HC Deb 29 January 1997 vol 289 cc443-54

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 74, line 3, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 2(2), the word "and".'.

No. 240, in page 74, line 14, column 3, leave out 'subsections (2) and (3)' and insert 'in subsection (2), the words from the beginning to "209(1) of the 1995 Act"'.

No. 100, in page 74, line 54, column 3 after "44," insert 'in subsection (4), the words ", subject to subsection (6) below,",'.

No. 101, in page 74, line 55, column 3 at end insert 'and in subsection (10), the words "or (8)".'.

No. 88, in page 75, line 5, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 74(4), the word "and" after paragraph (a).
In section 81(6), the word ", signed".
In section 85(1), the words from "but" to the end.'.

No. 89, in page 75, line 10, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 140(3).
In section 141(3), the words "signed by the prosecutor and".'.

No. 90, in page 75, line 17, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 234A, subsection (5).'.

[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

7.45 pm
Mr. Connarty

I did not make a speech earlier, but only an intervention, because I had been on the Committee and I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) could handle any points well.

What is left to us to debate now is what would in Burns's time have been called a reggle o'banes—a raggle of bones—loosely strung together to appeal to certain prejudices in the dark side of human nature and to try to appease them by getting tough. My concern is that the Bill will create more problems in society than it solves.

I intend not to rehearse matters that have gone before, but to deal with new ones. First, I should like to thank the Minister for his kind remarks when he said that he had considered my plea against the electronic tagging of children. He did not accept the amendment to that effect, but said that he would consider the possibility that the pilot scheme would be only for adults. I hope that that proves to be the case should this science fiction nightmare ever be put into operation in Scotland.

The main thrust of the Bill is to increase sentences. People will spend more time in prison. The Government's well-argued point, made in 1993, that to serve half a sentence in prison and to carry the rest of it into the public domain as a suspended sentence, to prove that one could be a good citizen, has been cast aside.

The main result, as we know, will be increased overcrowding. The main unplanned consequence of that, which has been predicted by everyone who has considered the criminal justice system over the past 100 years, will be to increase tension in prisons and stress for prison staff. I predict that prison unrest and violence will increase.

The effects will not be confined to prisons, because the public are well aware—[Interruption.] I have a speech to make, and I intend to make it. I have sat here all day waiting to make this speech, and I intend to make it fully. I have considered my position today, and I want to express it on Third Reading, because it relates to important matters that concern the whole Bill rather than any particular part of it. If I need to detain hon. Members until 10 o'clock to make my point, I will. No one of any party can tell me to curtail my speeches merely to play some game.

I believe that the public will feel the impact of such unrest. That is why I speak against Third Reading. The public in my constituency feel the impact of every single shiver of unrest in the Polmont young offenders institution. When there is unrest in a prison, as there has been at Full Sutton, at Glenochil and other prisons, and when there are suicides in places such as Cornton Vale, as we discussed at some length on Report, there is an impact on everyone in society. People are worried that the society in which they live is breaking down and that one of the major institutions designed to keep the checks and balances—the Prison Service—is failing to perform its duty properly.

There will also be a long-term impact on the behaviour of ex-prisoners who have served five sixths of their sentence. They will not turn out better citizens: they will turn out better institutionalised criminals, and they will probably learn much greater criminal habits. As we have seen from reports on prisons, prisoners are increasingly learning drug habits. That comes from the feeling in prison that the sentence will never come to an end, and that one might as well conform to the institution, with all its aberrations and anomic behaviour.

We know that five new prisons are planned by the Government at a cost of £102 million as a consequence of the Bill, using the private finance initiative. I am sure that society has a feeling of betrayal when that £102 million could be doing something useful in hospitals, the national health service, education or elsewhere in Scotland.

One of the early consequences of the Bill will be overcrowding. I have had a long discussion, at its instigation, with members of the Scottish Prison Officers Association. They have given me some interesting facts about the institution in my constituency as an example. I will use it as an example to suggest to the Minister that, as a consequence of his Bill, the problems there will be repeated throughout the prison system in Scotland.

The Minister will be aware that the situation at Cornton has been artificially produced by the Government's closure of Castle Huntly young offenders institution and moved the prisoners from there mainly to Polmont, with a proposed onward move to a wing of Cornton Vale prison. We have debated Cornton Vale at great length. The Minister said in reply to one of my points that it was on hold at the moment. There are now more than 500 prisoners in Polmont. I am told that that is 25 per cent. overcrowding. The Bill will have the same consequence for prisons throughout Scotland.

