Criminal Justice and Police Bill

HC Deb 14 March 2001 vol 364 cc1083-93

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

7.24 pm

Jackie Ballard (Taunton)

I apologise for being less audible than usual, but that has the advantage that I shall be briefer than usual.

New clause 5, tabled by the Liberal Democrats as well as the Conservatives, would criminalise the activities of paedophiles who seek to entice children to a meeting in order to engage in sexual activities. The common term for such behaviour is "grooming". I do not approve of that term since it seems too friendly and nice, but it is the term that has come into common usage.

A survey last year in the United States said that approximately one in five young people aged between 10 and 17 had received an unwanted sexual solicitation or approach on the internet. I understand that a report to be published later this year by the internet crime forum will show similar figures for the United Kingdom. It is a growing problem that affects many young people. The internet is giving paedophiles an opportunity, away from prying eyes, to indulge in persuading children to trust them and to meet them offline.

As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, there is evidence to suggest that the current law does not protect children adequately against online grooming. Adding "or entices" to the Bill would give greater protection than is available at present. The right hon. Lady mentioned a couple of recent cases. In the Milton Keynes case, the mother went to the meeting, and there was a similar case in Crewe last year, in which the parents were alerted. In both cases, the children had been groomed online and the police intercepted and arrested the adults who had attempted to meet the children. However, no charges were pressed, and we can only assume that a sexual offence must take place before a charge can be proved. If the new clause is accepted, a new offence of enticement would allow charges in such cases by covering the process of grooming rather than the final offence.

It is not always easy to prove that a sexual assault has occurred if there are no witnesses other than the child and the perpetrator. If the new clause is accepted, however, documentation such as e-mails could be used to show the intent of the perpetrator if a charge of enticement were brought. Adding an offence of enticement would also bring our law closer to that of some states in the USA, and to federal law there. The USA has had more success in accusing people of online grooming than we have had.

As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, the new clause would also provide a strong preventive measure that would send a clear signal to paedophiles who are trying to use the internet for sexual purposes, which is not acceptable and is a criminal offence. It would be better to prevent crimes taking place than to prosecute after the event, when even greater damage has been done.

Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)

I support new clause 5 from a constituency perspective. There is a strong case for examining the existing law critically and for erring on the side of caution. Acceptance of the new clause, or a commitment that an equivalent provision will be introduced at a later stage of proceedings on the Bill, would close a loophole in the law on child protection. In particular, it would protect children against predatory paedophiles who use the internet, particularly chat rooms, to gain access to vulnerable children.

7.30 pm

The Minister will know of my interest in the subject because of his meetings with me and with constituents of mine. Last year, as hon. Members have said, a 12-year-old girl in my constituency was approached in an internet chat room by Patrick Green. Online contact was established, which eventually led to an offline meeting, where sexual abuse took place.

Patrick Green used online contact to develop a relationship with the girl. He flattered her and made her feel special; he made her a confidante. The aim of all that was to form a bond between him and the girl, while at the same time breaking the bond between the girl and her family, so that he could ensnare and lure her into activities away from the home. Such grooming—it is an ugly term but it encapsulates the activity—went on for many weeks and months. There were exchanges of private e-mails; 55 messages, if not more, were exchanged. The ultimate purpose was to arrange offline meetings, with sexual relations as the intended outcome.

We must recognise that new clause 5 is technologically neutral. It is about an offence that can be committed online and offline. However, the internet gives paedophiles the opportunity to groom much more easily. They can hide behind pseudonyms and cultivate more than one child at a time. Indeed, it is clear that Patrick Green was doing exactly that, because no sooner had he been let out on bail than he was arranging a meeting with a girl in Cumbria. That did not happen in a matter of days. There was a process of entrapment, which he had been using in much the same way as he entrapped the daughter of my constituent.

Chat rooms offer predators invisible access to children from a safe distance, and allow contact to be made even while children are using the internet in a secure surrounding in their home—often in their bedroom. It has been suggested that the law already covers grooming. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) outlined some of the issues that have been put to Ministers by many hon. Members in correspondence and in other ways. I have certainly exchanged such correspondence with both the Prime Minister and the Minister, but I am still not satisfied—and nor is Childline, to which I pay tribute for its work in highlighting the issue and in drawing it to the attention of hon. Members of all parties.

