§ '.—(1) Where an indictment alleges more than one sexual offence against the same defendant the offences shall be tried together unless the defendant satisfies the judge that it would be unfairly prejudicial to do so.
§ (2) Section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 shall have no application to a sexual offence committed after this section comes into effect.'.—[Ms Jowell.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 6.9 pm
§ Ms Tessa Jowell (Dulwich)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 12—Irrelevant questioning about the victim's past sexual history—
'.—In section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)—(1) If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a sexual offence to which he pleads not guilty, then except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant.(2) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application to him made in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that—
- (a) it is evidence—
- (i) of sexual experience or sexual activity taken part in by the complainant at or about the time of the time of the commission of the alleged sexual offence; and
- (ii) of events which are alleged to form part of a connected series of circumstances in which the alleged sexual offence was committed; or
355 - (b)(i) the accused person is alleged to have had sexual intercourse with the complainant and the accused person does not concede the sexual intercourse alleged; and
- (ii) it is evidence relevant to whether the presence of semen, pregnancy, disease or injury is attributable to the sexual intercourse alleged; or
- (c) it is evidence relevant to whether at the time of the alleged sexual offence there was present in the complainant a disease which at any relevant time was absent in the accused person; or
- (d) it is evidence relevant to whether the allegation that the sexual offence was committed by the accused person was first made following a realisation or discovery of the presence of pregnancy or disease in the complainant (being a realisation or discovery which took place after the commission of the alleged sexual offence); or
- (e) it is evidence tending to show that the complainant has, at a different time, made another allegation of a sexual offence which the complainant has subsequently withdrawn, admitted was false or which was unsubstantiated; or
- (f) where it has been disclosed or implied in the case for the prosecution against the accused person that the complainant has or may have—
- (i) had sexual experience, or lack of sexual experience of a general or specified nature; or
- (ii) taken part or not taken part in sexual activity of a general or specified nature; and
- (iii) the accused person might be unfairly prejudiced if the complainant could not be cross-examined by or on behalf of the accused person in relation to the disclosure or implication.
(2A) The judge shall not give leave under paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question or questions to be asked.(2B) Where a judge has given leave in accordance with this section for evidence to be adduced or for a question or questions to be asked he shall record or cause to be recorded in writing the nature and scope of the evidence which may be adduced and the question or questions which may be asked and he shall further record or cause to be recorded in writing his reasons for giving leave.(2C) In considering the nature and scope of the evidence which may be adduced and the question or questions which may be asked the judge shall take into account any distress, humiliation or embarrassment which the complainant might suffer as a result.".'.New clause 13—Trial judge warnings on delays in reporting sexual offences—'. —Where on the trial of a person for a sexual offence evidence is given either by the prosecution or the defence or a question is asked of a witness which tends to suggest an absence of complaint in respect of the commission of the alleged offence by the person upon whom the offence is alleged to have been committed or to suggest delay by that person in making any such complaint, the trial judge shall—
- (a) give a warning to the jury to the effect that absence of complaint or delay in complaining does not necessarily indicate that the allegation that the offence was committed was false; and
- (b) inform the jury that there may be good reasons why a victim of a sexual offence may delay in making, or may refrain from making, a complaint about the offence.'.
§ Ms JowellThe new clauses are entirely consistent with the purposes of the Bill as set out by the Home Secretary when the legislation was published last November. The Government said that their aim was to ensure that 356
the guilty are convicted while continuing to protect the innocent through detailed measures to improve the administration of justice".The Home Secretary added:The criminal justice system should not be a legal maze which allows too many guilty people to walk free. The Bill will also help to reduce trauma and stress on victims".The three new clauses introduced by the Labour party today are designed to ensure that the victims of rape and sexual assault receive fair, sensitive and humane treatment at the hands of the legal service and to help to reduce the intolerable trauma and stress that often accompanies the experience of becoming a complainant in a case. They also seek to ensure that serial rapists receive the punishment that they deserve and do not walk free only to assault again.The purpose of any justice system must be to ensure that the innocent go free and that the guilty are convicted. With the conviction rate for rape at less than 9 per cent.— unchanged since 1985—no one can believe that 90 per cent. of women who make a complaint to the police alleging rape are making it up. The new clauses seek to address those issues. They represent small but important steps in a long process of rebuilding the confidence of victims of rape and sexual assault in the criminal justice system.