What are the consequences of 25 per cent. overcrowding for Polmont and other prisons? I am told that in, that young offenders institution, the slightly insecure wing, where trusted prisoners were kept, has had to be emptied and the D category prisoners all moved into secure wings. The reason for that was that the behaviour of other prisoners and the unrest in the rest of the prison impacted on the trusted prisoners, and a large cache of knives and ski masks was found in the insecure section They had been brought in by trusted prisoners and by other means to feed the unrest in the main prison, where faction fighting is growing.

I am told that Saughton prison wants to get rid of its untried prisoners and dump them in Polmont young offenders institution, thereby exacerbating the problem. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that that will not happen. That is the problem that will be caused by the Bill. Prisoners will stack up and prisoners will end up in very overcrowded prisons. That must be considered.

I am also told that the Bill which is about to be passed will impact on an environment in which there are serious concerns about staffing. I have some examples of the results of that in Scottish prisons. In one wing, one supervisor and six members of staff have to look after 105 prisoners on leisure regime, when they are outside. That is frightening. I asked why. I am told that there are now serious problems of non-cover for staff absence.

I was given a table showing an analysis of staffing levels. The excess hours worked in 1994–95 were the equivalent of 16 extra members of staff. That was forced down to 12 in 1995–96 and is now down to only five and a half, because people are not covered. Rotas are not covered when people go off ill. That is what happens when there is an attempt to reduce the staffing level and the bill for prison staffing at the same time as forcing more prisoners into the institution, which is what the Bill will do.

There is also concern about the inability to prevent drugs and weapons coming into the prison system. That is due to a lack of investment at the interface between visitors and prisoners. The SPOA members told me that there were not enough sniffer dogs, metal detectors or other equipment to scrutinise the throughput of the vast numbers of visitors to an overcrowded prison. I am sure that that will be reflected in prisons throughout Scotland, as well as Polmont, and even more so as a consequence of the Bill.

What is the result of overcrowding? We have the problem of a growing challenge to the regime of the prisons. The examples given to me from Polmont were frightening. I said earlier that ski masks and weapons had been smuggled in by supposedly trusted prisoners. Internecine warfare is running throughout the halls in the prison. We had a major riot about a year and a half ago in Polmont. We had a mini riot in November 1996. It was about prisoners trying to become a regime within a regime. I am told that people from one city or section of the Scottish population try to rule all those from other counties. The prison officers said that they were worried that they could not control any major outbreak of prison violence.

There have been five assaults on officers in Polmont in 1996–97. An officer has been hit over the head with a chair. One has been attacked in a cell. One has had serious damage to his groin after being kicked. Another has had broken ribs in four separate incidents.

A prisoner was up in court on an assault charge today, and will probably have been disposed of. He is a fairly well known character in prison legend. When he was sentenced, he jumped over the barrier in the sheriff court and pulled the sheriffs wig off. The Minister may recall him The prisoner is up for assaulting a member of staff. The custodial regime is beginning to break down because of overcrowding. That will be the consequence throughout Scotland of the Bill, and it seriously worries me.

I am told that, on escort duty, staff can have up to six prisoners, with only one driver and one member of staff to supervise them. There was a recent assault on a woman officer. The prisoner assaulted the officer in the back of the van, then jumped through and attacked the driver. The driver was forced to draw to the side of the road. Luckily, an off-duty policeman and some others came to the rescue, or we could have had a very serious incident on our hands.

It is all down to trying to save money and force more people into prisons and to the philosophy that people who break the law should be slammed up without considering the logic of why we are doing it or making any attempt to change the behaviour of people when they are in prison. That is plainly the philosophy behind the Bill.

I am told by the SPOA that too many minor offenders are in prison. We discussed the detail of cases of people in Cornton who were in prison for fine default. Polmont is said to be 25 per cent. overcrowded. I am told that, if the fine defaulters were taken out, the prison population would be reduced by 25 per cent. immediately. That is something that we must consider. If the fine was the proper disposal at the beginning, people should not end up taking up room in prison, if prisons are to do anything about changing the behaviour of inmates and provide proper custodial care.