Childline has amassed detailed evidence, which I was pleased to pass to the Home Office. It is concerned that the definition of incitement to commit a sexual offence under the Indecency with Children Act 1960 is too narrowly drawn. To secure evidence of that incitement requires the police to put the child at risk. The act must have happened for the police to acquire the evidence to prosecute. Another possible charge is that of attempting to commit a sexual offence against a child. Again, however, in pursuit of evidence to prove a case, a child must be put at risk.

The case of Kenneth Lockley illustrates why present legislation is not satisfactory. Following a tip-off by the Californian police that Lockley was searching for a six-year-old girl with whom to have sex, Scotland Yard set up a sting by arranging to meet Lockley in a London hotel. Lockley thought that he would be meeting a nine-year-old girl, but he actually met a fairly burly under-cover inspector, who arrested him.

Unfortunately, the charge of attempted unlawful sex with a girl under the age of 16 had to be dropped, as the defence argued that there was no actual attempt to have sex because no child was involved. The intent was clear: Lockley, not the police, had been the instigator of the meeting. The judge presiding over the case concluded: The law clearly does not deal with this type of conduct perpetrated by this defendant. It is time, in the light of the pernicious influence of a large number of web sites, that Parliament should consider dealing with this lacuna in the law. The Green case demonstrates that the police do not believe that they have a legal basis to act in such matters. I ask the Minister to tell us why in the Green case the police were wrong to think that they did not have the powers to act prior to an assault. Clarity on that issue would go some way to reassuring my constituents that the issue was being dealt with, and that evidence of e-mails and electronic communication could have been used to arrest the gentleman in advance of his actions. That would have protected the child, and other children. I hope that the Minister can say something about that tonight.

I really hope that the new clause is accepted, because enticement is not covered by our law. There is a loophole that paedophiles are using, and abusing children as a result. One in five children is contacted in chat rooms by paedophiles. We should do something that will give the police the means of stopping that before abuse takes place.

Mr. Charles Clarke

I was pleased to see the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) speaking on this matter. She made a sincere and effective speech. I look forward to seeing her on Monday evening, although, unfortunately, she cannot speak then. I gather that, when it comes to debating her position, the Opposition Chief Whip will speak for her. However, I am delighted that she has participated in this evening's debate. She put her points well and correctly. I want to emphasise that there is no difference across the Floor of the House on motivation. The right hon. Lady was right to say that we need to focus on action. She certainly will not hear from me any remarks about thought crime. As she correctly said, action is the issue.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) mentioned the meeting that I had with him and his constituents, the parents of the young woman who was assaulted by Patrick Green. As I said to the hon. Gentleman subsequently, the meeting was exceptionally interesting, moving and powerful. A substantial number of my officials were present, and they found the hon. Gentleman's account, which he gave in more detail than, rightly, he has been able to in the Chamber, exceptionally illuminating and motivating. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to him for bringing the delegation to see me and for discussing the matter in the way that he did.

The case to which the hon. Gentleman referred and all the issues that have been discussed raise a very wide number of points. They raise issues about the law. Members have referred to the changes that have been made already, and there is a question about whether the law should be changed further. The issues raise points about the conduct of internet service providers, whose operations we are addressing by another route. Questions are raised about the quality and strength of guidance given to parents of young children who use the internet. When I was an Education Minister, I was involved in establishing a working party and guidance on that matter, which can give a certain degree of reassurance. Important issues of police practice are raised. The hon. Gentleman will recall mentioning some of the cross-boundary, police training, guidance and other issues.

The central point is that, across the Floor of the House, there is no difference in motivation or in the need for a proper programme to address these issues. We must ensure that it is right. That is the spirit in which I shall deal with each of the new clauses.

