they can do so only if they reallocate funds from other parts of their budgets. The Home Secretary recognises that his budgetary provisions do not assume funds for additional officers, but says that forces which reallocate within their budgets and make prudent resource decisions should be able to provide for additional officers. But what will happen if a force does so having said that it will make no provision for any investigation which the commission may direct it to carry out? I am glad that the Home Secretary is here to tell us what his response will be if a police authority tells him, "The commission that you set up requires us to conduct an inquiry costing £500,000, but you earlier advised us that we should adjust our budgets so that if we need extra officers we can appoint them. We have appointed extra officers and have no money left in our budget to finance an investigation on that scale, so if the commission directs us to do so will it please tell us who will pay for it?" The current assumption in the Bill is that the police authority must nevertheless find the money out of non-existent reserves and without the capacity to bring in an extra levy or a supplementary council tax in the middle of the year to cover it. So how is that money to be found?

Furthermore, police authorities can be capped individually if their expenditure is above what the Home Office considers appropriate. They may already have been capped. What does a capped police authority do when the commission directs it to carry out a major inquiry, either into something that has happened in its own force in the past or into something that has happened in another force where the chief officer has recognised—he cannot be forced to do so—the merits of the matter being investigated by another force? Investigations will be passed around like parcels at a party as police authorities say that they cannot afford to do any more because they have no more money in their budgets.

Investigations can be extremely costly. Pay, overtime, travel, allowances, paperwork and computer costs all need to be funded. Through overtime or some other means, officers must carry out the work of other officers diverted to an inquiry, who may have important investigating or management roles within the police force concerned. Unless we make provision for reimbursement to the authority of the cost of an inquiry, the clause will take officers away from dealing with crime and preventing crime, and may do so disproportionately in some forces. A small force with a matter from its own area to investigate may be hit disproportionately. One of the smaller police forces might emerge as particularly good at carrying out inquiries so that officers have to be brought in from another force. However, it may quickly realise that that is not a good idea. Developing a skill, facility and reputation for carrying out inquiries in other police force areas will be disastrous if the effect of doing so is to clobber the police authority budget and take officers away from operational duties in tackling and preventing crime.

We remain extremely concerned, therefore, at the lack of proper financial arrangements for police authorities. If arrangements are not made, officers will be taken away from important front-line duties without the authority having the means to make up the gap. We all recognise that police officers must sometimes be diverted into that work as it is an important part of the criminal justice system, as they are now, under arrangements with the Home Office. The new authority may, however, be more onerous in its demands as to what the inquiry should involve. I think that the Minister conceded that because the commission, he claims, has power of supervision, it may well make more exacting requirements in some cases than the Home Office has done hitherto.

The Government have also recognised, in their funding and assumptions about the commission, that there will be a bulge—perhaps even a rush—of applications in the first year or two, arising from the backlog in recent years. That will similarly affect police authorities. However, no provision has been made for the extra quantity of inquiries that will land on them, at a greater rate than currently occurs because of anything that the Home Office might ask them to investigate. More inquiries will take place and more costs will be incurred by more police authorities.

That appears to us to be a serious deficiency in the way in which the matter is being approached, and one which will work to the detriment of fighting crime. I therefore ask the Minister to resolve the matter and tell us how authorities are to fund that work.

Mr. Michael

I agree with many of the arguments made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), especially about the inadequate estimate of the impact of costs that will arise as a result of establishing the new organisation.

As I said earlier, I am worried about the likelihood that the cost of undertaking investigations has been seriously underestimated, and that the Government have sought in effect to cut the impact on the Government's budget by shifting the burden to local police authorities. There is something curious about the idea of rewarding increased competence in an activity by giving additional burdens to those who develop that competence. It should surely be the other way round.

I wish to deal specifically with amendment No. 7, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It seeks to make the matter of cost transparent. It seeks to ensure that, in each annual report, figures are given of the costs of investigations in the relevant year.