The main point for me is that preventing the prison system from breaking down does not rely on the business approach that has come in to the prison service since it became an agency, but in adopting a more caring, educational and reconstructive approach than is evident in the Bill. This is a silly Bill to introduce at this time. It is a piece of egocentric chest puffing to show that people can be tough on the criminal. Society wants a reduction in crime. If the Government merely slam people up and do not consider the need to reduce criminal behaviour, society will be in a worse position than when we began.

I am seriously concerned by what I have heard from the SPOA about what is happening in the prisons closest to my home and in my constituency. The SPOA tells me that it is a malaise that is spreading throughout the Scottish prisons. In a recent report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred, the chief inspector of prisons said that there were major problems in Saughton prison. I do not understand why the Government have not taken time to think this out, hold the Bill back if they believe it is important, and put it in their manifesto. Then people would see whether we want better prisons that do more about not sending people back to criminal behaviour and less about tough-man approaches and longer sentences. I hope the Government will suffer in respect of the Bill in the Lords.

7.59 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

I shall be brief. I am amazed that, on this important Bill, the Minister can speak at length on amendments on Report, but cannot manage to rise to his feet to speak at the start of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

Where is the Secretary of State?

Mr. Robertson

I shall get to the question of the boss in a moment. He is the senior counsel and we have been left with the junior counsel.

I wish to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for his work on the Front Bench in Committee. The Bill is now remarkably different from the one that received a Second Reading, and much of that is down to my hon. Friend and his work with colleagues on the Committee. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). They have done a good job on the Bill.

The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked a relevant and pertinent question—where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman was here last Tuesday night, when we had the first part of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill saga. He trailed what he was going to say when he opened the Third Reading debate—the taunts, gibes and gimmicks that he was going to unveil in that speech—but he was denied the opportunity to deliver the speech because the Whips were incapable of keeping hon. Members in the House beyond 10 o'clock, so here we are tonight.

The problem is that we know the answer to the question: this evening, the Secretary of State for Scotland is at a drinks party at Dover house, up on Whitehall. That might explain his earlier agitation when the debate did not come to an end as he had expected. People in Scotland will note carefully the right hon. Gentleman's priorities—a drinks party with the press, rather than conducting this major piece of legislation through the House this evening. The Bill is the flagship of his parliamentary year—his last parliamentary year—yet he is not on the battlefield.

The right hon. Gentleman leaves behind the Minister of State, whose brother hit the headlines this week. I want to put on record my gratitude for the good sense of at least one member of the Hamilton family. As the Member of Parliament for Hamilton, let me publicly congratulate the Duke of Hamilton on his remarks and his criticism of Her Majesty's Government.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that one has to do a little bit more than rely on those who do not have a vote.

Mr. Robertson

I am perfectly capable of relying on those who do have the vote. Underlining the fact that his brother is an hereditary peer will not get the Minister off the hook of the duke's criticisms and his relevant and pertinent attacks on the Conservative Government. The duke told me that he is not a professional duke, but a professional engineer. Why cannot the Minister answer his arguments instead of slagging him off for being a member of the upper House?

Two weeks ago, I met residents in the Fairhill area of my constituency. I brought them together with representatives of the local police force, the social work department, Scottish Homes and South Lanarkshire council's housing department. They are afraid to go out at night; they are imprisoned in their houses during the day; and they are afflicted by anti-social neighbours. As a Member of Parliament, I ask myself how I can explain to them how the Bill will help them—but of course it will not.

Will the Bill allow action to be taken against the anti-social neighbours who make residents' lives hell by throwing stones, making threats and harassing them? No, of course it will not. Is there anything in the Bill that will prevent the use of scanners by local hooligans, who spot the police even as they leave the local police station and so avoid them? There is no such action in the Bill.

It is important to note that the absent Secretary of State himself described Conservative Scotland in the magazine Flourish, which is published by the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Glasgow. Just after he was appointed, 18 months ago, in September 1995, he described that part of the world as it was after 17 years of Conservative government. He said: When parents dare not let their children go out to play; when senior citizens who have given a lifetime of service to the community are forced to spend their sunset years—which should be among the most rewarding in their lives—as prisoners in their own home; then we have reached a point where action must be taken. That is a description by a Conservative Cabinet Minister of this country—of my country, of Scotland—after 17 years of Conservative government. It is a vivid, bleak and depressing description, and it is exactly right. If the Conservatives cannot get it right in 18 years of government, how can anybody expect them to get it right now? [Interruption.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Here he is.