In recent weeks I have received many letters from women which give vivid glimpses of their damaged self-confidence. Women's self-confidence is damaged initially by the assault and then damaged further by the legal processes that follow, or by their encounter with them. I received a letter from a woman in Liverpool who was raped when she was 10. She summed up the feelings expressed by many. She wrote:
People should remember that we have already been through a degrading act when we are raped and have to relive it when we are in court. We are the victims not the perpetrators. A woman does not ask for this invasion by what she wears or how she talks. I only hope that my daughter sees the day when she can be proud of the justice system and of the help it gives to rape victims".Recent improvements in the way that the police deal with women who are the victims of rape and sexual assault are welcome. However, according to Commander Tom Williamson, who chairs the Metropolitan police's sexual offences steering committee, the benefits of those improvements have been undermined by the treatment of victims in court. At a conference last year, he said:Just because a victim is giving evidence about a rape it should not entitle a barrister to rape them metaphorically a second time".Commander Williamson said that the prospect of that ordeal still prevents many victims from coming forward. He added:A consequence of this lack of confidence in the criminal justice system is the loss of criminal intelligence, with the modus operandi in a series of crimes not being identified and rapists not being brought to justice".Twenty years ago, the Heilbron report found that the intrusive and irrelevant questioning of rape victims by defence lawyers was in effect putting the woman on trial. That is still true today. A 17-year-old rape victim remarked after the trial and conviction of her rapist:no woman in her right mind would bring a case".Our new clauses reassert the Heilbron report's unarguable and obvious principle which should not need to be restated: a woman's sexual experiences with partners of her choice in no way indicate a general willingness to 357 consent to sex with anyone. Women do not give consent to sex with general categories of men; nor do they give general consent to intercourse in particular places. Consent is granted or declined only on an individual and private basis.Our proposals also address the alarming decline in the conviction rate for rape offences in recent years. In 1980, 37 per cent. of rape offences reported to the police resulted in a conviction. By 1994, the figure had fallen to 8.6 per cent. Since the Crown Prosecution Service was established, the percentage of cases that have not proceeded to a Crown court committal has trebled. We share the Home Secretary's aspiration that:
The criminal justice system should not be a legal maze which allows too many guilty people to walk free".Today we will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues the opportunity to put that principle and that aspiration into practice.I shall summarise briefly the essence of the three new clauses. The first concerns evidence of multiple sex offences. The new clause tackles judges' evident reluctance to hear together the separate sexual offences of which a defendant may stand accused. There is alarming evidence to show that such reluctance is resulting in men who are accused of multiple rapes against different women going free or receiving lighter sentences that do not match the severity of their crimes. Trial judges' readiness to hear cases separately denies juries crucial information about the extent of the allegations made against some serial rapists. The new clause tightens the current rules on multiple sex offence charges and makes it clear that the presumption for the trial judge should be that such cases are tried together.
