§ Mr. MullinI beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 34, leave out from 'accused' to 'or' in line 36 and insert
'and which may be relevant to an issue in the case'.
§ Madam SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 2, line 34, leave out
'in the prosecutor's opinion might'and insert'might be reasonably expected to'.No. 71, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'in the prosecutor's opinion'.No. 72, in page 2, line 35, leave out 'undermine' and insert 'cast serious doubt on'.
No. 31, in page 2, line 39, after second 'material', insert
'relevant to the offence or to the offender or to the surrounding circumstances of the case.'.No. 33, in page 3, line 3, at end insert—', or(c) which falls within subsection (2A).(2A) Material falls within this subsection if in pursuance of a code operative under Part II the prosecutor must, if he asks for the material, be given a copy of it or be allowed to inspect it in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'.No. 34, in clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—', or(c) which falls within subsection (2A).(2A) Material falls within this subsection if in pursuance of a code operative under Part II the prosecutor must, if he asks for the material, be given a copy of it or be allowed to inspect it in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'.
§ Mr. MullinThe amendments address what in my view is the main defect of the Bill—that, as drafted, it allows the police and prosecution to determine what material will be made available to the defence and prevents the defence from deciding for itself what is relevant to its case. That flies in the face of the lessons that we should have learnt from the disastrous series of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s, which inflicted so much damage on the credibility of our legal system. I am sorry if it upsets the Solicitor-General, but I repeat that deliberate or negligent 376 disclosure by the police or prosecution was an important feature of just about all those cases and, if it remains unchanged, the Bill will lay the ground for further disasters.
My amendments and those in the names of my hon. Friends provide the Government with a number of alternatives. In amendments Nos. 71 and 72, my hon. Friends seek to soften the effect of clause 3. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but I seek to go further. My amendment No. 30, drafted with the help of Mr. Roy Amlot QC, deletes the prosecutor's opinion from the clause and the suggestion that only evidence that undermines the defence case should be disclosed, and seeks considerably to widen the definition of what should be disclosed by obliging disclosure of any material that might be relevant to the case.
Amendment No. 31 offers an alternative. It proposes that the prosecutor must make available to the defence all material
relevant to the offence or to the offender or to the surrounding circumstances of the case".Those words have been chosen with care. They are taken from recommendation 124 of the royal commission on criminal justice, which was set up by the Government precisely with a view to recommending measures that would restore confidence in the criminal justice system. Ministers are not slow to quote the royal commission when it suits them, but they rejected that recommendation, and I am seeking to implement it.My amendment No. 32, drafted with the help of the Law Society, offers yet another possibility. It deletes the reference to the prosecutor's opinion, and substitutes a test of reasonableness. My amendments Nos. 33 and 34—also drafted with the help of the Law Society—clarify the definition of prosecution material in clauses 3 and 7. As currently drafted, the Bill gives the police far too much latitude. There is a danger that they, not the overworked prosecuting counsel, will in practice decide what shall be disclosed. That is a recipe for a great deal of trouble in the future.
7.30 pm
The Government are spoilt for choice. They can choose between four definitions of what should be disclosed. Before they reject them all out of hand, they should perhaps bear it in mind that the definition proposed in the Bill has been rejected not only by the Opposition but by the royal commission, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association, whose members will have to implement the disclosure regime.
Far from simplifying matters, the Bill introduces unnecessary complications. Many criminal cases are not particularly complex: under the present system, the prosecution simply provides the defence with a bundle of what is known as non-material evidence—that is, statements collected by the police and not relied on as part of their case. The Bill requires the prosecutor to examine all material before handing it over, and to make a judgment about every item. He will then have to provide the defence with a schedule describing the nature of each item. Finally, the prosecutor must make a judgment about what further material must be disclosed. Just where will Crown prosecution lawyers, who are already considerably overstretched, find time to engage in such a complex procedure? There is an obvious danger that mistakes will 377 be made; indeed, it is likely that in most cases such judgments will be left to the police, and that is fraught with danger.
I recognise—as the royal commission did—that occasional demands from unscrupulous lawyers for large quantities of material relevant to the defence case can cause unnecessary delay and expense. That is particularly the case in fraud trials. I acknowledge that it may well be possible to take steps to simplify and improve existing practice, but I do not believe that the problem is as great as some people allege. Indeed, I believe that it has been deliberately talked up to distract attention from the inconvenient fact that the failure of the police and Crown prosecutors to disclose material that they should have disclosed caused many of our recent problems.