Mr. Robertson

The Minister is pointing to the fact that his boss has now arrived back from the party. We are all privileged to see the Secretary of State here this evening, although he will sit silent for the rest of the debate.

There is nothing in the Bill to help my constituents. All we have had are two White Papers, a Bill, hours of debate in Committee and enough leaked headlines and public relations stunts to launch a Duchess of York television commercial. That is hardly any consolation to those who live in the conditions described by the Secretary of State. There are no proposals to deal with the anti-social neighbours who imprison those golden-age pensioners in their own homes. Within a few months there will be a general election, and when we win that election—with or without the support of the Duke of Hamilton—we will take action against anti-social neighbours; we will make it easier for the agencies to share information about the behaviour of some tenants; and we will look at tenancy agreements to ensure that proper and decent behaviour towards others is a clear obligation of tenants and residents.

Since the Secretary of State has taken over in St. Andrew's house, he has branded the policies of his predecessor as irrelevant, dishonest and a failure. Only a few years after being introduced by the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), those policies have been swept away by the Bill in a lurch from ineffective action to inane action. The Bill was a rush job, cobbled together in St. Andrew's house without any regard to the opinion of anyone who works in the criminal justice system.

The criminal justice system of Scotland, which is distinct and differs in many ways from the system prevailing south of the border, is too important to be treated in such a cavalier manner. That treatment has to be examined, as does the panoply of penalties available to the courts, to see whether it is sufficient or whether it should be augmented or changed. Most important, if we are to change our criminal justice system and make fundamental alterations to the system to which we in Scotland have grown accustomed and which we believe to be better than systems in other parts of the world, let the changes be based on consensus and agreement, not on the ideological fixation and publicity seeking of a transient politician.

We shall not block the Bill's Third Reading, because, first, although concern about several aspects remains, many elements of the Bill are vital for tackling crime; and, secondly, because the Government have either accepted Labour amendments and new clauses or given assurances as to the meaning of specific clauses. [Interruption.]

The Secretary of State may have enjoyed the party from which he has just returned, but a bit of decent silence would be in order As he has not graced us with his presence or his arguments, perhaps he should sit back—maybe for the first time in his political career—and listen to some of the things that are said about him and to him.

For example, we have supported additional targeting of supervision on those deemed to be of greatest risk to society, new measures on the registration of convicted sex offenders, and new powers for the police to take DNA samples from a person in legal custody who has been convicted of "relevant sexual offences". In the latter case, the Government accepted a Labour proposal to extend the list of "relevant sexual offences" to include rape, clandestine injury to women and any lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour towards adults or children.

Similarly, we support proposals in the Bill to create a new offence of seeking employment with children for those convicted of a sexual offence against children, as well as increases in the maximum penalty for sex with under-age girls. On the latter point, Ministers have accepted a Labour amendment to increase the maximum penalty, not only to five years but to 10 years. We believe that the law must be tough on those involved in certain offences.

We have supported the Government's proposals to reform the legal aid system by using pilot schemes to benchmark costs. We support tougher powers to tackle under-age drinking. We sought to toughen the penalties for under-age drinking in alcohol-free zones, but were defeated in Committee by the Government majority.

We remain concerned about the potential impact of the Government's sentencing policy and, in effect, their removal of judicial discretion, but—this is where there is a major difference between the Bill on Second Reading and the Bill in its present form—we welcome Government assurances, secured in Committee, that the courts will have wide discretion to define the exceptional circumstances in which the court will be allowed to award less than a mandatory life or minimum sentence, including both the circumstance of the offence and the circumstances of the accused.

Ministers have given assurances—which we have welcomed—that they will introduce new clauses in the House of Lords to protect mentally disordered witnesses in court. The Bill is not finished. It is still to be considered by the House of Lords, and we shall watch carefully what happens there.

The Bill was designed purely to gain votes in an election which itself, by its timing, may finish it off. That would be the final irony—and a fitting epitaph for this gimmicky, limited and crude electioneering piece of legislation.

8.12 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell

I detect impatience in the House about the progress of this Bill. Those who find the fact that we are detaining them irksome should reflect on the following: many of us need not be here discussing the domestic affairs of Scotland, and if they would only grant us devolved powers to a Parliament in Edinburgh, they could dine much earlier and we might fashion a better piece of legislation.