New clause 12 deals with irrelevant questioning about a victim's past sexual history. The new clause is necessary because of the evident failure of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which gives judges the discretion to limit questions about the complainant's sexual history. Research conducted by Zhusanna Adler at the Old Bailey in the early 1980s found that not only was leave given to the defence to ask about sexual history in more than 70 per cent. of cases when it was requested, but the defence counsel frequently did not bother to ask for leave and launched into cross-examination on sexual history without any objection from the judge or from the prosecution. In a further study on Court of Appeal rulings about sexual history evidence in England and Wales, Professor Jennifer Temkin argued:
The willingness of the Court of Appeal to see a wide range of evidence as relevant to consent means that trial judges who refuse to allow in sexual history evidence do so at some considerable risk of a quashed conviction on appeal. It will be an inept defence counsel who is unable by some means or other successfully to apply under Section 2".Professor Sue Lees, who has conducted landmark studies in this area, monitored all contested rape trials at the Old Bailey over a four-month period in summer 1993. She found that judges allowed questions about victims' past sexual histories in seven out of 10 rape trials. She has shown how judges continue to give defending barristers free rein to ask the most intrusive and needlessly distressing questions of women who have been the victims of rape.358 Barristers claim that such questions are vital in order to protect the defendant from false allegations. It is true that such questioning is needed on some occasions, and our new clause allows for it in those circumstances. However, a Scottish Office survey of defence barristers got closer to the truth. Many admitted that they used such questions to:
create a smokescreen of immorality around the girl.In her book "Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial", Professor Lees gives examples of questions that, according to the spirit of the Sexual Offences Act 1976, should not have been allowed. In one case, the complainant was asked:Before this incident on 5 February, when was the last time that you had sexual intercourse with anyone?On another occasion, a complainant was asked:Have you had sex with a man other than the defendant?Often, the questions are more oblique. Questions such as "What kind of material is your underwear made of?" or "Would you agree that it's a dressy dress?" are designed to construct the "smokescreen of immorality" through insinuation and innuendo. Sue Lees has said:In the trial transcripts I examined I found that the perfectly normal behaviour of young women is presented as evidence that they provoked the man's attack or asked for it.The new clause revises sections 1 and 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to provide important new protections from unjust, irrelevant and intrusive questioning of rape and sexual assault victims. The proposals are based on the tried and tested formula of the 1981 New South Wales Act. The proposals set out in the new clause would establish for the first time clear and specific circumstances in which a judge may allow any questioning about the victim's sexual history. It requires the prosecution to seek permission to ask any such questions away from the jury, and requires the judge to state clearly in writing the questions that may be asked, and his reasons for giving such leave.The new clause would require the judge, in considering any request from the prosecution, to take clearly into account any distress, humiliation or embarrassment that the questioning might cause the victim. The proposals should also be linked to improved training for judges when handling rape cases, and to a more determined effort than we have seen to increase the number of women sitting as judges.
New clause 13 refers to delays in reporting offences. The aim of the new clause is to ensure that the victims of sexual crime receive fair treatment at the hands of the courts. Victims of sexual offences frequently delay reporting the offence to the police, and they often have a number of good reasons for doing so. Those reasons might include their immediate distress and the fact that they were only urged to report the offence when they talked to a friend.
Some victims are prevented from reporting an offence by a sense of shame; others are simply too embarrassed or too fearful of the effects of a complaint on their families or friends. While people in the criminal justice service may be aware of those good reasons, there is evidence that juries are often misled about the significance of any such delay. We therefore propose to require trial judges to inform juries in all sexual offences trials that there may be good reasons why a victim may delay reporting an offence, so that juries do not draw unwarranted conclusions from any delay.
359 The three measures that we have placed before the House today are small steps to end some of the injustices experienced by victims of rape and sexual assault. They are a start, and are entirely in keeping with the spirit and intended purpose of the legislation. They are consistent with the Bill's aims of ensuring that the guilty are convicted while continuing to protect the innocent. and of offering detailed measures to improve the administration of justice.
I shall finish with the words of a woman who, having experienced rape, wrote to me recently. She said:
I hope I can see the day when we can cheer the support of the courts instead of weep.The Government have betrayed the victims of rape and sexual assault. Today the Labour party is giving the Government the opportunity to repair some of that damage.
§ Mr. MacleanThe hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) made an interesting speech, but I am sorry that she spoilt it at the end with her ridiculous jibe. This Government introduced, in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, powers to increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to children—something that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) conveniently forgets when she trumpets the work that she is now doing for children.
The Government increased the penalty from two years to 10, and the Labour party voted against it. That happened on 18 January 1988, when, under the Criminal Justice Act, we increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children to 10 years' imprisonment. I accept that the hon. Member for Dulwich was not in the House then, but other hon. Members were. I invite Opposition Members to check Hansard of 18 January 1988, when they will see that the Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Act.
The Government increased the maximum penalty for dealing in hard drugs to life imprisonment. We increased the maximum penalty for taking a gun to a crime to life imprisonment. We gave the Attorney-General the right to appeal against lenient sentences, including lenient rape sentences, and the Labour party voted against it. I was not going to recite that list, Mr. Deputy `Speaker—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I would have welcomed it if the Minister had not done so, as the list has nothing to do with the new clause.