The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke powerfully to new clause 11. We very much share his concerns and we are determined to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to sentence those convicted of producing, distributing and possessing child pornography. Every pornographic picture of a child is by definition a picture of child abuse. The House must try to find a means of dealing with that. The sex offences review, consultation on which ended a few days ago, focused on child protection in order to find a better legal framework for addressing the issues.

As the hon. Gentleman said, under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, we raised the maximum sentence from three years to 10 years' imprisonment for offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978. We also raised from six months to five years' imprisonment the maximum penalty for an offence of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

We consider that we acted quickly to implement those changes on 11 January so that the higher maximum penalties came into effect for offences committed after that date. We believe that it is important to change the sentencing practices of the courts. That is what this is all about. Having only recently increased the maximum penalty, it is important to establish properly the effect that that change has had on sentencing practice in the court—that brings us back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald about action—before we decide whether we should increase the penalties yet again.

As the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, in addition to setting out the maximum sentences available to the courts, in specified offences the Attorney-General has powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review if he considers that an unduly lenient sentence has been imposed. The powers are limited to offences triable on indictment only and certain triable either way offences specified in an order, which is subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The Attorney-General does not have power to refer offences of distributing or possessing child pornography. Although last August we extended the Attorney-General's powers to include trafficking in child pornography, at that time we undertook to keep his powers under review, with a view to considering whether additional offences should be added.

The new clause seeks to extend those powers to include offences of distributing and possessing child pornography by amending section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. As I have already said, and as the hon. Member for Mole Valley made clear, there is already power to extend the offences by means of an order. We have used that power on various occasions. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, as we have already undertaken to keep the powers under review, in the light of the concerns expressed we are actively considering whether we should use secondary legislation to ex tend the Attorney-General's powers to include offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

We believe that extension of the powers by means of secondary legislation is the appropriate legal way to proceed. The hon. Member for Mole Valley said that new clause 10 was a probing measure and I hope that he will be prepared to consider withdrawing the motion. I give him the assurance that we are actively considering the proposal and are doing so positively with a view to achieving the extension to which he seeks to draw attention. The case that he makes is convincing and I assure him that we will consider it sympathetically.

As the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, we debated the subject matter of new clause 10 at great length both in the Committee that considered the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and on the Floor of the House. It was also debated in the other place. The hon. Gentleman participated in the debates in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) participated actively in the debates in the Chamber. I recall Baroness Thornton playing an active role in promoting the arguments in the other place.

7.45 pm

A range of children's charitable organisations argue that those who have committed appalling crimes should not be able to avoid the sentencing consequences of those crimes by refusing to give the encryption information that is necessary to convict them. I have great sympathy with that powerful and true point. We had to make a balanced judgment. As I said during proceedings on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, the need to tackle the activities of people who utilise new technologies was a strong driver behind part III of the Bill. We resisted calls to increase the sentences for a section 53 offence along the lines suggested in the new clause because we could honestly say that the non-compliance offence was difficult to formulate. As with the rest of the Act, it was all about striking a balance.

The overriding concern in setting offences must be the seriousness of the offending. In our view, there is no parity between the crimes that we are talking about and the offence of not providing the encryption that would enable those crimes to be identified. We took the view that the penalty for that offence did not and should not depend on or vary according to the nature of the material that may be protected by that key.

Opposition Members criticised us last year on the grounds that part III amounted to a return to key escrow by intimidation. They expressed that genuine and legitimate point on behalf of the industry. We did not accept that argument. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will concede that we had a balanced debate throughout the Committee stage on the need not to attack the industry too much in the regulation that we were establishing. We had to balance that with the key public law enforcement issues. That was a constant theme of our debates. We took the view that we should keep a hierarchy of offences and not confuse the offence with the decryption offences. That was why we came to the view that we did.

Of the three new clauses in the group, new clause 10 gives me most difficulty. There is a real case for what the hon. Member for Mole Valley is advocating. I said that directly to the children's organisations and to my colleagues in this place and the other place who argued the case that the hon. Gentleman articulately put this evening. We came to the judgment that I have set out, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the motion on those grounds.