When the White Paper was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Government took offence at the robustness of my criticism, especially regarding the imposition of automatic sentences, but also regarding the rejection of the Sutherland committee recommendation that there should be instituted in Scotland a body with responsibility for dealing with miscarriages of justice, independent of the existing judicial system. The latter defect in the Bill remains. No such body has been set up, and it is notable that Lord Ross—the recently retired Lord Justice-Clerk—made that absence one of his principal criticisms of the Government in the interviews that he gave following his retirement. In the absence of that provision, I believe the Bill to be substantially flawed.

Another element—perhaps of commission, not omission—which surrounds these proceedings, equally directs us to the judgment that the Bill is flawed. I refer to the imposition in certain circumstances of automatic sentences. These constitute a substantial and unprecedented innovation in the law of Scotland. Although the statutory provision which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) just mentioned—the use of the expression "exceptional circumstances"—may go some way to palliate the consequences of the imposition of provisions to provide for automatic sentences, it does not deal with a fundamental question of principle which lies at the centre of the Bill.

For those reasons, I and my colleagues are not prepared to accept the Bill. We will divide the House on Third Reading when the appropriate moment comes, because we believe that the Bill is so flawed in principle that it does not deserve the approval of the House.

The innovation which I mentioned—automatic sentences—dilutes judicial discretion in Scotland in a way that has never before been seen. It is noteworthy that, of several Scottish High Court judges who have commented on the Bill, none has been found to support the principle on which the Government have advanced this part of the legislation. That is inevitable, because what is now proposed is wrong in principle and will result in injustice in practice.

What is proposed will certainly result in a far higher number of contested cases in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. There will be absolutely no incentive for any accused person to plead guilty if the consequence of doing so is that he or she will attract an automatic sentence. That means that many complainers—many victims—who might otherwise have been spared the ordeal of giving evidence in serious cases, especially where sexual misconduct is alleged, will have to go into the witness box to give evidence.

Faced with the draconian consequences of the Bill, juries, who will be aware of the likely consequences because they will almost certainly be told of them by those conducting the defence of an accused person, will seek to find any excuse for acquitting or for returning a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge, to avoid triggering the automatic provisions. Juries will find ways to acquit. In addition, prosecutors in sympathetic cases will charge the accused person with a crime of less seriousness than is appropriate in the circumstances so as to avoid the risk that the automatic provisions will be triggered.

Earlier this week, I had the privilege of listening to the speech of Lord Bingham in another place. If hon. Members want a point of reference for what is intellectually sustainable, what is founded in justice and what reflects the reality of the disposal of serious criminal cases, they can do no better than have regard to the terms of that speech.

The Bill is fundamentally flawed: it is wrong in principle. For that reason, it should not command the support of the House, and we will invite the House to pass its verdict on it.

8.19 pm
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) raised some serious points in relation to Polmont. I shall examine them and write to him in due course.

The speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was one of the most desperately weak speeches that I have ever heard. He sought to justify abstention and, no doubt on the orders of Islington, will sit on his hands because he knows that the Bill protects the people of Scotland and will be an extremely popular law and order measure.

Only the Liberal Democrats have the courage to oppose the Bill, which they know will do a great deal for law and order and will be tough on crime. I challenge the hon. Member for Falkirk, East to vote with them, if his speech reflects his sincere belief.

Conservative Members have no dilemma about giving much stronger protections to the people of our country. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 20.