§ Mr. MacleanI am sorry to have strayed into that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Dulwich should not have said that the Government betrayed rape victims. The Government made all the changes in the 1980s to make life easier for rape victims. They strengthened the police; they dramatically increased their numbers; they encouraged the police to introduce rape suites to help rape victims; they introduced the DNA national database—the first in the world. The hon. Lady should get her facts straight before making such silly jibes.
The new clauses deserve to be considered seriously, as they raise complex issues about the admissibility of evidence in sexual offences cases. I think that we would all agree that there is something particularly abhorrent about such crimes, and we are all aware of their dramatic 360 effect on the victims. The Government have introduced a range of measures to strengthen the powers of the police and the courts to prosecute those who commit such crimes. The national DNA database provides the police with a valuable new weapon to investigate such crimes.
We have removed the requirement for juries to be warned about convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim of a sexual offence. We have announced tough new proposals for automatic life sentences for offenders who are convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sex offence unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances. The Opposition have been in a quandary over our proposals for automatic life sentences and minimum mandatory sentences; they are not sure whether or not to support them.
The nature of sexual offences and the frequent lack of corroborating evidence makes it particularly difficult to prosecute successfully. There has been a reduction in the number of convictions, as a proportion both of the number of offences recorded and of the number of prosecutions. That is a matter of concern, but it is the product of a wide range of factors.
Recent research has suggested the need for a larger-scale study to ensure that we properly understand the problems and how best to tackle them. We intend to conduct such research. Despite the understandable desire to make it easier to secure convictions, it is essential to maintain a proper balance—to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, and to ensure that the case against the criminal is properly tested.
The Government fully understand the concerns that have prompted the new clauses, but we are not convinced that they have been subjected to the rigorous examination necessary before changes can be made to such a complex and sensitive area of law. I shall consider first new clause 11. Often, those responsible for crimes of a sexual nature are known—or thought—to have committed other similar offences. I agree that it is important that juries should have the opportunity to hear that that has been the case where the judge believes it is in the interests of justice to do so.
It is worth correcting any misconception that sexual offences cannot be tried together. Under the 1971 indictment rules, charges for offences may already be joined in the same indictment. The particular nature of sexual offences and the frequent lack of corroborating evidence require a slightly more cautious approach to whether cases can be tried on the same indictment. A jury may find it more difficult to consider each charge separately, as they may be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the extent and nature of the charges against the defendant.
The Indictments Act 1915, to which the new clause refers, gives the trial judge discretion to decide whether, on the particular facts before him, it would be appropriate for the charges to be tried together or severed. Before the judge can do that, it will first be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide how the indictment against the accused is prepared.
The Crown Prosecution Service, quite rightly, will want to take a view on how best to prosecute an individual who is to be charged with more than one sexual offence when there are similarities between his crimes. That is a matter to which the CPS already attaches great importance and charges are joined whenever it seems right to do so. So 361 new clause 11 would not automatically mean that all charges against an accused would be heard at the same time if the CPS considered that the public interest, including that of the victims, is better served by separate prosecutions.
6.30 pm
In our view, a decision on severing an indictment remains an important judgment, which the trial judge is best placed to make based on all the circumstances of the case before him. He has the ability to consider a wide range of criteria before making his decision, which the new clause would remove.
That ability was reinforced in a recent ruling by the House of Lords in a case involving multiple sexual offences against different victims. The ruling in Regina v. Christou reinforced the right of the courts to try cases together even when the evidence is not corroborative, and has provided useful guidance on the factors that trial judges should take into account when making such decisions.
The new clause is unsound in two respects. First, it is seriously defective because it would disapply section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 altogether in relation to sexual offences. Among other things, section 5 allows the courts to order the amendment of defective indictments. Those might include the fact that the trial would become too unwieldy if all the charges were tried together. The court's powers in respect of trying cases together are to be found in section 5(3) rather than section 5 as a whole.