In the amendment, we suggest three pieces of information; first, the commission's own costs; secondly, the costs falling to each police authority; and thirdly, the costs falling to any other body during the year covered by the report. The last element—the costs falling to other bodies—may be relatively small and insignificant, and providing that information should not be onerous; nevertheless, it should be there. I should have thought that the other two elements ought to be there as a matter of course, so accepting that they should be required on the face of the Bill should give no problem to the Minister.

First, the commission, if it is being competently managed, should be able to identify and analyse its own costs and the way in which its resources are being used. To require on the face of the Bill that the commission should provide that information merely ensures that the right systems and computer software are put in place when the commission is established, rather than being sought late in the day and resulting in answers to Members of Parliament along the lines of, "This information is not available in the form requested." If it is stated on the face of the Bill that we expect that kind of proper breakdown to be provided, there should be no doubt and no difficulty about providing it.

The second element—the costs falling to each police authority—is surely also sensible. It is in the public interest that the impact of the commission's work on police authorities should be open and above board—open to scrutiny and available to members of the police authorities—and that the information should be provided in a standard form. In other words, if there is an impact on one police authority, one should be able to compare that with the impact on others because the information is provided in the same way, just as other statistics are provided to the Home Office in the same form from different police forces. That would have the great benefit of making transparent something that is at present opaque.

Reference has been made to the financial estimates made by the Government at the time of Second Reading and to the fact that they bundled a variety of different issues together. We pursued that matter in Committee, when I asked the Minister a straightforward question: What is the Minister's estimate of the increase in cost? How has he made that calculation? It is only fair to quote the Minister's response. He said: I have no estimate of the increase in cost"— in other words, "I do not know; I haven't a clue; I haven't the foggiest." He then said: We have not calculated the number of officers that a hypothetical in-house team would need. However, if the commission employed its own police officers, working from some central headquarters, it is clear that additional costs, at least for allowances, would be incurred."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 March 1995; c. 90–91.] He then expanded on the subject of the additional costs of an independent team, but additional to what? We do not know: additional to a figure that the Minister and the Government have not estimated.

I have pursued that issue since the time when those matters were mentioned on Second Reading and in Committee, and I tabled a question to the Home Secretary, asking: what research projects or investigations have been undertaken by his Department or on behalf of his Department into international comparisons of the costs of investigating miscarriages of justice. I received a simple answer: "None." No investigations have been undertaken to try to establish, on comparisons elsewhere, what the costs would be to the public purse. I also asked the Minister: what research projects or investigations have been undertaken by his Department or on behalf of his Department into the costs of investigating alleged miscarriages of justice; and what conclusions were arrived at. It seems a fairly simple and straightforward piece of preparation to undertake when approaching a piece of legislation. We have argued many a time and oft that the piece of legislation before us has been long delayed, apparently because the Home Secretary was so exhaustively seeking to ensure that the organisation to investigate miscarriages of justice was set up in a considered way. It could have been set up a couple of years ago, but the Home Secretary wanted to take time to investigate everything. Well, he did not investigate the costs, and that appears to be a curious omission. The answer to that question was: Information about the present and possible future costs of investigating alleged miscarriages of justice is contained in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Criminal Appeal Bill. If that is the best that the Home Office can do, that does not amount to information that is of any use to anyone in understanding the impact of the Bill.

The Minister then responded to some questions that I asked about the work that was undertaken in conjunction with several police forces to try to investigate the costs of investigations under the present system. Information was requested from a range of police forces, and we understand that some of those forces, when asked for information about the costs of undertaking specific inquiries, including the Metropolitan police in three cases, the West Mercia constabulary in one, the Kent constabulary in two, the Thames Valley police in one and the West Yorkshire police in another, were unable to provide the information requested.

