- '4.—(1) This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling four years or longer and who are not released on:
- (a) life licence; or
- (b) supervised release order; or
- (c) compassionate grounds.
- (2) A prisoner to whom this section applies shall be released on licence which shall (unless revoked) remain in force until the entire period specified in his sentence (reckoned from the commencement of the sentence) has elapsed.
- (3) A person released on licence under subsection (2) above shall comply with such conditions as may be specified in that licence by the Secretary of State.
- (4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above and to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (5) below to vary or cancel any condition, a licence granted under this section shall include a condition requiring that the person subject to it—
- (a) shall be under the supervision of a relevant officer of such local authority, or of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area, as may be specified in the licence; and
- (b) shall comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision.
- (5) The Secretary of State may from time to time under subsection (3) above insert, vary or cancel a condition in a licence granted under this section, but no licence condition shall be included on release or subsequently inserted, varied or cancelled except after consulting the Parole Board.
- (6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall be treated as having consulted the Parole Board about a proposal to include, insert, vary or cancel a condition in any case if he has consulted the Board about the implementation of proposals of that description generally or in that class of case.'.—[Mr.McFall.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. McFall
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have tabled the new clause because we want to enhance public safety. The Government's proposals do not do so, but our provisions will strengthen that aspect of the Bill. The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 provides for non-parole licences, under which any prisoner sentenced to more than four years but not granted parole can be released on licence until the sentence expiry date. The arrangements in that Act enhanced public safety as well as rehabilitation.
The Bill alters those arrangements, as only life parolees and those made subject to a supervised release order by the sentencing court will now be under direct supervision. The sheriff or judge must say at the time of trial that the long-term prisoner will be subject to a supervised release order. All other long-term prisoners will have no supervision, but will be liable to recall following a further offence.
We are surprised that the Government are diminishing the public safety aspect, as well as diminishing the potential to help people to be rehabilitated back into the community. After implementation of the 1993 Act, the new parole licences came into effect in May 1995, so there has been no time to evaluate them. The Minister of State, who is dealing with this Bill tonight, put through those measures in the 1993 legislation, with the support of the Opposition.
In our opinion, public safety will be increased if all long-term prisoners are supervised until their sentence expires. Longer-term prisoners include those who have committed very serious offences and could constitute a further risk. Why will the Government allow those individuals to be released into the community again—or allow the possibility of their release—without that supervision? Surely the Government are putting public order at risk—a risk that they should not take.
The new clause covers those sentenced for the offences of dishonesty and of theft by housebreaking, and especially repeat, serious and violent offenders—one category that has been increasing. The professional criminal and thief would, therefore, be brought into mandatory supervision on release, giving the public that protection. That comfort must be available. It is the Government's duty to provide it and, through the new clause, we are pressing them to take heed of it.
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
We believe that the public are best protected by targeting supervision on those identified as posing a risk, which is the most effective way of deploying resources.
The public rightly expect to be protected and rightly expect those charged with the protection to focus on offenders who may endanger them. Attempting to 655 supervise everyone regardless of risk or need, as the new clause sets out to do, would deflect attention away from those offenders who pose a threat. That is not the best way to protect the public. Supervision can achieve its objective only if it is focused and targeted. Near misses are not good enough.
The Bill will allow the sentencing court to identify offenders whom it considers may pose a risk to the public on release and impose a supervised release order on them. We have also provided the Crown with a right of appeal in those cases where it thinks a supervised police order should have been made but was not.
§ Dr. Godman
Is the Minister's position on this important issue supported by members of the parole boards, or do they have serious reservations?
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what each member would say, but I believe that targeting supervision would be regarded as a common-sense measure, and having an untargeted, unfocused approach would not meet the requirements.
We are not persuaded that the approach proposed in the new clause would be effective, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to withdraw the motion.
