HC Deb 12 June 1996 vol 279 cc328-41

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the modification of any duty placed by this Act upon the prosecutor to disclose prosecution material to the accused when the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are fulfilled.

(2) The conditions are—

  1. (a) the material is of a sexual or violent nature, or
  2. (b) there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused or others will use the material for purposes other than for the preparation of the accused's defence.

(3) No modification made under subsection (1) above shall have the effect of preventing the accused from inspecting any material which he would but for the provisions of this section be able to inspect.

(4) A modification made under subsection (1) shall include requirements as to the retention and custody of material.

(5) "Prosecution material" in this section has the same meaning as in section 3.

(6) An order mentioned in subsection (1) shall be laid before Parliament not later than six months after this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.26 pm
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69, in clause 72, page 47, line 16 after 'section', insert '(restrictions on use by accused of sexual or violent prosecution material) or'.

Mr. Michael

The purpose of the new clause is to stop the scandal and the disgrace of prosecution material— including photographs and interview material—being used as pornography both inside and outside prison. It is right that any material that is used by the prosecution should be viewed by the defendant in order for the defendant to prepare his or her case. However, it is not right that such material—which often includes photographs of innocent victims or transcripts of interviews with women or vulnerable children—should be in circulation inside prison or elsewhere in order to provide a most disgusting form of pornography. That is what is occurring at present. It is not new, and the Government have been aware of it for some time. It is a disgrace that must be ended.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)

I wish to pose some serious practical problems to the hon. Gentleman. In his new clause, he uses the phrase "sexual or violent nature" rather than "sexual and violent nature". Many of those on remand face charges regarding the commission of violent acts, such as murder or grievous bodily harm. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he does not intend to prevent prisoners on remand from working on the papers associated with their cases while in their cells, so that they may instruct their lawyers properly for the purposes of the trial? Alternatively, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to countenance the provision of special rooms within prisons where prisoners can do that work and thereby instruct their advisers properly?

Mr. Michael

I welcome the Liberal Democrats to the consideration of the Bill. We have heard little from them until now—Liberal Democrat Members were absent during the Committee's considerations. That is a matter of choice, but it is nice to know that they have decided to take a belated interest in the legislation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had attended the Committee, he would have heard our illuminating debate and he would know the answer to his question. If he had read the new clause, he would know the answer to his question. It states: No modification made under subsection (1) above shall have the effect of preventing the accused from inspecting any material which he would but for the provisions of this section be able to inspect. It protects the rights of the accused and ensures that, in introducing an order, the Home Secretary protects the rights of the accused to inspect material in order to prepare the case.

Mr. Carlile

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael

I shall not give way for a moment or two. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be useful if he allowed us to start the debate on an issue covered by the Bill in which he and his party have taken no interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to sideline an important discussion, and I do not understand why. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to advance my argument for the new clause, I shall be happy to give way to him and respond to any queries that he may make. Because of his interruptions, I have not even been given the opportunity to explain why the new clause is so important.

I shall return to the basics of the argument. It is a disgrace and a scandal that evidential material, including photographs and interviews with vulnerable people who have been the subject of attacks, should be made available and circulated within prison. That happens on many occasions and we must take a grip on that problem.

This is not the first time that the issue has been raised; we raised it during our debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but the matter has not been dealt with. We have just witnessed the introduction of a ten-minute Bill calling for a paedophile register—another aspect of child abuse that needs to be tackled. We hear much on that subject from Conservative Members, but there seems to be little action from the Home Secretary, who blocked the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) also introduced a Bill to try to deal with such serious issues, but we seem to have heard nothing from the Home Secretary. Under pressure, the Home Secretary has started consultation on both those issues. He is not renowned for consulting people when he wants to do anything. The protection of children is a matter for action. Cross-party consensus should be sought to find a means of tackling the problem.

Material such as the photographs that need to be shown in evidence to reveal the nature of attacks and the interviews in which the attacks are described in detail should be protected from abuse. It should not be allowed to be circulated and used as pornographic material. I stress the need to prevent that from happening both inside and outside prison, but it is a particular scandal that it should happen in prison.