I should have thought that it was straightforward for such information to be available. If police forces undertake investigations at the request of the Home Office, I should have thought that it was fairly straightforward to ensure that the cost of those investigations was known and reportable. But it was not. That makes the case for amendment No. 7, to ensure that we are not in ignorance about the investigations undertaken on behalf of the new organisation.

An answer was available about seven of the 16 cases in which the Home Secretary sought information. Those range very widely, from a case investigated by the Lancashire constabulary costing £570.04—obviously the Lancashire constabulary undertakes careful monitoring of every penny—to a case undertaken by the Greater Manchester police at £192,913. It is not surprising that there is a vast range of cost as some investigations are simple and straightforward while others are complex. Nevertheless, the information is minimal and limited.

In response to other questions, the Minister provided an analysis of some of the inquiries conducted. The length of the inquiries varied considerably from the case involving the Lancashire constabulary of some 31 hours, to which I have referred, to periods of eight months, 84 weeks and 86 weeks. In supplying that information, the Minister pointed out: It is not the responsibility of an investigating officer to make recommendations as to what action my right hon. and learned Friend should take on a case".—[Official Report, 25 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 435–37.] The Home Secretary decided not to refer four of the cases mentioned in the Minister's response—which appears in Hansard of Tuesday 25 April—to the Court of Appeal. The other cases are still being considered.

7.30 pm

The commission's recommendations and the information that it receives will vary, as will the work of the police, in the light of the legislation. The importance of establishing this body has been stressed for a long time as it will restore confidence in the capacity of the British legal system to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice. It is therefore very important that the commission should be established properly, that the system should be transparent and that information should be available to hon. Members in a common form.

In that spirit, our amendment No. 7 would ensure that, from the time the Bill is published in its final form, those involved with the commission and those who undertake inquiries on its behalf in police forces or in other public bodies will be aware of the requirement to provide proper financial accounting for the activities that they undertake. If the Minister is not able to accept new clause 15 proposed by right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I hope that he will at least accept our modest amendment and guarantee transparency as to the cost implications of the legislation for public bodies.

Mr. Maclean

I have again listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I note the concerns that they have expressed and I agree that the costs of the commission and its investigations will need to be monitored carefully. Having said that, I do not believe that the proposed amendments are helpful.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked how the cost of police investigations would be met. The short answer is: in exactly the same way as it is met at the moment. At present, the cost of any police investigation requested by the Home Secretary into a possible miscarriage of justice is met from within the existing resources of the police force concerned. The Criminal Appeal Bill does not give the police force a new role to perform; it tackles the task already and it will continue to perform it when the commission is up and running. Therefore, no great new cost will be involved.

Mr. Beith

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean

I think that I know what the right hon. Gentleman wishes to say. It is a crucial point and—if I may anticipate his remarks—I think that he has got it wrong. I acknowledge that we expect the commission, at least initially, to receive representations about many more cases each year than currently occurs. We expect an increased work load for the commission because more people will make applications to it.

We also believe, however, that those who will approach the commission—perhaps as many as half—will be concerned about cases that have been considered previously and rejected by the Secretary of State. By virtue of clause 17, the commission will have access to all the police reports, forensic science reports, statements obtained and other relevant material which the Secretary of State considered in evaluating the cases. It will not be a matter of starting from scratch and beginning a whole new investigation.

Mr. Michael

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean

I should like to complete my point as it is an important one which I believe has led to some misunderstanding. The potential for unnecessary duplication of inquiries by the police should therefore be minimal.

If C3's experience is any guide, not all the cases brought to the commission's attention will require any investigation by the police. Currently, such inquiries are needed in only 45 per cent. of cases—that is 329 per year—and even then half of them entail relatively minor inquiries, such as tracing and interviewing one or two witnesses, reviewing case papers, clarifying some minor details, and so on. The remainder require more substantial inquiries. We know of nothing to suggest that the proportion of cases requiring investigation will change or that the nature of the inquiries will alter once the commission starts work.