§ Mr. McAllion
I am disturbed by the Minister's remarks and the cavalier fashion in which he dismissed the new clause. For example, he said—I do not think that anyone will disagree with this statement, anyway—that we have to target such resources as we have in the probation service and local authority social work departments on those offenders who pose the greatest risk to people in the community. He then dismissed the new clause, saying that it would cover everyone. I direct his attention to the first sentence of the new clause, which states:This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling four years or longer".Some years ago—in 1994, I think—in the White Paper that the Minister issued, as the Minister with responsibility for law and order in Scotland, he pointed out that, in courts, a distinction is made between offenders who are dealt with under the summary procedure, which is usually regarded as involving less serious crimes, and offenders dealt with under the solemn procedure, which involves very serious crimes indeed.
Under the solemn procedure, prisoners can get sentences of three, four or five years, so, by the Government's definition, all those offenders who are sentenced to four years or more are guilty of extremely serious offences. The Minister may think that those who commit serious offences are not a threat to society, but I think that most people in Scotland would disagree.
Supervision on release was covered in the White Paper, and there the Minister struck a very different note from the one that he struck a few moments ago. He said:Protecting the public did not end with clarity in sentencing",and I agree with him. It is not enough to play the game played by the Secretary of State, who poses as a tough guy who will deal with the criminals by making sure that 656 they spend more time in gaol. We must go further than that to protect the public in Scotland from the serious criminals who would be covered by the new clause.
In the White Paper, the Minister said:The public need to be reassured that the Government is doing all it can to prevent further offending.If the Minister wanted to do all he could to prevent further offending and to protect the public, he could begin by reading the new clause, which deals with those matters, but he took a different line a few minutes ago.
In the White Paper, the Minister also said:To this end we are making early release from custody contingent not only on good conduct in prison, but also on participation while in custody in appropriate strategies to address and change offending behaviour.Nobody would be too concerned about that remark. He continued:The responses to the Government's consultation exercise strongly supported the principle of release on conditions intended to enhance public protection.The Minister said that the response to the consultations was a demand for release on condition, to ensure that offenders who came out of the gates were properly monitored and looked after, and that probation officers and social workers were available to deal with them during the period in which they were still in the community serving the part of their sentence that had not been served in gaol; but now he shrugs off the idea with a few casual remarks. The new clause would cover just about everything to which he referred.
Does the Minister not know that the vast majority of those in Scotland's prisons are serving sentences of less than four years and that only the most serious offenders are serving sentences of four years or more? He is telling us that it is all right for serious offenders to be allowed back into the community without supervision. Perhaps he is concerned that it would might cost money to look after them properly and to protect the public, but that is not what he or his colleagues will say when they go back to Scotland to fight the general election; then they will say that law and order is a priority and that the Government spare no expense to maintain it and to ensure that people throughout Scotland are safe in their communities. The Government have the nerve to dismiss a new clause that would do precisely that.
Only when a serious offender reoffends will the Government do anything about it. They have shown themselves to be weak, not strong, on law and order. Unless the Minister changes his tune, everyone back in Scotland—not least his family—will look at him and say, "Failed again, Minister. You've got it wrong once again."
§ Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Govan)
One of the Government's main roles should be the protection of the public. I am not convinced that the Government are taking the new clause sufficiently seriously from that perspective. I can understand why the Government want to economise on the supervision of prisoners once they have been released, but they should take much more seriously the need to ensure that people released in such circumstances are provided with support, which would result in fewer of them reoffending and enhance public safety.
657 We would support the system proposed by the Government, with some targeting, but proposed subsection (4)(b) specifically says that the person releasedshall comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision.That would obviously allow the supervising officer an enormous degree of discretion. It would ensure, for example, that people were seen to be taking steps to address their offending behaviour and perhaps, with the help of the supervising officer, to find employment or obtain further educational qualifications that would make them more employable and therefore less likely to offend.
All the evidence shows that those who are most likely to reoffend are those on the very bottom of the employment ladder. The amount of supervision and assistance that can be provided by a local authority officer, to encourage someone to seek employment, careers advice, education or training, is quite considerable. People who are released from prison and who are not immediately in danger of reoffending might drift back into criminal behaviour simply because they are alone and lack supervision.