Our new clause deals with all the objections made to our first attempt in Committee to table a new clause to deal with such abuse. First, it gives a power to the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory instrument to protect material of the sort described. Secondly, it makes it a condition that the order must be placed before Parliament no later than six months after the Act is passed. That provision deals with the point made in Committee about the Home Secretary's consultation—it allows the consultation to continue and the findings to be incorporated in the statutory instrument, thus avoiding the delay caused by waiting for primary legislation. The new clause also refers to material of a sexual or violent nature and to circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused or others will use the material for purposes other than the preparation of the accused's defence.

To deal with the point of detail raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I am advised that the words "and or" should not be used in legislation. In most circumstances, we would be dealing with material of a sexual or violent nature used in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused either would abuse that material or would come under pressure to make the material available to others.

The way in which we have phrased the new clause allows either for a knowledge of circumstances in which material might be abused or for a knowledge of circumstances in which the nature of the material would lead to temptation that it be used as pornographic material. The reason for having "or" rather than "and" is that it would be a disgrace, in my view, if, through a technicality, some material could not be protected despite knowledge of its nature or knowledge of the circumstances. In most circumstances, both those conditions would be fulfilled.

As I have said, the interest of the accused in preparing his case would be protected by subsection (3). Subsection (4) sets out the need for the Home Secretary to make requirements in the order for the retention and custody of material. The purpose of that is to deal with three circumstances, which also cover the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. The first is the situation in prison where arrangements would have to be made for the accused to be able to inspect material, but would not allow him to take it into his possession in a way that would allow him to abuse it or come under pressure to allow others to use it as pornographic material. The second situation is when access is controlled by a legal representative in the community, and the third is that of the unrepresented defendant, who also might need to have access to such material. In that case, it would still be right that misuse of the material should be prevented.

I hope that what we are trying to do is clear. The new clause is an enabling clause and it would enable the Home Secretary to do what he has promised to do, which is to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. The new clause would avoid an extended wait for further primary legislation, because the scandal exists now and should be tackled now.

At this point, I am happy to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.

Mr. Alex Carlile

indicated dissent.

Mr. Michael

If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish me to give way, let us make progress.

We were surprised that the Government rejected our amendments in Committee, although the Minister raised some issues, which we have overcome in the new clause. I am even more surprised that the Government have not come forward with a similar enabling clause by this stage, and the Minister should explain why not. This is an important issue and we have tabled an enabling clause that would allow rapid progress, if the Government really want to make progress. If there were to be any technical difficulties with the new clause, the Bill still has to go to the House of Lords, and that will give the Government an opportunity to undertake any fine tuning. If the new clause were to be accepted, it would deal with a serious and scandalous issue.

I am sure that hon. Members will have received correspondence from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which invites us to consider the experience of an individual who has to stand up and tell a room full of strangers about a traumatic experience. We have been invited to imagine the experience of being repeatedly questioned and even called a liar to the point of tears. We have been asked to imagine the effect of those circumstances on a child who is only six years old. The NSPCC has underlined the terrifying ordeal that may be faced by children who have been physically or sexually abused when they act as witnesses in court cases in Britain, and it has rightly drawn our attention to a scandal which we, as a society and a Parliament, need to do far more about.

The NSPCC also makes the point that the children face yet another abuse from the very legal system that is meant to protect them. We shall shortly hear views about the way in which cases involving children's evidence are dealt with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about evidence by children, which is covered in new clause 6.

Mr. Michael

As I was saying, those children are going on to face yet another abuse from the very legal system that is meant to protect them. Under that legal system, we currently allow evidence in the form of photographs of and interviews with children to be circulated in prisons and, in some circumstances, in public, to be used as pornography. It is that scandal which the new clause seeks to end. I was merely trying to place the new clause in the context of the wider range of problems facing victims of child sexual abuse and other victims of sexual offences, something that we need to take much more seriously.

As further proof of the seriousness of the issue, I point to evidence made available by "The Cook Report", which showed that the tendency to abuse children is stimulated by the use of certain material. The programme showed interviews with paedophiles, one of whom referred to himself and those with whom he associated as master of manipulators, extremely adept in lying, and telling our victims, our friends, people that saw us, that they had no idea that we were of this character". A survey undertaken as part of the programme "Children in Danger: Special" shows that 90 per cent. of paedophiles say that they will reoffend, many of them encouraged by the kind of filth peddled by some of the individuals shown in the programme.