I say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the nicest possible way, that he may have the wrong end of the stick. We expect that more people will make applications to the commission initially, but we do not expect a greatly increased burden on the police. We believe that current police resources are adequate to deal with the present inquiries and those with which they will be asked to deal in future.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth cited some of the figures that I have supplied to him in the past few days. If he looks at those cases—even those which have gone on for 82 weeks and have cost almost £200,000, which is a large inquiry—he will see that they form only a tiny part of most police budgets.

Mr. Michael

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way because he said something that is crucial to public confidence in the Bill and in the commission that it will establish. He suggested that there will be no additional investigations or extra work. Does he not accept that there is a backlog of cases which have not been dealt with because there is no system for considering them at present? Is not the commission expected to open up cases that have been waiting to be dealt with for an extensive period? Does he not accept that that was the import of the royal commission's recommendations, as well as the reason for establishing a royal commission inquiry? If the commission is to be as limited as he suggests in the scope of its investigations and those undertaken on its behalf, he will be dragging us back to where we were before the Bill was published. Surely the Minister cannot mean what he has just said.

Mr. Maclean

I do mean it. I totally reject the suggestion that there is a huge backlog of cases which have not been dealt with properly or have been ignored by C3 or by the Secretary of State. That is not the reason why we have set up the independent appeals tribunal. There is no suggestion that C3 has refused to deal with cases or that it has turned away hundreds, or even thousands, of deserving appellants.

Some people may be unhappy about the decisions that they have received, but their cases were investigated and reviewed thoroughly. I suspect that it is the applicants who did not like the decision not to refer their cases to the Court of Appeal who will apply to the commission when they hear that a new body which is divorced from the Secretary of State has been established. It is inevitable that they will try to have their cases reopened to see whether they can get a better outcome. Every hon. Member is familiar with that occurrence. People often approach newly elected Members of Parliament with a horrific, apparently new problem, claiming that they did not approach the previous Member of Parliament about it. The commission will also face that difficulty. From the smiles that I see around the Chamber, I can tell that that happens to us all. However, I do not envisage that the commission will pass on a greatly increased work load to the police service.

Mr. Michael

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again on this important matter. Obviously, some cases are undeserving, and we have all shared the Minister's experience. However, does the Minister not acknowledge what the royal commission found—that many cases have simply been left to fester because we lack a body such as the one that we are establishing in the Bill? The royal commission recommended the establishment of that body and the legislation will achieve it. That will lead to investigations which are not being undertaken at present. Surely the Minister acknowledges that fact, because it is what the Bill is all about.

Mr. Maclean

I did not acknowledge that a vast body of cases which had not been adequately dealt with were left festering. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make such allegations, he must give us the chapter and verse. He must give us the information. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) never made that allegation. He presented a dossier to the Home Secretary of 50 cases in which he believed there had been a miscarriage of justice, or he did not like the outcome or the way in which the case was handled, but he did not say that those cases were ignored or that a vast body of cases had been left festering or had not been addressed.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is wrong. It is not envisaged that the police service will have a vastly increased work load because there are hundreds or even dozens of cases out there which have not been investigated by C3 and which have been covered up and that the commission will demand a whole new inquiry in cases with which C3 would not have bothered in the past. That is simply not correct.

Mr. Michael

The Minister winds a comment up to knock it down. I did not use the word "vast"; the Minister used the word "vast". I said that there are a number of cases—a serious number, not an insignificant number—that the royal commission reported which are not dealt with under existing provisions and are left festering through the lack of such a body, which needs to be established. That is the reason for the Bill. That is why the urgency has been growing before and since the royal commission produced its report. That is why the royal commission was established in the first place.

I am surprised that the Minister seems not to acknowledge the case that was made for the body by the royal commission, the existence of cases that need to be dealt with by that body and investigations that it needs to undertake because they have not been dealt with adequately under the present system. The Bill is about restoring confidence in the criminal justice system in Britain.