The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald spoke to the substantive new clause, new clause 5. I was considering making a number of points about the cases that she mentioned, but I shall deal with the arguments of substance first. New clause 5 is well intentioned, and I accept the sincerity with which it was tabled, but our assessment is that the introduction of the word "entice" would not achieve the changes that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam argued it would.

The 1960 Act provides that it is an offence to commit an act of gross indecency with a child. It also makes it an offence to incite an act of gross indecency. We amended the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 so that now "child" refers to a child under 16 and the maximum penalty is 10 years.

It would appear that to add "entice" to "incite" would widen the scope of the offence, but my advice is that it would not. The courts have held that "incite" involves some form of persuasion or encouragement. It does not matter that the incitement is unsuccessful. As there is no definition in the amendment of "entice", the courts would be bound to give it its ordinary natural meaning.

According to the "Concise Oxford English Dictionary", "entice" means to persuade by the offer of pleasure or reward". This is expanded in the full version of the dictionary to stir up, incite, instigate (to a course of action) or provoke". It also means allure, attract by the offer of pleasure or advantage". On my reading, it does not appear—I have been advised on this, and this is my view—that the word significantly or obviously extends the ambit of the offence. Our concern is that it does not extend the ambit, but would add confusion about the meaning of "incite" in the 1960 Act.

Dr. Ladyman

The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) made an interesting comment that the United States has had more success in dealing with such crimes than we have. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to that, and will he comment on the wording of the law in the United States?

Mr. Clarke

My hon. Friend is right. The most famous example was the intervention by the FBI in the chat room in California. That was a positive use of its powers to have precisely the positive effect that hon. Members have mentioned. We have not compared the exact wording of the legislation because the legislative arrangements are not comparable, but I put it on record that the legislation that we have in place allows the police in the United Kingdom to play the role in relation to chat rooms that the FBI in California played. The development of police procedures and approaches, to which I referred in commenting on the meeting with the constituents of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, is a serious issue for us.

Jackie Ballard

The Minister quoted the definition of "entice". I cannot quote that definition precisely but I believe that he used the term to allure with the offer of pleasure or reward. I think that that extends the definition beyond "incite". The purpose of online grooming is that the offer of pleasure or reward is trust in someone who will be understanding. It is an offer of friendship, not of sex.

Mr. Clarke

That is an interesting insight. The full definition in the "Oxford English Dictionary" is to stir up, incite, instigate (to a course of action) or provoke. It also means allure, attract by the offer of pleasure or advantage. We may have to agree to disagree. I do not think that the meaning or ambit of the offence is extended. I am ready to reflect on the point that the hon. Lady makes because I understand how the argument could be advanced. However, it is not obvious to me that what she says is the case.

Sir Paul Beresford

I can conclude only that the Minister has never sat, as some of us have, with a Metropolitan police officer who spends his time watching and tracking paedophile activities on a computer. Perhaps he has not seen the way in which officers work on computers and in chat rooms, doing exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) have described. If he has not had that experience, and while he reflects, will he go to Charing Cross police station to see what takes place? Will he sit behind the computer with a police officer?

Mr. Clarke

I have not performed the precise act that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I give the commitment that I shall do so while I am reflecting on the situation that we are discussing. However, I do not think that even that would change my overall view a great deal.

Miss Widdecombe

In America, there is an offence of enticement, and that is the word that is used. Is the American dictionary different?

Mr. Clarke

American spelling is different in many instances. The dictionary and the meaning of words are different too, both the common meaning of words and words in a legal context. The argument that the right hon. Lady is advancing is precisely why "entices" appears in the new clause. It is crucial to understand that the enticement that we are talking about must be in the context of an act of gross indecency, and not just to a meeting, even in the terms of the new clause. When we use "entice" in this context, that is not enticement to a meeting and the exchange of a friendly approach. It is enticement to an act of gross indecency. It is important to take that into account.