The tragedy is that many of the 90 per cent. who say in prison that they will be inclined to reoffend as soon as they are released also have their inclinations stimulated by the circulation of evidence which at the moment legitimately comes into the hands of prisoners but which is then passed on, for the use not only of the individual defendant but of others. We owe it to the children who may be the victims of the fresh offences that 90 per cent. of offenders think they are likely to commit after leaving prison to ensure that every step that can be taken is taken to prevent the continuation of such activity.

It is difficult for reasonable people to understand the mindset of those who get involved in child sex offences and, indeed, adult sex offences. However, after speaking about child prostitution when we debated a private Member's Bill only a few weeks ago, I was shocked to receive one particular letter. It was a reasonable letter, which included a name and address and had been thoughtfully typed. It asked why we were concerned about child prostitutes and said: They are in employment in a pleasant and not too demanding job. They are earning money and they do eat. A good situation to them? When there are people with such a mindset, when the material that is required to pursue prosecution can be circulated in prison in such a way as to make a bad situation even worse, and when the evidence shows that 90 per cent. of child sex offenders think that they are likely to reoffend as soon as they get out, surely there is good reason to take a grip on the situation now.

I conclude by making two final points. First, we are not arguing a new case. It has been made for several years, and although the response of a consultation period may be sensible, it is too little, too late. The new clause would allow the completion of the consultation that the Home Secretary has undertaken, but would also allow him to act now and, at the end of the consultation, to introduce a statutory instrument and proceed to legislation without further delay.

Secondly, the new clause is carefully phrased to protect the interests of the defendant, so that he will have the opportunity to inspect the material to whatever extent is necessary to prepare his case. Clearly, his representative will also have that freedom. Therefore, the new clause does not undermine the rights of the defendant, but it protects the rights of victims.

4.45 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile

I start by reminding the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who I think got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, that Committees are selected by the Committee of Selection.

New clause 5 is an awful muddle and it would be a nightmare to interpret. But, having said that, I support its thrust and, if necessary, will vote for it because it tackles an important issue. However, facets of the issue would have to be met if such a provision were to become part of our law.

In particular—I see in the Chamber a few other people who have had the experience of attempting to take instructions from defendants charged with violent or sexual offences in some of Britain's less savoury prisons—it is extremely difficult to obtain instructions over a proper length of time and in reasonable circumstances.

If prisoners are not to be able to have all the papers that are relevant to their cases in their cells—there may be good reasons for that, as the hon. Gentleman suggested—two steps must be taken. Indeed, they are needed whether or not the new clause is passed.

The first is that proper facilities should be provided in prisons so that prisoners can consider all the material in their cases, including material that may properly be put to them dealing with violent or sexual aspects of their cases. The second is that it is high time that prisons provided proper facilities so that counsel can have conferences with their clients in reasonable circumstances, at reasonable times of day and of a reasonable length.

Having said that, I am content to support the new clause for what it means, although, I emphasise, not for what it says, because it says it very badly.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has an active legal practice and can point out some of the practical difficulties involved in taking instructions, often in rather cramped, unsavoury and unsatisfactory conditions.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on his initiative. I am confident that it is part of a series of suggestions for reform that he has made which the Government will ultimately, but belatedly, accept, but that they should have met rather more positively at an early stage.

The matter that my hon. Friend raises is one of real concern. It is surprising that it has not been dealt with before. My hon. Friend has given the genesis and development of his proposal. Surely the Government have had ample time since 1994 to accept that there is a real matter of concern here, to consult and to come forward with their own proposal. It is sad that the Government are stronger on rhetoric than on taking practical measures to deal with the real problems. This is a matter which, had the Home Secretary wanted, he could have included in that rather notorious list of reforms at the Conservative party conference, or about which he could have done something by now.

I follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery by saying that, although various practical problems arise, I think that we all agree with the principle of the new clause. However, the fact that it is an enabling clause allows those practical difficulties to be addressed by the process of consultation. I note, for example, the duty of the prosecutor to disclose.