Mr. Maclean

The prime case for the creation of the body is to create transparency and to remove the present system from political control and the Home Office. That is the prime reason for advancing the body, not because there is a small or a large body of cases out there which have not been properly investigated.

I am conscious that the House wishes to make progress and that we ought to wind up the debate on new clause 15 and move on, but I cannot let the allegation stand that C3 and the Home Office have been negligent or failed to deal with a body of cases adequately or properly under the present system. The hon. Gentleman said that those cases had been left festering.

Mr. Michael


Mr. Maclean

If the hon. Gentleman claims that cases have been left festering, he had better produce the names and details of the cases where the present system has failed.

Page 182 of the royal commission report states: Our recommendation is based on the proposition, adequately established in our view by Sir John May's inquiry, that the role assigned to the Home Secretary and his Department under the existing legislation is incompatible with the constitutional separation of powers as between courts and the executive. That is the reason for the new body. The report continues: The scrupulous observance of constitutional principles has meant a reluctance on the part of the Home Office to inquire deeply enough into cases put to it and, given the constitutional background, we do not think this is likely to change significantly in future.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. Before this discussion continues, let me say that I have been looking carefully again at new clause 15 and the amendment and I cannot see how it will bear this rather general discussion when it evidently deals with reasonable costs.

Mr. Michael

I hope that this intervention will come precisely to that, because the Minister has made a number of claims. He quoted selectively from chapter 11 of the royal commission's report.

In paragraph 6 on page 181 in chapter 11 of the report, the royal commission states: There is in theory no restriction on the numbers or categories of cases which the Home Secretary may refer to the Court of Appeal under section 17 since the section gives him discretion to refer cases 'if he thinks fit'. In practice, however, as Sir John May observed in his second report on the Maguire case, the Home Secretary and the civil servants advising him operate within strict self-imposed limits. It makes it clear in that and other parts of the royal commission's report that the present system is far too limited and the reason for moving away from the Home Secretary is not simply that the Home Secretary is a political appointee, but that consideration of appeals is far more restricted than it ought to be in the interests of justice.

That is why the cost of the increased work which would be undertaken and the increased investigations that will need to be undertaken is so important. That is the reason for the amendment and for the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The Minister's words today deny the conclusions of the royal commission and deny the known facts that there are festering cases, one involving a Mike O'Brien who is not a Member of Parliament.

7.45 pm
Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is trying to remain in order, but he is now falling foul of something else. Interventions should be short and he is making a speech.

Mr. Maclean

I detect that the mood of the House for the past 10 minutes has been to move on.

Mr. Michael

It is the mood of the Minister.

Mr. Maclean

Yes it is, but it is also the mood of the House. This is not fertile ground. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are cases out there festering where the Home Office and C3 have been negligent in dealing with them, let him bring those dossiers chapter and verse.

Mr. Michael

The use of the word throughout is the Minister's, not mine.

Mr. Maclean

The Hansard record will stand.

I shall move on because my original point stands. We do not envisage the police service having greatly increased burdens landed on it by the commission. We expect the commission to have increased burdens initially as more people seek to try their cases again or take them to the commission again. Some people who might not know that there is a present appeals system to the Secretary of State may be informed of it and try for the first time.

I believe that inquiries undertaken by the police on behalf of the Secretary of State are thorough and effective. The involvement of the commission will not necessarily result in deeper or more wide-ranging inquiries being undertaken. The investigation will be as wide as is necessary in the circumstances of each case. Direction and supervision by the commission may even result in some savings and the commission could quickly close down unproductive lines of investigation by means of the powers provided under clause 19.

Therefore, I can see no compelling reason why the present arrangements for the funding of police inquiries into the miscarriage of justice should change and although I have listened to both hon. Members I am afraid that I cannot accept their amendments.