That is why it is not obvious to me that the proposed word extends the ambit of the offence in the way that the right hon. Lady suggests. I am trying to emphasise throughout that I do not dismiss what she is saying. It is a serious point and it is being made seriously. I am prepared to reflect on it, but it is not obvious that the new clause does what she reasonably wants to achieve.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

The burden of the Minister's argument seems to be that he does not believe, given the benefit of the advice that he has received, that "entice" extends the offence. It is the belief of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Opposition Members that it does.

Miss Widdecombe

Including lawyers.

Mr. Blunt

Yes including the legal advice that is available to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.

"Entice" will not do any harm if it appears in the Bill but does not extend the offence. Why does the Minister not accept the new clause?

Mr. Clarke

I do not accept it because I am not in favour of inserting words in a Bill—this is the danger— that could add confusion rather than clarity to court judgments. At the risk of slightly tweaking the hon. Gentleman's tail, the fact that lawyers are present to comment on the new clause does not necessarily convince me absolutely of the merit of the argument. I am advised, as is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

The key point is that the new clause would not catch a person who was arranging to meet a child. It would have to be shown that the purpose of the enticement was to commit an act of gross indecency with that person or another. Enticing a child to a meeting would not be enough to commit the offence. It would still be necessary to prove that the immediate purpose of the enticement was for the child to commit an act of gross indecency with the defendant or with someone else. There would have to be evidence of that to persuade a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

I have reflected on the merits of going into the detail of the Green case and of the other cases that have been mentioned, but that would not help the debate this evening.

Mr. Burstow

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke

Yes, and then I shall set out my conclusions for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to consider.

Mr. Burstow

I am still concerned—I believe that many others will similarly be concerned—that if the new clause is not accepted, the police will feel that they must wait for offline evidence of an assault having taken place before they can act to protect the child. Perhaps the Minister will say a little more about what will be done to ensure that the police are confident that they can use online evidence to take action to protect the child. That would be a move forward.

Mr. Clarke

I am prepared to give a strong assurance to the hon. Gentleman on that precise point. I am also prepared on behalf of the Government to accept criticism—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald may similarly accept criticism on behalf of the previous Government—that we have not moved as energetically as we should to improve police practices in the areas that we are discussing. We have moved relatively energetically to change the law. The right hon. Lady said earlier from a sedentary position that the new clause reflects an amendment that was moved in relation to other legislation. I acknowledge that and there is no disagreement between us, as I have said throughout.

I think that there is a cross-party approach, and it is a matter of finding the right approach. I acknowledge that we have not been as effective as we need to be; that much was clearly apparent to me clearly during my meeting with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and his constituents. We must ensure that police forces throughout the country, including cross-border forces, have the same clear understanding of what they can and cannot do. In the current climate, there must be doubts for police officers, and for others, about what they can and cannot do. That is why I emphasised the need to develop police training and practices in these areas. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman assurances that we are working energetically and that we will address his points about the ability of the police to intervene online.

There are many issues that we must take on board in changing the present situation, and a change in the law is only one of them. I have already asked the hon. Member for Mole Valley to consider not pressing new clauses 10 and 11. I saw him indicate that he probably would do so in respect of one but not the other. I think that I heard him say that.

I say to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that it is important to have a cross-party approach on these matters. She is obviously entitled to make the case that we have not been energetic enough in dealing with the situation, if that is what she feels. I put it to her and the House that getting the precise wording right and offering clarity rather than confusion to courts when they come to resolve these issues is extremely important. That is why we had the sex offences review. That is why we are redrawing the law and why we are taking the various approaches of which the House will be aware. With that, I hope that the right hon. Lady will give full consideration to withdrawing new clause 5. I think that we all want to work together on these matters.

Miss Widdecombe

I listened carefully to the Minister in exactly the same spirit that he listened to me. I agree that in an ideal world there should be a cross-party approach. However, having listened to him, I genuinely do not understand why he will not accept new clause 5. He talked about reflecting on the points raised by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and other hon. Members. However, this is not the first time that we have brought the issue before the House, and it was raised in Committee. On four previous occasions, he has refused to accept the arguments that we have advanced. His reflections have not produced any substitute action.