The real mischief is leaving material of a violent or sexual nature in the hands of those who might misuse it, either defendants who are not in custody or, more relevantly, those who are in custody. Everyone who has been in practice or is now in practice knows well the sort of material concerned. It may include photographs. Having dealt with nasty multiple rape cases and murder cases involving photographs of parts of bodies or bodies which have been disfigured, one can well imagine the currency of such photographs in prison. However, it is unnecessary for prisoners to take away photographs and so be able to show them around in the prison. They can look at them without having to take them away.

The problem arises more, perhaps, with depositions where there is a series of interviews, perhaps with a child, or where there is a description of a multiple rape or a murder, which might excite the passions of those in prison. The defendant might need adequate time to digest the material. It may be sufficient for accommodation to be made for counsel to take adequate instructions, but we must guard against the prisoner being able to trade in such material in prison, feeding his own and others' addiction. If the Government recognise that there is a problem, they should find practical ways to address justice for the defendant while ensuring that material such as interviews, descriptions and photographs does not become a currency in prison. It is not beyond the wit of the Government to come forward with practical proposals.

I am a little concerned about who decides what material will or will not be made available. At the moment, it looks as though the discretion is with the prosecution, and there will have to be not only joint consultation between prosecution and defence but some form of appeal, if necessary, to ensure that the interests of justice are considered. These are practical problems, but with good will they can be solved.

The other practical question about which I need to be satisfied is the phrase "reasonable grounds for supposing". How can one guess in advance who will use or misuse such material? If the material were put into the hands of a defendant, that defendant would be tempted to misuse it. All defendants would. That will have to be dealt with.

I am also concerned that an individual may, for various reasons, choose not to be represented. Depositions will have to be made fully available to such an individual, and there could be few curbs on the misuse of material by a defendant in person who is not represented, whether or not he or she is in custody. If the defendant is in custody, it is difficult to see how any deposition can be withheld from that individual if the interests of justice are to be served.

I am confident that, with good will, those problems can be ironed out, but from my own experience of some pretty lurid cases—both sexual and in terms of violence—and my knowledge of the way in which explicit material can be misused, particularly in prisons, I commend my hon. Friend for having raised the issue, but condemn the Government for not having responded as they should. I believe that they should, as a matter of urgency, be prepared, if not now, certainly in the other place, to come forward with practical means to meet this very real problem.

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

I take some comfort from the fact that the new clause suggests that the Labour party has finally accepted our view that preventing the misuse of sensitive victim statements and photographs is a particularly difficult and complex task. It is likely that rushing into inadequate legislation without the opportunity to consult practitioners on the detail would achieve little.

If the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) thinks that the new clause is a muddle, he should have seen the amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee.

I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has still not fully appreciated the intricacies of devising a workable and effective scheme.

The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) deplored the rhetoric and then condemned the Government. He fully supported the new clause but then went on to shoot it down by pointing out all the holes in it. He said that he was worried about the reasonable grounds and that there would have to be safeguards for this and that. He pointed out all the faults in the new clause, and he was right to do so because it is fatally flawed.

There is no disagreement in the House on the need for a scheme to prevent the misuse of some of the material that can circulate in prisons, but we should not underestimate the difficulties of legislation. When we last invited the views of interested parties on measures to tackle the problem, there was no consensus on how best to proceed. That is hardly surprising because there is a difficult balance to strike between the rights of defendants to know all the evidence against them and the need to protect victims from improper use of their statements or of photographs of them.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced last month, we have decided that a statutory scheme is needed. We have devised proposals that are workable and effective. We shall embark on a consultation process in the very near future, in the light of which we shall legislate as soon as possible. It serves no interest, least of all that of the credibility of the Labour party, to try to anticipate that consultation by legislating on the basis proposed in the new clause.

Mr. Donald Anderson

The Minister has used the phrase, "as soon as possible". My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned that the problem was first raised in 1994. Does that suggest that there is any real urgency on the part of the Government?