In the Carl Bridgewater case—if I may take a topical example—many years elapsed before it was revealed to the defence that unidentified fingerprints had been found at the scene of the murder. A further five or six years elapsed before Ministers were persuaded to disclose that those fingerprints—which do not belong to any of the convicted men—were found on the victim's bike, which was picked up by one of the murderers and tossed into a nearby pigsty. Despite what has now emerged, and although the man who prosecuted in the case has urged the Government to refer it back to the Court of Appeal, the Home Secretary is refusing to do so. That suggests that a very casual attitude to disclosure prevails among Home Office Ministers. Indeed, one is bound to wonder whether any of the lessons of past disasters have been learnt.
That case is an illustration—only one of a number that I could offer—of the gulf that divides us on this issue. I say "divides us"; I remind the House that it divides the Government from not only the Opposition but the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society and just about anyone with any expertise relating to criminal trials. It does not make sense to try to resolve problems with the existing arrangements by devising a system that is considerably more complicated than the existing system, and may store up even greater problems for the future.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks that this is a cheaper solution should reflect on the millions of pounds that are spent, and the vast quantities of extra paperwork that are incurred—to say nothing of the cost of imprisoning and compensating innocent people—when controversial cases revisit the Court of Appeal, often many years later. I have no doubt that, if it remains unamended, the Bill will result in more cases being referred back to the Appeal Court, as it becomes clear in future years that material that should have been made available to the defence at trial has been either negligently or deliberately—probably negligently in most cases—unreasonably withheld.
§ Mr. MichaelI wish to speak briefly about amendments Nos. 71 and 72, to which my name is attached.
Clause 3 requires the prosecutor to
disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused".We feel that the words "in the prosecutor's opinion" incorporate in the Bill a subjective test, rather than the objective test that is normal in legislation. I shall not make 378 the point at length, because I made it strongly in Committee. It is simple and straightforward, and I am surprised that the Government have still not accepted it— unless the Minister is going to surprise and delight us by accepting it in the next few minutes. I suspect that he will not do that.Amendment No. 71 would leave out the words "in the prosecutor's opinion". Amendment No. 72 would replace the word "undermine" with the words "cast serious doubt on". We feel that the test that matters need to be disclosed if they might undermine the prosecution's case is far too black and white. To undermine a case is to leave nothing of that case to proceed, but other matters might be involved which, although not absolute and conclusive, would require judge and jury to exercise their critical faculties in deciding whether the case was made or had failed in the light of the evidence. The piece of evidence concerned, however, might be serious, and it is possible that, according to all the tests that we discussed in Committee and in previous debates on the Bill, it should be made available to the accused. It is not a question of absolutely anything having to be disclosed, but I feel that requiring the disclosure of significant material that would cast serious doubt on the case is preferable to the absolute concept of material that would totally undermine the case.
Let me make it clear—as we have done on a number of occasions, including Second Reading—that the Opposition fully support the Bill. We believe that the reduction in the volume of disclosure, and in the amount of paperwork, is an important objective. We also believe, however, that in seeking that objective it is important to get the balance right. That, indeed, is what most of our debates on Second Reading and in Committee have been about.
I think that the Bill has improved as a result of our debates. The Government have tabled amendments, in Committee and on Report, which deal with some of the issues raised in earlier debates. That is positive, and it is right to give credit for that. The absolute nature of the test in clause 3(1)(a) fails to get the balance right, and I hope that—at the very least—the Government will be willing to change the word "undermine" to a requirement to reveal material that would "cast serious doubt" on the case for the prosecution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) takes a serious view of these matters, and I greatly respect his opinion because of his experience and the vast amount of time that he has spent dealing with serious miscarriages of justice. His judgment has been proved right on a number of occasions when hon. Members and others have backed away from accepting the logic of his case. I understand his personal reservations about the Bill and his concerns that limiting disclosure may lead to miscarriages of justice. Opposition Front Benchers have taken a different approach, which is to try to make sure that safeguards are in place and that the balance is right, to produce a reduction in disclosure without leading to miscarriages of justice.