If the Minister had suggested a different way of tackling the matter this evening, we would have been very interested. He says that the current state of the law is adequate. If so, why was it not used in the three cases that I have mentioned? I think that he will accept that those cases are the three best-known examples. They do not form an exhaustive list.

What do the Government intend to do? Effectively, they seem to be saying that they want to do nothing. They have not proposed an alternative. They want to reflect on a matter on which they have reflected for a long time. As the Minister acknowledged, the sentence to which he referred was increased to 10 years because of an amendment that we tabled.

8 pm

Mr. Charles Clarke

I did not accept that the increase in the sentence was entirely due to the Opposition. The right hon. Lady wants to score a party political point, but I believed that she would agree that there was a consensus between political parties and in the media that we had to act. As the Government, we acted.

Miss Widdecombe

The Government acted by accepting our amendment. I ask the Minister either to accept our new clause or to propose an alternative course of action. He will do neither. If doubt exists about "entice", at least it can be interpreted in the way in which the hon. Member for Taunton suggested. There is therefore no harm in including it in the Bill.

There are no alternative proposals; I am not convinced that the existing law is adequate, neither is Childnet nor are the police. I fear that I must therefore press the new clause to a Division.

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

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 282.

Division No.155]	[8.1 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Allan, Richard	Green, Damian
Amess, David	Greenway, John
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Grieve, Dominic
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Gummer, Rt Hon John
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Hammond, Philip
Baker, Norman	Hancock, Mike
Ballard, Jackie	Harris, Dr Evan
Beggs, Roy	Harvey, Nick
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Hawkins, Nick
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Hayes, John
Bercow, John	Heald, Oliver
Beresford, Sir Paul	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Blunt, Crispin	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Body, Sir Richard	Horam, John
Boswell, Tim	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Brake, Tom	Jenkin, Bernard
Brand, Dr Peter	Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Brazier, Julian
Breed, Colin	Keetch, Paul
Browning, Mrs Angela	Key, Robert
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Burnett, John	Kirkwood, Archy
Burns, Simon	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Burstow, Paul	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Butterfill, John	Lansley, Andrew
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Letwin, Oliver
	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Chidgey, David	Lidington, David
Chope, Christopher	Livsey, Richard
Clappison, James	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Llwyd, Elfyn
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Loughton, Tim
Cotter, Brian	Luff, Peter
Cran, James	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Curry, Rt Hon David	McCrea, Dr William
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Day, Stephen	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Donaldson, Jeffrey	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	McLoughlin, Patrick
Duncan, Alan	Madel, Sir David
Duncan Smith, Iain	Malins, Humfrey
Fabricant, Michael	Mates, Michael
Fallen, Michael	Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Fearn, Ronnie	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Foster, Don (Bath)	May, Mrs Theresa
Fox, Dr Liam	Nicholls, Patrick
Fraser, Christopher	Norman, Archie
Garnier, Edward	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Öpik, Lembit
Gibb, Nick	Ottaway, Richard
Gidley, Sandra	Page, Richard
Gill, Christopher	Paice, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Paisley, Rev Ian

Peterson, Owen	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Prior, David	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Redwood, Rt Hon John	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Rendel, David	Thompson, William
Robathan, Andrew	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Tredinnick, David
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)	Trend, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Tyler, Paul
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)	Walter, Robert
Ruffley, David	Waterson, Nigel
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Webb, Steve
St Aubyn, Nick	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Sanders, Adrian	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Shepherd, Richard	Willetts, David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)	Willis, Phil
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)	Wilshire, David
Spelman, Mrs Caroline	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Spicer, Sir Michael	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Spring, Richard	Yeo, Tim
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Steen, Anthony
Streeter, Gary	Tellers for the Ayes:
Swayne, Desmond	Mr. James Gray and
Syms, Robert	Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