Mr. Maclean

There is real urgency on the part of the Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when my right hon. and learned Friend produced his famous 27 proposals, there was ridicule from the Labour party. Half the Labour party, including its leader, said that they were just an ineffective publicity stunt. We published those proposals and we have legislated on the vast majority of them. There is only one outstanding proposal, which the Bill includes. We now find the Labour party saying, "You should have done more." Labour Members ridiculed the proposals at the time, but they now say that they do not go far enough and that we should have included a host of other things in legislation. New issues which deserve to be tackled will always come along, but not a single Labour Member demanded that we included this measure with the 27 proposals and added it to a Criminal Justice Bill.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth should not provoke me in this short debate. If he looks at the voting record of Labour Members on this issue, or on other child protection issues that were debated in the 1980s, he will see that some of his hon. Friends have a sorry record.

I shall give the House two examples to show how the new clause is fundamentally flawed. First, any scheme must include provisions for its requirements to be enforced. We have made it clear that we believe that it should be an offence for defendants to have protected material in their possession other than in accordance with the requirements of a supervised access regime. Those responsible for protecting the material must also be liable if they commit any breaches of the regime.

The new clause would modify the duty on the prosecution. In those circumstances, it would not be right for an order made under it to provide for new offences and penalties to be applied to defendants. In addition, those new offences would require substantial penalties of up to two years' imprisonment to deal with the worst offences. When we introduce our statutory scheme, if we find that there are criminals in prison who have access to such material and who are breaking rules by circulating pornographic material, we want to have substantial penalties against them.

The House would never agree to a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment being created by order of the Secretary of State, even if the new clause contained an express power for the order to include criminal offences. The new clause is, of course, silent on this matter. If the Government said that the Home Secretary could, by order, introduce a power to send people to prison for two years, the Labour party would be the first to condemn us and, in that case, rightly so.

The second fundamental flaw in the Opposition's argument is this. We believe that all material that might be misused, whether or not it forms part of the prosecution case, should be protected. Any unused material—not just the pornographic material—that might be part of the prosecution's case should be protected. There could be a whole raft of unused prosecution material that might be disallowed or not given in evidence. We cannot allow sexual material that could involve children to circulate around prisons because it has not been protected. There must be immediate and certain protection for victims.

As the new clause is confined to the prosecutor's duty under the Bill to disclose prosecution material as defined in clause 3, it would apply only to that unused prosecution material and not to the central evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely, and which is bound to include sensitive victims' statements and photographs. That would be plainly ridiculous.

5 pm

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery identified another problem. The new clause ignored the advice of the royal commission on criminal justice, which did not identify the information on common assaults or violent crime as a concern. That problem relates to sexual material. That is the only stuff that has currency in prison and is circulating. The new clause is far too wide in catching violent material. Sexually violent material would be caught under the sexual definition, but there is no point in including material on other assaults and violence. The core of the problem is not that, but sexual material. We want to home in on that and to provide automatic protection for all victims and all sexual material in statements, and we shall be consulting on that shortly.

It is not a matter of saying that we accept the spirit of the new clause and we shall tickle it or amend it in another place. The new clause is fatally flawed. If our experience on the Bill is anything to go by, it is worth consulting the legal practitioners before rushing into legislation.

Mr. Alex Carlile

indicated assent.

Mr. Maclean

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is nodding in agreement. In that case, I agree with him on the matter.

There was no consensus when the Government last considered the matter. I hope that when we publish our consultation paper shortly, we shall have the views of the Law Society and others so that, if there are changes to be made, we can make them and introduce sensible and workable legislation that will protect victims as the new clause manifestly fails to do.

Mr. Michael

The Labour party's voting record on crime and children's issues stands the test of time and it is mere bluster for the Minister to suggest otherwise. One has only to look at the series of issues on which the Opposition have been constructive long before they were identified by the Government to recognise that the Labour party is serious about tackling crime, just as it is serious about tackling the misuse of evidential material of a sexual and violent nature.

The Minister says that it is wrong to rush in. Let me make two points on that. First, that has not stopped the Home Secretary tackling any issue that he perceives to be popular with the Conservative party conference. He is renowned as the Home Secretary who rushes in without advice on issue after issue. Secondly, the Government have had long enough to consult and to construct serious amendments. They do not need more time. It is an excuse, and not a very convincing one, to suggest that further delay should be allowed. If the Government were determined to end that disgraceful abuse, they would have started consultation two years ago.