Mr. Beith

I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. He recognises that there will be a greater number of applications, many of which might not require further investigation, but that implies that the commission would have very little work to do if it ruled out almost all of them. Some will require fresh investigation and there is bound to be an initial additional work load. In some cases, the commission will surely exercise its powers to direct more extensive inquiries than C3 and the Home Office would have done.

When one sets that against the background of police authorities which do not have reserves, which can be capped and which are under particular strain at the moment—all new circumstances against which the legislation has to be tested—it is clear that provision should have been made. In no part of his answer did the Minister provide any reassurance to police authorities that they will not finish up taking officers from important duties policing their own areas without any recompense or means of filling the gap. That is so unsatisfactory, given the problems in crime and policing in Britain, that I believe that we should press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 189.

Division No. 137] [7.48 pm
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Livingstone, Ken
Barnes, Harry Lynne, Ms Liz
Beith, Rt Hon A J Maddock, Diana
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery) Rendel, David
Connarty, Michael Rooney, Terry
Corbyn, Jeremy Skinner, Dennis
Eastham, Ken Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Flynn, Paul Welsh, Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath)
Godman, Dr Norman A Tellers for the Ayes:
Hinchliffe, David Mr. Archy Kirkwood and
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) Mr. David Chidgey.
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan Dykes, Hugh
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Amess, David Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Arbuthnot, James Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Faber, David
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) Fabricant, Michael
Ashby, David Fishburn, Dudley
Atkins, Robert Forman, Nigel
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V) Forth, Eric
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Baldry, Tony Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Bates, Michael French, Douglas
Batiste, Spencer Gale, Roger
Beggs, Roy Gallie, Phil
Biffen, Rt Hon John Gardiner, Sir George
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Garnier, Edward
Booth, Hartley Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Boswell, Tim Gorst, Sir John
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Bowden, Sir Andrew Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Bowis, John Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Brandreth, Gyles Hague, William
Brazier, Julian Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bright, Sir Graham Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Hargreaves, Andrew
Browning, Mrs Angela Harris, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset) Haselhurst, Alan
Burns, Simon Hawksley, Warren
Burt, Alistair Hayes, Jerry
Butler, Peter Heald, Oliver
Carrington, Matthew Heathcoat-Amory, David
Cash, William Hendry, Charles
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Hicks, Robert
Chapman, Sydney Horam, John
Churchill, Mr Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Colvin, Michael Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Congdon, David Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Jack, Michael
Couchman, James Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Cran, James Jenkin, Bernard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford) Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Dover, Den Kirkhope, Timothy
Duncan, Alan Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Duncan-Smith, Iain Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Dunn, Bob Knox, Sir David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Lang, Rt Hon Ian Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Lawrence, Sir Ivan Shaw, David (Dover)
Legg, Barry Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Lidington, David Shersby, Michael
Lightbown, David Sims, Roger
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lord, Michael Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Luff, Peter Spink, Dr Robert
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
MacKay, Andrew Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Maclean, David Steen, Anthony
McLoughlin, Patrick Stephen, Michael
Maginnis, Ken Stern, Michael
Malone, Gerald Stewart, Allan
Mans, Keith Streeter, Gary
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Sweeney, Walter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S) Sykes, Jonn
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Merchant, Piers Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) Temple-Morris, Peter
Moate, Sir Roger Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Monro, Sir Hector Thurnham, Peter
Moss, Malcolm Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Trend, Michael
Needham, Rt Hon Richard Trimble, David
Nelson, Anthony Trotter, Neville
Neubert, Sir Michael Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)
Nicholls, Patrick Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Waller, Gary
Paice, James Ward, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Waterson, Nigel
Pawsey, James Wells, Bowen
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Whitney, Ray
Pickles, Eric Whittingdale, John
Porter, David (Waveney) Widdecombe, Ann
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael Willetts, David
Powell, William (Corby) Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld
Redwood, Rt Hon John Wolfson, Mark
Renton, Rt Hon Tim Wood, Timothy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Yeo, Tim
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Tellers for the Noes:
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) Mr. Derek Conway and
Ross, William (E Londonderry) Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to