NOES
Ainger, Nick	Clelland, David
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Clwyd, Ann
Allen, Graham	Coaker, Vernon
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)	Coffey, Ms Ann
	Cohen, Harry
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Coleman, Iain
Ashton, Joe	Colman, Tony
Atkins, Charlotte	Connarty, Michael
Austin, John	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bailey, Adrian	Corbett, Robin
Banks, Tony	Corston, Jean
Barnes, Harry	Cousins, Jim
Barron, Kevin	Cox, Tom
Beard, Nigel	Cranston, Ross
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Crausby, David
Begg, Miss Anne	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Cummings, John
Bennett, Andrew F	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Benton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Best, Harold	Darvill, Keith
Betts, Clive	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Blackman, Liz	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Blizzard, Bob
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Dawson, Hilton
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Dean, Mrs Janet
Bradshaw, Ben	Dismore, Andrew
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Dobbin, Jim
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Donohoe, Brian H
Browne, Desmond	Doran, Frank
Buck, Ms Karen	Dowd, Jim
Burden, Richard	Drown, Ms Julia
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'brige)	Edwards, Huw
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Efford, Clive
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Cann, Jamie	Ennis, Jeff
Casale, Roger	Etherington, Bill
Caton, Martin	Fisher, Mark
Clapham, Michael	Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Flint, Caroline
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Flynn, Paul
	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Fyfe, Maria
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Galloway, George
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Gapes, Mike

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)	McNulty, Tony
Gerrard, Neil	MacShane, Denis
Gibson, Dr Ian	McWalter, Tony
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	McWilliam, John
Godman, Dr Norman A	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Godsiff, Roger	Mallaber, Judy
Goggins, Paul	Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Martlew, Eric
Grocott, Bruce	Maxton, John
Hain, Peter	Meale, Alan
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Merron, Gillian
Healey, John	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hendrick, Mark	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Hepburn, Stephen	Miller, Andrew
Heppell, John	Mitchell, Austin
Hesford, Stephen	Moffatt, Laura
Hill, Keith	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hinchliffe, David	Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Hodge, Ms Margaret
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Mudie, George
Hope, Phil	Mullin, Chris
Hopkins, Kelvin	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Howells, Dr Kim	Norris, Dan
Hoyle, Lindsay	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	O'Hara, Eddie
Humble, Mrs Joan	O'Neill, Martin
Iddon, Dr Brian	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Illsley, Eric	Palmer, Dr Nick
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam	Pike, Peter L
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Pollard, Kerry
Jenkins, Brian	Pond, Chris
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Pound, Stephen
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Prentice Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)	Primarolo, Dawn
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Prosser, Gwyn
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	Purchase, Ken
	Quinn, Lawrie
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Rammel, Bill
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Rapson, Syd
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Joyce, Eric	Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally	Rogers, Allan
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Rooney, Terry
Kemp, Fraser	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Rowlands, Ted
Khabra, Piara S	Roy, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Ryan, Ms Joan
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Sarwar, Mohammad
Lammy, David	Savidge, Malcolm
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie	Sedgemore, Brian
Lepper, David	Sheerman, Barry
Leslie, Christopher	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Levitt, Tom	Shipley, Ms Debra
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Singh, Marsha
Lock, David	Skinner, Dennis
Love, Andrew	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
McAvoy, Thomas	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McCabe, Steve	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
McDonagh, Siobhain	Smith, .John (Glamorgan)
McDonnell, John	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
McFall, John	Soley, Clive
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Spellar, John
McIsaac, Shona	Squire, Ms Rachel
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary	Steinberg, Gerry
Mackinlay, Andrew	Stevenson, George

Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Vis, Dr Rudi
Stinchcombe, Paul	Walley, Ms Joan
Stoate, Dr Howard	Ward, Ms Claire
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin	Wareing, Robert N
Stuart, Ms Gisela	Watts, David
Sutcliffe, Gerry	White, Brian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Wicks, Malcolm
	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Temple-Morris, Peter	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)	Wills, Michael
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)	Winnick, David
Timms, Stephen	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tipping, Paddy	Woolas, Phil
Todd, Mark	Wray, James
Touhig, Don	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Trickett, Jon	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	Wyatt, Derek
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)	Tellers for the Noes:
Turner, Neil (Wigan)	Mr. Ian Pearson and
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.