In general, the Bill has the balance right, but I hope that the Minister will accept the two specific amendments about which I have spoken—in particular amendment No. 72, which I believe would make a significant improvement to the balance of the Bill without in any way undermining its purpose, which we support.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on this important topic, which goes to the heart of our reforms. I am a member of the Criminal Bar Association and I practise in the courts. If the regime is going to lead to injustice, I—together with my colleagues in the association—will be engaged in the front line with it. Therefore, I am as anxious as anyone can be to ensure that we put on the statute book a system that gives rise to justice, and avoids some of the horrible miscarriages of justice that have occurred in the past. I urge him not to remain in the past on this issue, as some of the critics of the Bill have done. The Government have learnt the lessons of the past and the structures that we are endeavouring to put in the Bill show that we have learnt those lessons well and truly.
Amendments Nos. 30, 72, 32 and 71 would all change the test for primary prosecution disclosure. In summary, they would not affect any worthwhile reform, and would entrench the present deficiencies of the law in the statute book. For that reason, I invite the House to resist the amendments. I would also caution against wrenching part of the new system out of its context. For example, there has been an over-close examination of the prosecution's primary disclosure and the test to be applied there. It must not be taken out of context, and should be looked at against the background of part II and the code that will be introduced, which will place new and extensive duties upon the police.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South was right— unless the investigation is carried out both honestly and effectively, and unless honest and effective revelation is made of all information by the police to the prosecutor, injustices will occur. One of the best encouragements to get the police to act in an honest and effective way is to present them with a regime that is fair, and that they can see is fair. There is therefore no incentive for them to cut corners and indulge in what is sometimes infelicitously called "noble cause corruption". One of the attributes of the Bill is that it presents a regime that is fair, and places explicit duties on the police, prosecution and defence. Everyone will see that it is fair and will co-operate in its implementation. If so, the horrors of the past will be avoided.
§ Mr. MullinDoes the Solicitor-General agree that, far from reducing the burden on the Crown Prosecution Service, the Bill will increase it, because the CPS will have to make a judgment about each separate item? Alternatively, will not the CPS leave the responsibility to the police because, as he knows, the CPS is seriously overstretched?
§ The Solicitor-GeneralSuch complaints are made by people who do not have sufficient first-hand experience of the system. One of the problems of the present system is that far too much material—indeed, virtually the bulk of the prosecution material as defined by the broad test of the Keane case—is revealed by the police, first to the prosecution and then by the prosecution to the defence, irrespective of what the defence case is. That must be stopped. We must introduce into our law a test that is focused on the revelation and dissemination to the prosecution and the defence of material that is necessary in the interests of justice. At the moment, virtually 380 everything that the police find must be copied and disgorged through the system to the prosecution and the defence.
Amendment No. 30 proposes a test of relevance, which includes everything that might have a bearing on the case. That is very different from whether it has a bearing on the defence, and that is what the accused relies upon in court. The affect of the current test is that the police often have to photocopy and deliver large volumes of material to the accused, much of which is unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the defence. It places upon the police, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, a completely disproportionate burden.
A test as wide ranging as "relevance" does nothing to narrow the issues in dispute in the case. One of the objectives achieved by the legislation is not only to reduce the volume and nature of the material that goes down the pipeline from the prosecution to the defence, but to put in place a system that will enable the issues in the case to be identified before the trial begins. Our present system is sorely defective, in that it does not achieve that. All too often, we go into cases not knowing what the issues are, and we sometimes sit for weeks before the issues emerge. That must not be allowed to continue.
Amendment No. 72 would replace the word "undermine" with the phrase "cast serious doubt on". I do not accept that the word "undermine" is unduly weighty. It is designed to ensure that the prosecutor discloses at the first stage material that, generally speaking, has an adverse effect on the strength of the prosecution case. I urge those who say that that is an unduly narrow test to hold on because the machine does not stop there. The next stage is for the defence to put its case and then secondary prosecution disclosure takes place.
The second reason why I invite the House to reject amendment No. 72 is that it would not materially benefit the accused. It may create difficulties of its own by requiring the prosecutor to consider whether material casts doubt on the prosecution or serious doubt. There would be word pinching about whether it was a doubt or, as the amendment requires, a "serious doubt".
Amendments Nos. 32 and 72—a similar amendment was tabled in Committee—would introduce an objective test. They would give rise to the risk of judicial review of many thousands of cases in the magistrates court where, under our new regime, for the first time, there would be disclosure. There would be a risk of judicial review along the lines that existed for a period on the grounds of abuse of process based on delay. We do not want to return to that.