Division No. 62] [8.20 pm
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Aitken, Jonathan Budgen, Nicholas
Alexander, Richard Burns, Simon
Alison, Michael (Selby) Burt, Alistair
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Butcher, John
Amess, David Butler, Peter
Ancram, Michael Butterfill, John
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Ashby, David Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Atkins, Robert Carttiss, Michael
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Cash, William
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Chapman, Sir Sydney
Baker, Kenneth (Mole V) Churchill, Mr
Baldry, Tony Clappison, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Bates, Michael Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Batiste, Spencer Colvin, Michael
Bellingham, Henry Congdon, David
Bendall, Vivian Conway, Derek
Beresford, Sir Paul Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Biffen, John Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Cope, Sir John
Booth, Hartley Cormack, Sir Patrick
Boswell, Tim Couchman, James
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) Cran, James
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bowis, John Curry, David
Boyson, Sir Rhodes Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Brandreth, Gyles Davis, David (Boothferry)
Brazier, Julian Day, Stephen
Bright, Sir Graham Deva, Nirj Joseph
Brooke, Peter Devlin, Tim
Browning, Mrs Angela Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Jessel, Toby
Dover, Den Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Duncan, Alan Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Duncan Smith, Iain Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dunn, Bob Key, Robert
Elletson, Harold King, Tom
Emery, Sir Peter Kirkhope, Timothy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld) Knapman, Roger
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth) Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Evennett, David Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Faber, David Knox, Sir David
Fabricant, Michael Kynoch, George
Fenner, Dame Peggy Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Lamont, Norman
Fishburn, Dudley Lang, Ian
Forman, Nigel Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) Legg, Barry
Forth, Eric Leigh, Edward
Fowler, Sir Norman Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) Lidington, David
Freeman, Roger Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
French, Douglas Lord, Michael
Fry, Sir Peter Luff, Peter
Gale, Roger Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil McCrea, Rev William
Gardiner, Sir George MacGregor, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan MacKay, Andrew
Garnier, Edward McLoughlin, Patrick
Gill, Christopher McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Madel, Sir David
Goodlad, Alastair Maitland, Lady Olga
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Malone, Gerald
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Marland, Paul
Gorst, Sir John Marlow, Tony
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs) Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Greenway, John (Ryedale) Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Mates, Michael
Gummer, John Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Hague, William Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Hamilton, Sir Archibald Merchant, Piers
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Hampson, Dr Keith Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Hannam, Sir John Moate, Sir Roger
Hargreaves, Andrew Molyneaux, Sir James
Harris, David Monro, Sir Hector
Haselhurst, Sir Alan Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hawkins, Nick Nelson, Anthony
Hawksley, Warren Neubert, Sir Michael
Hayes, Jerry Newton, Tony
Heald, Oliver Nicholls, Patrick
Heathcoat-Amory, David Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hendry, Charles Norris, Steve
Heseltine, Michael Onslow, Sir Cranley
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test) Oppenheim, Phillip
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham) Ottaway, Richard
Horam, John Page, Richard
Hordern, Sir Peter Paice, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk) Patnick, Sir Irvine
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W) Patten, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne) Pawsey, James
Hunter, Andrew Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Jack, Michael Pickles, Eric
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Porter, David
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N) Portillo, Michael
Powell, William (Corby) Sykes, John
Rathbone, Tim Tapsell, Sir Peter
Redwood, John Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Renton, Tim Taylor, Sir Teddy
Richards, Rod Temple-Morris, Peter
Riddick, Graham Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Robathan, Andrew Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Roberts, Sir Wyn Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Roe, Mrs Marion Tracey, Richard
Rowe, Andrew Tredinnick, David
Rumbold, Dame Angela Trend, Michael
Ryder, Richard Trotter, Neville
Sackville, Tom Twinn, Dr Ian
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Shaw, David (Dover) Viggers, Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) Waldegrave, William
Shephard, Mrs Gillian Walden, George
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd) Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Waller, Gary
Shersby, Sir Michael Ward, John
Sims, Sir Roger Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Skeet, Sir Trevor Waterson, Nigel
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) Watts, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld) Wells, Bowen
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) Wheeler, Sir John
Soames, Nicholas Whitney, Sir Raymond
Speed, Sir Keith Whittingdale, John
Spencer, Sir Derek Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset) Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs) Wilkinson, John
Spink, Dr Robert Willetts, David
Spring, Richard Wilshire, David
Sproat, Iain Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) Wolfson, Mark
Stanley, Sir John Wood, Timothy
Steen, Anthony Yeo, Tim
Stephen, Michael Young, Sir George
Stern, Michael
Stewart, Allan Tellers for the Ayes:
Streeter, Gary Mr. Matthew Carrington
Sumberg, David and
Sweeney, Walter Mr. Sebastian Coe.
Alton, David Maddock, Mrs Diana
Ashdown, Paddy Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Beith, A J Rendel, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Skinner, Dennis
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) Steel, Sir David
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Foster, Don (Bath) Thurnham, Peter
Harvey, Nick Wallace, James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Tellers for the Noes:
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S) Mr. Archy Kirkwood and
Maclennan, Robert Mr. Paul Tyler.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Gallie

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate, I referred to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which banned alcohol at sports grounds and on coaches in Scotland. At the time, I was howled down and told that the measure was introduced by a Labour Member before the Conservatives took office. That is not true: the measure was introduced by this Government and Opposition Members voted against it.

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point.