The Government should take more seriously the need to safeguard the public, and should not ignore our constructive proposals.
§ Dr. Godman
I support the new clause. I am pleased that my hon. Friends want the parole board to have an important function in such cases. To my mind, the Minister and his officials have in recent times sought to reduce the important role played by the parole board in dealing with people released into the community. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important for the parole board to play a central part, and it is perhaps even more important for the public to be protected.
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
As I stated earlier, we believe that supervision is most effective when focused. The courts are required to focus supervised release orders on precisely the category referred to: those who are convicted of rape and other violent offences.
Local authorities cannot supervise all released offenders to the level needed to ensure public safety. The task cannot successfully be spread across all offenders. Since the publication of the White Paper, we have adapted our proposals on supervision. Supervision, through supervised release orders, will be mandatory for serious sex and violent offenders, and at the discretion of the court in other cases.
For those not subject to supervision, the provisions of clauses 33 and 34 provide an incentive to good behaviour on release. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) mentioned the potential to help. That is not diminished by the Bill. The national standards for the supervision of released prisoners provide that all persons released from custody can, within 12 months of their release, seek support and assistance from the local authority.
658 We believe that the provisions in the new clause would be undiscriminating, and therefore wasteful of resources, and that the courts are well able to recognise those offenders who represent the greatest risk to the public.
§ Mr. McAllion
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the White Paper—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Is the Minister giving way?
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
No, I had finished.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
In that case, I call Mr. John McFall.
§ Mr. McFall
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister says that he cannot spread the provisions because it would be too expensive, but that supervision would be mandatory for serious sex and violent offenders. He should understand that we are saying that those long-term prisoners who have committed serious offences should be subject to supervision. If, as I believe, he is saying otherwise, he is showing disregard for public safety. The Opposition want those individuals to be supervised.
It is no use for the Minister to say that the provision cannot be mandatory and cannot apply across the board. If it was good enough for the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill, introduced by the Minister and approved by the previous Secretaries of State—the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) and the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—why is it not good enough for the Minister and the Secretary of State today? Will the Minister maintain the provisions of the 1993 Act?
The 1993 Act was implemented after the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands, when Secretary of State for Scotland, established Lord Kincraig's committee to consider parole and other issues. It took three years, if I remember correctly, to report back to the Government, but its recommendations were accepted by all parties. I was leading for Labour in the Committee that considered the Bill when the Minister asked us to accept them. He said that all long-term prisoners needed supervision. We took him at his word; why is he breaking it now?
§ Mr. McAllion
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the Minister, who rather uncharitably refused to give way to me earlier.
In their latest figures, which cover 1994, even the Government accept that 83 per cent. of prisoners in Scotland serve sentences of less than six months. The number of people who will be affected by new clause 8 is small. It is beyond comprehension why the Government should resist the idea of supervision of serious offenders when they are released back into the community. The Minister mentioned some of the cases that will get automatic supervision; should he not also mention the cases that will not be covered by his provision but would be covered by ours?
§ Mr. McFall
My hon. Friend makes a good point: 83 per cent. of offenders are in prison for less than six 659 months, and there is no supervision for them when they get out. Why should that principle apply to those who serve long sentences and to violent or serious offenders?
The Minister begs the question when he says that it is up to the court. Can he imagine a sheriff—or, more likely, a High Court judge—giving a 10-year sentence and saying, "Well, my boy, lest I forget, you should be subject to a supervisory release order when you come out"? There is every chance that judges will not utter those words, which means that such people will be a danger to the community when they come out. The Secretary of State smirks at that, but the 1993 legislation was introduced by his Government and made those very points. Why is he introducing this Bill against the wishes of his hon. Friends, the Kincraig committee and others? It must be recorded that the Bill is being introduced by the Secretary of State at a whim. He consulted no one.
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth)
I am surprised, after all this time, that the hon. Gentleman has not got the basic substance of the Bill into his mind: the point is that people should spend longer in prison as a result of their sentences and should not be out in the community under supervision. We believe that they should be in prison. The provisions for supervision after they have served the sentence of the court are an additional protection. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand that.