§ Mr. MichaelI am concerned at what the Solicitor-General is saying. First, the meaning that he places on the word "undermine" is far too slack. It means material that would do far more than merely have an adverse effect on the prosecution case, and therefore it is an onerous test. The test that we suggest involves material that would cast "serious doubt". I am not satisfied with his explanation. That would lead us to press amendment No. 72 to a vote. I invite him to explain why more legal challenges would be likely on our suggested wording than on his word, "undermine". Surely that word opens up far more avenues for argument than does our suggested formulation.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe elimination of the words "in the prosecutor's opinion" and the substitution of that 381 subjective test by an objective one would lead to judicial review of many thousands of cases in the magistrates court.
§ Mr. MichaelWith respect, I was talking about amendment No. 72. It was on that narrow point that I was asking for a response.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe original White Paper, on which we consulted widely, had the word "undermine" in it. There was no dissent from that. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, gave it his blessing. We have considered time and time again the representations that we have had not only from the Opposition but from the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society and concluded that the present test is the correct one.
Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 34 are not necessary. The code of practice provides that material that is relevant to the investigation must be recorded and retained by the investigator and revealed to the prosecutor, who will receive a schedule of sensitive material and a schedule of non-sensitive material. The description of each item on the schedule should make clear the nature of the item and contain sufficient detail to enable the prosecutor to form a judgment on whether it should be disclosed. Furthermore, clause 4 provides that the prosecutor must give the accused the schedule of non-sensitive material at the time of primary prosecution disclosure.
Similarly, amendment No. 34, which widens the definition of prosecution material in clause 7, is unnecessary because clause 8 provides that if the accused has reason to believe that the prosecutor has material that has not been disclosed and that might reasonably be expected to assist his defence, which he has disclosed, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the prosecutor to disclose such material. It is perfectly open for the defence in those circumstances to apply to the court for disclosure of the material that the prosecutor has not himself inspected but which is referred to on the schedule. That should allay the fear of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that the defence will not be put in a position to put forward its best defence. We are confident that this regime, considered in full, will achieve the essential objective of doing justice in all cases. I therefore invite the House to reject the amendment.
§ Mr. MullinI want to address one point made by the Solicitor-General. He said that he suspected that the fears were on the part of people who were stuck in the past and who do not have too much experience. I will own up to not having much experience of the conduct of criminal cases, although some of those in which I have had an interest were large and complex. My points about the extra burden that would be placed on the prosecutor were made not by me, but in a paper by the Criminal Bar Association. The signatures on the bottom are those of Mr.Roy Amlot, QC; Mr. John Nutting, QC; Mr. Stephen Kramer, QC; Mr. David Perry; and Mr. Jeremy Dein, on behalf of the Criminal Bar Association. Those gentlemen have quite a lot of experience of the criminal justice process. I cannot stress too strongly that it is their opinion, not mine.
382 I take a more robust view than my Front-Bench colleagues, but I recognise that their amendments are an improvement on what is in the Bill. So, with some reluctance, I withdraw my amendment in favour of those of my hon. Friends.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 2, line 35, leave out 'undermine' and insert 'cast serious doubt on'.— [Mr. Michael.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:
§ The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 200.