The second and more serious flaw is that new clause 11 would unnecessarily restrict the discretionary powers of judges to rule on the extent of indictments that come before them. It would do this by requiring that decisions were made on the grounds of prejudice alone and can only be made at the request of the defence. Presently, the judge can act on his own initiative, and may take account not only of whether the indictment is prejudicial but of other important issues, such as the impact on victims of ordering two or more trials. We believe that judges should retain their existing discretion to decide upon those important matters.
The question that faces us on new clause 12 is whether it would improve the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. I believe that it is clear that section 2 of that Act represents an additional hurdle to be cleared after common-law tests of relevance have been met, and that its main purpose—the prevention of mud-slinging attacks on the complainant's reputation—is plain.
The most difficult issue in practice, however, is the degree to which sexual history may be relevant to the issue of consent, and it is on that question that the greatest scope for dispute over individual judicial decisions arises. The Court of Appeal has in a number of cases, and notably in Regina v. Viola in 1982, provided guidance on how the existing provisions should be applied. The Court of Appeal said that the general aim should be to exclude questioning relating to the credit of the complainant but generally to admit that which is relevant to an issue in the trial.
New clause 12 seeks to prevent irrelevant questioning about a victim's previous sexual history by defining the circumstances in which the judge may exercise his 362 discretion. It would also extend that provision to victims of all sexual offences. Cross-examination about previous sexual experience is more likely to be an issue in rape cases—hence the need for the special provisions in the 1976 Act. It is not clear that a major extension of the present situation to all sexual offences is justified.
Section 2 of the 1976 Act is a straightforward provision that allows a proper balance to be struck between giving the complainant some protection from oppressive and irrelevant questioning, while safeguarding the defendant's right to a fair trial.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to raise an issue of contempt, but it is a contempt of the House to misrepresent proceedings of the House of Commons. You will have heard the Minister tell the House that, on 18 January 1988, Labour Members of Parliament voted against increasing penalties during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
I have checked the Hansard, and found that Labour Members of Parliament did no such thing. They voted against the Second Reading of that Act on the basis that it had implications for civil liberties that arose out of changes to extradition, jury selection and remand and sentencing. We voted against Second Reading, and we have been misrepresented during this debate.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat point can be made in debate; it is certainly not a point of order for the Chair.
§ Mr. MacleanI am glad to hear those confessions and admissions. Perhaps the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will take the time to read the contents of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He will find that the Labour party voted against penalties to increase sentences for people who are cruel to children and for drug dealers.
It is no wonder the Labour party does not like being reminded about that. Labour Members can come up with any excuse they like now, but they voted against that Act, lock, stock and barrel. They now have a guilty conscience about it, and I suspect that that is why we have seen all these spurious and bogus new clauses, which are 10 years late. The Labour party is trying to say that it is sorry about the mistakes of 1980s, and that it wants to make up for them. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my near neighbour, for his confession—he is "one sinner that repenteth".
I turn now to new clause 13, which raises complex issues about the law on evidence—I do not know of any issues about the law of evidence that are not complex— and, in particular, what evidence may be given to explain why a complaint was not made or was delayed.
Of course the Government share the concern that juries should be able to make a proper assessment of the value of evidence on such matters; that is why, last year, we removed the automatic warning that juries were given that the evidence of one woman alone had to be treated with a certain circumspection. It was not right to retain that warning, but I am not convinced that it is right to create a new warning for the jury.
The present position is that, if evidence is admitted that a victim has made no complaint—or, more likely, that the complaint was substantially delayed—the court may hear 363 evidence to explain why the alleged victim did not complain. That is the correct way to proceed. The court is then able to hear the evidence relevant to the circumstances of the case, which may explain the reasons for the delay. There may be good evidential reasons why the victim did not come forward immediately to report a sexual attack, and the court should be told those reasons and the jury should take them into account.
In other cases, the evidence may not be so strong. In some cases, the absence of complaint may be crucial to the case, and a warning in the terms proposed would be inappropriate. A requirement to give the same warning regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidence explaining any delay would confuse the issues and make the task of the judge and the jury more difficult.
The use of a warning should therefore be considered in the context of the rules governing the evidence that may be admitted to refute any allegation of the kind mentioned in new clause 13. It may, for example, be possible for previous consistent statements to be produced in evidence to support the allegation made by the victim.