§ Mr. McFall
The right hon. Gentleman is being patronising. We are talking about long-term prisoners who are released under provisions made by the Government. The Opposition believe that, when the Government decide to release such prisoners, they have a duty to the public to ensure supervision. I hope that that gets through to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Davidson
Is it not a bit much for the Secretary of State to argue that he is interested in increasing sentences, and that we are not, when it was Labour who demanded in Committee that the sentence available to judges for the third convictions of drug traffickers aged over 21 should be increased from seven to 10 years? The Government defeated that proposal in Committee. We are interested in increasing sentences for such people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for the Government's refusal to accept the new clause was let slip by the Secretary of State when he said that local authorities could not supervise to the level required? Does that not show that it is a question of finance and nothing else?
§ Mr. McFall
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I remind the House that it was the Opposition who brought up the cases of Gavin McGuire and John Cronin, who were released from prison. We want adequate supervision for such people. They were released under provisions introduced by the Government. We want long-term supervision, not the blemishes on the criminal justice system that the Government have allowed. That is why we have tabled new clause 8. We want increased public safety.
§ Mr. Davidson
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the Government's defence of their refusal to accept new 660 clause 8 is based on the fact that violent or sexual criminals have been dealt with elsewhere? However, crimes such as burglary will not be treated seriously enough by the courts; supervision after release will not be mandatory. The Government are releasing burglars into the community without the requirement for supervision. On top of all their other charters, we now have the burglars charter. Burglars are to be released without supervision, which will ensure that the public are put even further at risk.
§ Mr. McFall
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is an important point and the Minister could comment on the issue of people convicted of burglary.
It appears that the Government are not much concerned about people who are not only social nuisances in their communities but a danger to them. We want to take back to our communities the message that the Government take the issue seriously and will ensure supervision for such people when they are released from prison. The Government's intransigence blows a hole in their law and order credentials. The Secretary of State tells us that the Tories are interested in law and order, yet they have allowed crime to rip over the past 18 years in Scotland. New clause 8 would ensure that, when such people are let out of prison into the community, the message goes out from the House that the Government take the issue seriously. The Government have fallen down in their duty. That is why we press new clause 8 so vigorously.
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly.
We have, of course, adapted our proposals since the publication of the White Paper. There will be control through a supervised release order where the courts determine that the offender will be a risk. In cases where the courts have not identified the offender as a risk, clause 34 will be a significant disincentive to reoffending. It provides that, if someone reoffends during a fixed period after his release, he will be liable to a heavier penalty for the new offence.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) said that the Opposition wanted to increase the minimum sentence for a third conviction for drug trafficking to 10 years for adult traffickers, but they also suggested reducing it to five years for those under 21. We believe that that would have weakened law and order.
§ Mr. McAllion
The Minister tried to calm our feelings by referring us to clause 34, which provides that people released under licence but without supervision who reoffend will be subject to stiffer sentences. He is making the tragic mistake that legislators have made since the 19th century: he believes that tougher and tougher sentences will reduce crime. Most criminals do not believe that they are going to be caught. The sentence that might result from being caught does not enter their considerations. They have to be looked after in the community. The Secretary of State is wrong if he thinks that locking them up in gaol for long periods is the 661 answer. At some point, they have to come out again. If they reoffend, crime will inevitably rise. That is why we have tabled the new clause.
§ Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
That was very much the voice of old Labour. We strongly believe that it is necessary to target those concerned and not act regardless of risk or need.