384| Division No. 145] | [7.57 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Heppell, John |
| Ainger, Nick | Hill, Keith (Streatham) |
| Allen, Graham | Hinchliffe, David |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Hoey, Kate |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Ashton, Joe | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Austin-Walker, John | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Hutton, John |
| Barnes, Harry | Illsley, Eric |
| Bayley, Hugh | Ingram, Adam |
| Bell, Stuart | Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Jamieson, David |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff) |
| Benton, Joe | Johnston, Sir Russell |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side) |
| Berry, Roger | Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) |
| Betts, Clive | Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) |
| Burden, Richard | Keen, Alan |
| Byers, Stephen | Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) |
| Callaghan, Jim | Khabra, Piara S |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Liddell, Mrs Helen |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Livingstone, Ken |
| Canavan, Dennis | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery) | Loyden, Eddie |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | McAllion, John |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | McCartney, Ian |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Macdonald, Calum |
| Connarty, Michael | McKelvey, William |
| Corston, Jean | Maclennan, Robert |
| Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) | Madden, Max |
| Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) | Mahon, Alice |
| Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Denham, John | Maxton, John |
| Dewar, Donald | Michael, Alun |
| Dixon, Don | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Eastham, Ken | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Etherington, Bill | Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Mowlam, Marjorie |
| Fatchett, Derek | Mudie, George |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Mullin, Chris |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Murphy, Paul |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | O'Brien, William (Normanton) |
| Fraser, John | O'Hara, Edward |
| Fyfe, Maria | Olner, Bill |
| Gapes, Mike | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| George, Bruce | Pearson, Ian |
| Gerrard, Neil | Pike, Peter L |
| Godsiff, Roger | Pope, Greg |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Prescott, Rt Hon John |
| Grocott, Bruce | Reid, Dr John |
| Hain, Peter | Rogers, Allan |
| Harvey, Nick | Rooker, Jeff |
| Henderson, Doug | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Rowlands, Ted | Tyler, Paul |
| Simpson, Alan | Vaz, Keith |
| Skinner, Dennis | Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Wallace, James |
| Spellar, John | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) | Welsh, Andrew |
| Stevenson, George | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) |
| Strang,Dr. Gavin | Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen) |
| Wilson, Brian | |
| Straw, Jack | Winnick, David |
| Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) | Wise, Audrey |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | Worthington, Tony |
| Tipping, Paddy | |
| Touhig, Don | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Trickett, Jon | Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Robert Ainsworth. |
| Turner, Dennis |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Forman, Nigel |
| Alexander, Richard | Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Forth, Eric |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley) |
| Amess, David | French, Douglas |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Fry, Sir Peter |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) | Gale, Roger |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Gardiner, Sir George |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Garnier, Edward |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Gill, Christopher |
| Bates, Michael | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Batiste, Spencer | Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair |
| Beggs, Roy | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Bellingham, Henry | Gorst, Sir John |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Boswell, Tim | Grylls, Sir Michael |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald |
| Bowis, John | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy |
| Brazier, Julian | Hannam, Sir John |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Hargreaves, Andrew |
| Bruce, Ian (South Dorset) | Haselhurst, Sir Alan |
| Burt, Alistair | Hawkins, Nick |
| Butterfill, John | Hawksley, Warren |
| Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) | Heald, Oliver |
| Carrington, Matthew | Hendry, Charles |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hill, James (Southampton Test) |
| Cash, William | Horam, John |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Clappison, James | Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W) |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) |
| Coe, Sebastian | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) |
| Congdon, David | Hunter, Andrew |
| Conway, Derek | Jackson, Robert (Wantage) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Jessel, Toby |
| Couchman, James | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Cran, James | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) | Key, Robert |
| Davies, Quentin (Stamford) | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Deva, Nirj Joseph | Knapman, Roger |
| Devlin, Tim | Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Knox, Sir David |
| Dover, Den | Kynoch, George (Kincardine) |
| Duncan, Alan | Lang, Rt Hon Ian |
| Duncan Smith, Iain | Lawrence, Sir Ivan |
| Dykes, Hugh | Legg, Barry |
| Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) | Leigh, Edward |
| Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) | Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe) |
| Evennett, David | Lidington, David |
| Faber, David | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Fabricant, Michael | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | MacKay, Andrew |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Maclean, Rt Hon David |
| Fishburn, Dudley | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Madel, Sir David | Sims, Roger |
| Maginnis, Ken | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Maitland, Lady Olga | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Malone, Gerald | Speed, Sir Keith |
| Mans, Keith | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Marland, Paul | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| Marshall, John (Hendon S) | Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs) |
| Merchant, Piers | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Sproat, Iain |
| Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector | Stephen, Michael |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Stern, Michael |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Stewart, Allan |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Streeter, Gary |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Sweeney, Walter |
| Norris, Steve | Sykes, John |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Ottaway, Richard | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Page, Richard | Thomason, Roy |
| Paice, James | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Patnick, Sir Irvine | Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Tracey, Richard |
| Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Trotter, Neville |
| Pawsey, James | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Pickles, Eric | Viggers, Peter |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Waterson, Nigel |
| Rathbone, Tim | Watts, John |
| Riddick, Graham | Wells, Bowen |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm | Whittingdale, John |
| Robathan, Andrew | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn | Willetts, David |
| Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) | Wilshire, David |
| Robinson, Mark (Somerton) | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Ross, William (E Londonderry) | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Sackville, Tom | Wood, Timothy |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | |
| Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford) | Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Simon Burns. |
| Shersby, Sir Michael |
§ Question accordingly negatived.