That is a complex aspect of the law on hearsay and related topics, which the Law Commission is at present considering. Its report is expected later this year. It is likely to include proposals about the extent to which previous consistent statements should be admissible as evidence of the truth, and not merely, as at present, the credibility of the witness. It is also likely to address the question whether previous consistent statements should be admissible in cases other than sexual offences, in which physical injury might also have been inflicted.
Those are important issues that bear directly on whether there should be a statutory warning, and, if so, what it should be. It would, in our view, be wrong to legislate on that complex area of the law without having the benefit of the Law Commission's work. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 13.
I am sorry that I have spoken at length on new clauses 11, 12 and 13, but they raise important and complex issues. We shall give further consideration to changes in the law in the light of the Law Commission's current work and the research that we intend to conduct into attrition rates in sexual offence cases, but we are unable at present to support the new clauses.
MsThe length of the Minister's speech has served as an effective smokescreen for the fact that he has nothing to say. His lengthy diatribe about the defective nature of the new clauses is simply a way to sidestep the real issues that they raise.
Those of us who read our copy of The Independent this morning have been led to believe that next week the Government are holding their law and order week in order to regain the initiative on law and order from the shadow Home Secretary and the Labour party. There is a growing conviction across the country that it is the Labour party that understands people's fears about crime, and that it is Labour which brings forward specific and practical proposals, which the Government then reject out of hand.
The Government's response to the new clause will be received by women across the country for what it represents: indifference, and a refusal to do anything about one of the most serious problems besetting women in the criminal justice system.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 234.
366| Division No. 144] | [6.42 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | George, Bruce |
| Ainger, Nick | Gerrard, Neil |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Godsiff, Roger |
| Allen, Graham | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Graham, Thomas |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Ashton, Joe | Grocott, Bruce |
| Austin-Walker, John | Hain, Peter |
| Barnes, Harry | Hall, Mike |
| Battle, John | Harvey, Nick |
| Bayley, Hugh | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret | Heppell, John |
| Beggs, Roy | Hill, Keith (Streatham) |
| Bell, Stuart | Hinchliffe, David |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Hoey, Kate |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Benton, Joe | Howarth, George (Knowsley North) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd) |
| Berry, Roger | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Betts, Clive | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Blair, Rt Hon Tony | Hutton, John |
| Blunkett, David | Illsley, Eric |
| Boateng, Paul | Ingram, Adam |
| Bradley, Keith | Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff) |
| Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) | Johnston, Sir Russell |
| Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side) |
| Burden, Richard | Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) |
| Byers, Stephen | Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) |
| Callaghan, Jim | Jowell, Tessa |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Keen, Alan |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n) |
| Campbell-Savours, D N | Khabra, Piara S |
| Canavan, Dennis | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery) | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Clapham, Michael | Liddell, Mrs Helen |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Livingstone, Ken |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | McAllion, John |
| Clelland, David | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | McCartney, Ian |
| Coffey, Ann | Macdonald, Calum |
| Connarty, Michael | McKelvey, William |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Corston, Jean | McWilliam, John |
| Cox, Tom | Madden, Max |
| Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) | Maginnis, Ken |
| Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John | Mahon, Alice |
| Darling, Alistair | Mandelson, Peter |
| Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) | Marek, Dr John |
| Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Denham, John | Martlew, Eric |
| Dewar, Donald | Maxton, John |
| Dixon, Don | Michael, Alun |
| Dowd, Jim | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Eastham, Ken | Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) |
| Etherington, Bill | Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Fatchett, Derek | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Faulds, Andrew | Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) | Mudie, George |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Mullin, Chris |
| Fraser, John | Murphy, Paul |
| Fyfe, Maria | O'Brien, William (Normanton) |
| Galbraith, Sam | Olner, Bill |
| Gapes, Mike | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Pearson, Ian | Strang, Dr. Gavin |
| Pendry, Tom | Straw, Jack |
| Pope, Greg | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd) |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Timms, Stephen |
| Purchase, Ken | Tipping, Paddy |
| Reid, Dr John | Touhig, Don |
| Rendel, David | Trickett, Jon |
| Robertson, George (Hamilton) | Trimble, David |
| Rogers, Allan | Turner, Dennis |
| Rooker, Jeff | Tyler, Paul |
| Rooney, Terry | Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Wallace, James |
| Ross, William (E Londonderry) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Rowlands, Ted | Welsh, Andrew |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Simpson, Alan | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen) |
| Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) | Wilson, Brian |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Winnick, David |
| Soley, Clive | Wise, Audrey |
| Spellar, John | Worthington, Tony |
| Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) | |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stevenson, George | Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr.John Owen Jones. |
| Stott, Roger |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Cran, James |
| Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan | Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) |
| Alexander, Richard | Davies, Quentin (Starnford) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Day, Stephen |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Deva, Nirj Joseph |
| Amess, David | Devlin, Tim |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) | Dover, Den |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Duncan, Alan |
| Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V) | Duncan Smith, Iain |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Dunn, Bob |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Dykes, Hugh |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Eggar, Rt Hon Tim |
| Bates, Michael | Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Batiste, Spencer | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Bellingham, Henry | Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Evans, Roger (Monmouth) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Evennett, David |
| Body, Sir Richard | Faber, David |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Fabricant, Michael |
| Boswell, Tim | Fenner, Dame Peggy |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) |
| Bowis, John | Fishburn, Dudley |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Forman, Nigel |
| Brazier, Julian | Forth, Eric |
| Bright, Sir Graham | Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | French, Douglas |
| Bruce, Ian (South Dorset) | Fry, Sir Peter |
| Burns, Simon | Gale, Roger |
| Burt, Alistair | Gardiner, Sir George |
| Butcher, John | Garnier, Edward |
| Butterfill, John | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair |
| Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Carrington, Matthew | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Carttiss, Michael | Gorst, Sir John |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Clappison, James | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald |
| Coe, Sebastian | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Congdon, David | Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy |
| Conway, Derek | Hannam, Sir John |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Hargreaves, Andrew |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Haselhurst, Sir Alan |
| Couchman, James | Hawkins, Nick |
| Hawksley, Warren | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Hayes, Jerry | Renton, Rt Hon Tim |
| Heald, Oliver | Richards, Rod |
| Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David | Riddick, Graham |
| Hendry, Charles | Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm |
| Hill, James (Southampton Test) | Robathan, Andrew |
| Horam, John | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Robinson, Mark (Somerton) |
| Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W) | Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) | Sackville, Tom |
| Hunter, Andrew | Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas |
| Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Jessel, Toby | Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Shersby, Sir Michael |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Sims, Roger |
| Key, Robert | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N) | Speed, Sir Keith |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Knox, Sir David | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| Kynoch, George (Kincardine) | Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs) |
| Lang, Rt Hon Ian | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Lawrence, Sir Ivan | Sproat, Iain |
| Legg, Barry | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| Leigh, Edward | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark | Steen, Anthony |
| Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe) | Stephen, Michael |
| Lidington, David | Stern, Michael |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Stewart, Allan |
| Lord, Michael | Streeter, Gary |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Sweeney, Walter |
| MacKay, Andrew | Sykes, John |
| Maclean, Rt Hon David | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Madel, Sir David | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Maitland, Lady Olga | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Malone, Gerald | Thomason, Roy |
| Mans, Keith | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Marland, Paul | |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) | Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Merchant, Piers | Tracey, Richard |
| Mills, Iain | Tredinnick, David |
| Trotter,Neville | |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Moate, Sir Roger | Viggers, Peter |
| Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Walden, George |
| Needham, Rt Hon Richard | Walker, Bill (N Tayside) |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Waterson, Nigel |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Watts, John |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Wells, Bowen |
| Norris, Steve | Whittingdale, John |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Willetts, David |
| Ottaway, Richard | Wilshire, David |
| Page, Richard | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Paice, James | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Patnick, Sir Irvine | Wolfson, Mark |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Wood, Timothy |
| Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Yeo, Tim |
| Pawsey, James | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | |
| Pickles, Eric | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Roger Knapman. |
| Powell, William (Corby) | |
| Rathbone, Tim |
§ Question accordingly negatived.