§ Mr. Davidson
With the permission of the House—
§ The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 281.664
|Division No. 43]||[5.49 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Denham, John|
|Ainger, Nick||Dewar, Donald|
|Allen, Graham||Dixon, Don|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Dowd, Jim|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Eagle, Ms Angela|
|Ashton, Joseph||Eastham, Ken|
|Austin-Walker, John||Ennis, Jeff|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Etherington, Bill|
|Barnes, Harry||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Barron, Kevin||Ewing, Mrs Margaret|
|Bayley, Hugh||Faulds, Andrew|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Bell, Stuart||Fisher, Mark|
|Benn, Tony||Flynn, Paul|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Foster, Derek|
|Benton, Joe||Foulkes, George|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Fraser, John|
|Blair, Tony||Fyfe, Mrs Maria|
|Boateng, Paul||Galloway, George|
|Bradley, Keith||Garrett, John|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||George, Bruce|
|Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Gerrard, Neil|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Burden, Richard||Gordon, Ms Mildred|
|Byers, Stephen||Graham, Thomas|
|Callaghan, Jim||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Campbell-Savours, D N||Grocott, Bruce|
|Canavan, Dennis||Gunnell, John|
|Cann, Jamie||Hain, Peter|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Hanson, David|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Hardy, Peter|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Hattersley, Roy|
|Cohen, Harry||Heppell, John|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Hodge, Ms Margaret|
|Cousins, Jim||Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)|
|Cox, Tom||Home Robertson, John|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Hood, Jimmy|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Cunningham, Dr John||Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)|
|Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Dafis, Cynog||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hoyle, Doug|
|Davidson, Ian||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)||Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)|
|Davies, Chris (Littleborough)||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Ingram, Adam|
|Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)||Olner, Bill|
|Jamieson, David||Orme, Stanley|
|Janner, Greville||Pearson, Ian|
|Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)||Pendry, Tom|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)||Pickthall, Colin|
|Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)||Pike, Peter L|
|Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)||Pope, Greg|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)||Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Jowell, Ms Tessa||Randall, Stuart|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Reid, Dr John|
|Keen, Alan||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)||Rogers, Allan|
|Khabra, Piara S||Rooker, Jeff|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Rooney, Terry|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Lewis, Terry||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Salmond, Alex|
|Litherland, Robert||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Livingstone, Ken||Sheerman, Barry|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)||Sheldon, Robert|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Shore, Peter|
|Loyden, Eddie||Short, Clare|
|Lynne, Ms Liz||Simpson, Alan|
|McAllion, John||Skinner, Dennis|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Macdonald, Calum||Snape, Peter|
|McFall, John||Soley, Clive|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Spearing, Nigel|
|McLeish, Henry||Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)|
|Maclennan, Robert||Steel, Sir David|
|McMaster, Gordon||Steinberg, Gerry|
|McNamara, Kevin||Stevenson, George|
|MacShane, Denis||Stott, Roger|
|McWilliam, John||Straw, Jack|
|Madden, Max||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Maddock, Mrs Diana||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Mandelson, Peter||Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)|
|Marek, Dr John||Timms, Stephen|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Tipping, Paddy|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Touhig, Don|
|Maxton, John||Trickett, Jon|
|Meacher, Michael||Turner, Dennis|
|Meale, Alan||Tyler, Paul|
|Michael, Alun||Walker, Sir Harold|
|Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)||Wallace, James|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Miller, Andrew||Wareing, Robert N|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Watson, Mike|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)|
|Morley, Elliot||Wilson, Brian|
|Morris, John (Aberavon)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Mowlam, Ms Marjorie||Worthington, Tony|
|Mudie, George||Wray, Jimmy|
|Mullin, Chris||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Murphy, Paul||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Oakes, Gordon||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)||Mrs. Jane Kennedy and|
|O'Brien, William (Normanton)||Mrs. Bridget Prentice.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)|
|Alexander, Richard||Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)|
|Alison, Michael (Selby)||Baldry, Tony|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Banks, Matthew (Southport)|
|Amess, David||Banks, Robert (Harrogate)|
|Arbuthnot, James||Bates, Michael|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Batiste, Spencer|
|Ashby, David||Bellingham, Henry|
|Atkins, Robert||Bendall, Vivian|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Biffen, John||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Body, Sir Richard||Garnier, Edward|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Gill, Christopher|