The Minister suggests that merely sexual material and not violent material should be caught by any legislation. That is not enough. Photographs and material involving mutilation and violence on people have been at the core of many serious cases. The advice of those concerned with such issues is that there is often a mixture of sexual and violent motivation and that the domination of children and women is at the heart of many of the offences that we seek to cover in the new clause.

The Minister would be wise to recognise the need to extend the Bill beyond merely sexual evidence to sexual and/or violent evidence, as we have proposed in the new clause. If there is cross-party agreement, as the Minister suggested, that we should end this abuse, the Government should be finding ways to tackle the abuse, but yet again the Labour party shows the sense of responsibility appropriate to Government by trying to tackle the problem.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should understand my slight frustration when he intervened during my first sentence on the new clause. Labour Members have spent time in Committee trying to make constructive suggestions and trying to tease out information when the Liberal Democrats chose not to be involved in the Bill. We have attempted to do that difficult job without the benefit of parliamentary counsel.

When the Minister makes minor criticisms of what we have done, he should bear in mind the fact that the Opposition are trying to fill the gap that has been left by the Government's unwillingness to tackle serious problems. Having said that, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for his support for the new clause and for his constructive criticisms. I acknowledge that he has raised important issues. That is why we phrased the new clause so that the regulations would be required to take into consideration the practical details and would specifically require the disclosure to be no less as a result of the new clause in order to protect the interests of the defendant while also protecting the interests of those portrayed in photographs or interview evidence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked who would decide how the measures would operate. That should be covered in the regulations. I have taken advice on the capacity to deal with that and appeal rights by statutory instrument. I would be happier for detailed legislation to be part of the primary legislation, but as the Government have not included it in the primary legislation, have not taken the hint in Committee and have not undertaken the consultation that should have started a couple of years ago, it is surely better to pass this enabling legislation and, in the fullness of time, to let the scheme be amended to make it perfect in the light of experience.

I am absolutely clear that the difficulties of producing appropriate legislation are no excuse for doing nothing. Immediate action is needed on this scandal. The new clause should be passed into law in order to make sure that we act on it now.

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

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 235.

Division No. 142] [5.07 pm
Adams, Mrs Irene Golding, Mrs Llin
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Graham, Thomas
Allen, Graham Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Alton, David Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Grocott, Bruce
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) Hain, Peter
Ashton, Joe Hall, Mike
Austin-Walker, John Harvey, Nick
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Barnes, Harry Henderson, Doug
Barron, Kevin Heppell, John
Battle, John Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Bayley, Hugh Hinchliffe, David
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret Hoey, Kate
Bell, Stuart Hoon, Geoffrey
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Betts, Clive Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Blunkett, David Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Boateng, Paul Hutton, John
Bradley, Keith Illsley, Eric
Bray, Dr Jeremy Ingram, Adam
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E) Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Burden, Richard Johnston, Sir Russell
Byers, Stephen Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Caborn, Richard Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Callaghan, Jim Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Jowell, Tessa
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Keen, Alan
Campbell-Savours, D N Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery) Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Chisholm, Malcolm Khabra, Piara S
Clark, Dr David (South Shields) Kilfoyle, Peter
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Kirkwood, Archy
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) Liddell, Mrs Helen
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Livingstone, Ken
Coffey, Ann Llwyd, Elfyn
Connarty, Michael Lynne, Ms Liz
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) McAllion, John
Corbyn, Jeremy McAvoy, Thomas
Corston, Jean McCartney, Ian
Cox, Tom Macdonald, Calum
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) McKelvey, William
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John McNamara, Kevin
Darling, Alistair McWilliam, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) Madden, Max
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) Mahon, Alice
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Mandelson, Peter
Denham, John Marek, Dr John
Dewar, Donald Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dixon, Don Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Dowd, Jim Martlew, Eric
Eagle, Ms Angela Maxton, John
Eastham, Ken Michael, Alun
Etherington, Bill Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Evans, John (St Helens N) Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Fatchett, Derek Milburn, Alan
Faulds, Andrew Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Moonie, Dr Lewis
Fisher, Mark Morgan, Rhodri
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Mowlam, Marjorie
Fraser, John Mudie, George
Fyfe, Maria Mullin, Chris
Galbraith, Sam Murphy, Paul
Gapes, Mike Olner, Bill
George, Bruce Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Gerrard, Neil Pearson, Ian
Pendry, Tom Stott, Roger
Pike, Peter L Strang, Dr. Gavin
Pope, Greg Straw, Jack
Powell, Ray (Ogmore) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Prescott, Rt Hon John Timms, Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn Tipping, Paddy
Quin, Ms Joyce Touhig, Don
Reid, Dr John Trickett, Jon
Rendel, David Turner, Dennis
Robertson, George (Hamilton) Tyler, Paul
Rogers, Allan Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Rooker, Jeff Wallace, James
Rooney, Terry Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Welsh, Andrew
Short, Clare Wicks, Malcolm
Simpson, Alan Wigley, Dafydd
Skinner, Dennis Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) Winnick, David
Soley, Clive Wise, Audrey
Spearing, Nigel Worthington, Tony
Spellar, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) Tellers for the Ayes:
Steinberg, Gerry Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Joe Benton.
Stevenson, George
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Alexander, Richard Day, Stephen
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Deva, Nirj Joseph
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Devlin, Tim
Amess, David Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Dover, Den
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) Duncan, Alan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Duncan Smith, Iain
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Dunn, Bob
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Dykes, Hugh
Bates, Michael Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Batiste, Spencer Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Bellingham, Henry Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Bendall, Vivian Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Beresford, Sir Paul Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Body, Sir Richard Evennett, 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 Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Bright, Sir Graham Forth, Eric
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Browning, Mrs Angela Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset) Fry, Sir Peter
Budgen, Nicholas Gale, Roger
Burns, Simon Gardiner, Sir George
Burt, Alistair Garnier, Edward
Butcher, John Gill, Christopher
Carlisle, John (Luton North) Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Carrington, Matthew Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Carttiss, Michael Gorst, Sir John
Cash, William Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Clappison, James Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Coe, Sebastian Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Congdon, David Hannam, Sir John
Conway, Derek Hargreaves, Andrew
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Cormack, Sir Patrick Hawkins, Nick
Couchman, James Hawksley, Warren
Cran, James Hayes, Jerry
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) Heald, Oliver
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Hendry, Charles Richards, Rod
Hill, James (Southampton Test) Riddick, Graham
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Robathan, Andrew
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W) Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Hunter, Andrew Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Jack, Michael Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Jenkin, Bernard Sackville, Tom
Jessel, Toby Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey Shaw, David (Dover)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Key, Robert Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Kirkhope, Timothy Shersby, Sir Michael
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) Sims, Roger
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N) Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Knox, Sir David Speed, Sir Keith
Kynoch, George (Kincardine) Spencer, Sir Derek
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan Spink, Dr Robert
Legg, Barry Sproat, Iain
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe) Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lidington, David Steen, Anthony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Stephen, Michael
Lord, Michael Stern, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Stewart, Allan
MacKay, Andrew Streeter, Gary
Maclean, Rt Hon David Sweeney, Walter
McLoughlin, Patrick Sykes, John
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick Tapsell, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Maitland, Lady Olga Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mans, Keith Temple-Morris, Peter
Marland, Paul Thomason, Roy
Marshall, John (Hendon S) Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Merchant, Piers Thumham, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Mills, Iain Tracey, Richard
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) Tredinnick, David
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants) Trotter, Neville
Moate, Sir Roger Twinn, Dr Ian
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector Viggers, Peter
Needham, Rt Hon Richard Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Nelson, Anthony Walden, George
Neubert, Sir Michael Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Nicholls, Patrick Waterson, Nigel
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Watts, John
Norris, Steve Whittingdale, John
Oppenheim, Phillip Widdecombe, Ann
Ottaway, Richard Willetts, David
Page, Richard Wilshire, David
Paice, James Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Patnick, Sir Irvine Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Wolfson, Mark
Pawsey, James Wood, Timothy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Yeo, Tim
Pickles, Eric Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Porter, David (Waveney)
Powell, William (Corby) Tellers for the Noes:
Rathbone, Tim Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Bowen Wells.
Redwood, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to