|Booth, Hartley||Gillan, Mrs Cheryl|
|Boswell, Tim||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)|
|Bowis, John||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Boyson, Sir Rhodes||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Gummer, John|
|Brazier, Julian||Hague, William|
|Bright, Sir Graham||Hamilton, Sir Archibald|
|Brooke, Peter||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Hannam, Sir John|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Burns, Simon||Harris, David|
|Burt, Alistair||Haselhurst, Sir Alan|
|Butler, Peter||Hawkins, Nick|
|Butterfill, John||Hawksley, Warren|
|Carlisle, John (Luton N)||Hayes, Jerry|
|Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)||Heald, Oliver|
|Carrington, Matthew||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hendry, Charles|
|Cash, William||Heseltine, Michael|
|Channon, Paul||Hicks, Sir Robert|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney||Higgins, Sir Terence|
|Churchill, Mr||Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)|
|Clappison, James||Horam, John|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)||Hordem, Sir Peter|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Howard, Michael|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Howell, David (Guildf'd)|
|Coe, Sebastian||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Colvin, Michael||Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)|
|Congdon, David||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Conway, Derek||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)||Hunter, Andrew|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hurd, Douglas|
|Cope, Sir John||Jack, Michael|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Couchman, James||Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)|
|Curry, David||Jessel, Toby|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Day, Stephen||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Jones, Robert B (W Herts)|
|Devlin, Tim||Jopling, Michael|
|Dicks, Terry||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Key, Robert|
|Dover, Den||King, Tom|
|Duncan, Alan||Knapman, Roger|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Dunn, Bob||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Knox, Sir David|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Elletson, Harold||Lamont, Norman|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Lang, Ian|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)||Legg, Barry|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Leigh, Edward|
|Evennett, David||Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark|
|Faber, David||Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Fabricant, Michael||Lidington, David|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Lilley, Peter|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Fishburn, Dudley||Lord, Michael|
|Forman, Nigel||Luff, Peter|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Lyell, Sir Nicholas|
|Forth, Eric||MacGregor, John|
|Fowler, Sir Norman||MacKay, Andrew|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||Maclean, David|
|Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Freeman, Roger||McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick|
|French, Douglas||Madel, Sir David|
|Fry, Sir Peter||Maitland, Lady Olga|
|Gale, Roger||Malone, Gerald|
|Mans, Keith||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Marland, Paul||Soames, Nicholas|
|Marlow, Tony||Speed, Sir Keith|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)||Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Mellor, David||Spring, Richard|
|Merchant, Piers||Sproat, Iain|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)||Stanley, Sir John|
|Moate, Sir Roger||Steen, Anthony|
|Molyneaux, Sir James||Stephen, Michael|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Stem, Michael|
|Nelson, Anthony||Stewart, Allan|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Streeter, Gary|
|Newton, Tony||Sumberg, David|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Sweeney, Walter|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Sykes, John|
|Norris, Steve||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Onslow, Sir Cranley||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Page, Richard||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Paice, James||Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)|
|Patnick, Sir Irvine||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Patten, John||Thomton, Sir Malcolm|
|Pattie, Sir Geoffrey||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Pawsey, James||Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Tracey, Richard|
|Pickles, Eric||Tredinnick, David|
|Porter, David||Trend, Michael|
|Portillo, Michael||Trotter, Neville|
|Rathbone, Tim||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Redwood, John||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Renton, Tim||Viggers, Peter|
|Richards, Rod||Waldegrave, William|
|Rifkind, Malcolm||Walden, George|
|Robathan, Andrew||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Roberts, Sir Wyn||Waller, Gary|
|Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)||Ward, John|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Waterson, Nigel|
|Rowe, Andrew||Watts, John|
|Rumbold, Dame Angela||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Ryder, Richard||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Sackville, Tom||Whittingdale, John|
|Sainsbury, Sir Timothy||Widdecombe, Miss Ann|
|Scott, Sir Nicholas||Wilkinson, John|
|Shephard, Mrs Gillian||Willetts, David|
|Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)||Wilshire, David|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Shersby, Sir Michael||Wood, Timothy|
|Sims, Sir Roger||Young, Sir George|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Mr. Bowen Wells and|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)||Mr. Richard Ottaway.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.