General duties and the setting of objectives for police authorities
Orders of the Day — Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords]
28.—(1) The Secretary of State shall exercise his functions under this Act in such manner as is most likely to promote the efficiency of the police.
(2) In exercising his functions under sections 28A to 28D below the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing.
(3) The power by order to determine objectives for the policing of the areas of police authorities under section 28A(1) below shall not be exercisable before the relevant date.
(4) For the purposes of this section the relevant date shall be a date determined by the Secretary of State which shall be—
(5) Before appointing any independent person for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) above the Secretary of State shall consult persons representative of police authorities and of chief officers of police.".'. — [Mr. Michael.]
Mr Michael Morris (Northampton South)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 14, page 9, line 43, leave out from '(1)' to 'the' in line 44.
No. 20, in page 9, line 46, leave out from 'targets")' to end of line 47.
No. 12, in page 9, line 47, at end insert—
'(1A) Before issuing any direction under subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall consult persons representative of police authorities and of chief officers of police.'.
No. 5, in page 10, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 7.
No. 17, in page 10, line 20, at end insert—
'(4) No code of practice or revision of a code of practice laid before Parliament under subsection (3) of this section shall have effect unless it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
Mr Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth)
In an exchange on Second Reading, it became clear that the Home Secretary had not properly understood what he was doing in taking the power to establish national objectives. His mistake in not understanding his own Bill became clearer as our debates in Committee proceeded. I am sure that the Home Secretary meant what he said on Second Reading when he suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that national policing objectives would not override or unduly influence local objectives and local policing plans. That being so, I am sure that he will accept new clause 4 with enthusiasm and alacrity.
As it stands, the Government's proposal for national objectives is a centralising measure. Our alternative will improve the performance of police in partnership with the community that they serve, and it will be for the Government to listen and learn from local experience. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge that the
new clause is positive and constructive and should be accepted. It says that, in exercising the powers to set national objectives,
the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing.
The trouble with the Government's approach to this issue is that although they pay, much lip service to locally accountable policing, the tendency of legislation is away from that important principle. I hope that the Home Secretary will put his money where his mouth is and accept the new clause.
The new clause would delay the implementation of national objectives. The Home Secretary would not set national objectives and lay requirements before Parliament until he had received a study by an independent person whom he had appointed. We have no desire to take the Home Secretary out of the picture. If he wished to do so, he could play a constructive part in developing the future role of the police. Only after the report would he set national objectives and performance targets for police authorities to pursue.
We also require a period of three years before the issuing of a direction to establish performance targets. The reason for that is that we should learn from local experience. Performance indicators and targets should be developed on the basis of local experience, requirements and aspirations. For that reason, we also suggest that the Home Secretary should consult representatives of police authorities and chief officers of police.
How can the Minister not accept such a modest and constructive approach to the establishment of national objectives? National objectives should be based on local experience and on the views of the police and public. If that is done, they may work, but national objectives based on a paper exercise carried out in Whitehall, however able are those who undertake it, will not work because it starts from the wrong end.
The White Paper on police reform said that each authority
will be required to secure implementation of the Home Secretary's key objectives and to publish its own local objectives".
I emphasise the word "required".
We have four worries about the national objectives. First, local priorities could be unduly distorted because of failure to tailor policing to local circumstances. That is a real danger, because the Home Secretary will not know the local circumstances; nor will he be able to design general, national objectives to suit the local circumstances of each force.
Secondly, the process will threaten police integrity by distorting recording patterns and skewing priorities. That is a disturbing development which the Home Secretary will bring about.
Thirdly, the objectives will not be owned by the police authorities or the police service and they should be owned, understood and possessed by both.
Fourthly, the police service should not be measured against objectives that are largely outside police control. That fourth point is important. I have experience of the successful implementation of management by objectives in local government. Those objectives were used to improve the quality of service to the local community by the local authority and a variety of departments. We were successful in pursuing that course because we involved those who had to try to meet the objectives—local authority officers at every level—as well as the public, who had a right to expect a decent standard of service from the way that the objectives developed and were pursued.
We already have difficulties with the key objectives for 1994–95, which have been established at the Home Secretary's behest. As often happens, Parliament is discussing legislation for matters that are already being pursued with some vigour in the machine. There are five key objectives for 1995: detections for violent crimes; detections for burglaries; to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem; high-visibility policing; and emergency calls.
All those objectives are important. Four of them will be measured by numbers and percentages, but the third key objective—to target and prevent crimes which are a particular local problem—is different. The Home Office has said that no high-level indicator is currently available, although there is work on developing an indicator for 1995–96.
On the key issue of crime prevention—local partnerships and the police are about crime prevention as well as investigating crimes that have taken place—there is difficulty in finding key indicators. I have had experience of that as well, although perhaps it was not intentional. A project in which I was involved included probation and social services and had the police and voluntary organisations on the management committee which was chaired by the local vicar. We involved education, and so on.
The chief constable referred to the project in his annual report in three successive years, and it was also mentioned by the chief probation officer, because it was reducing the incidence of crime among young people in the community.
Such recognition might have been expected to lead to the continuation of the project, but we received a telephone call from the probation service saying that the two people who were primarily involved would have to be withdrawn. The reason? "We receive our money from the Home Office chiefly for the supervision of young offenders, and offenders in general. Because not enough young offenders are going to court, we cannot justify continuing to devote time to the project."
If certain factors are measured, that will influence the way in which a service is provided. Unless the indicators are right—unless the right factors are being measured—priorities will be distorted. The problem is that we cannot easily measure what we have prevented. Crime prevention is crucial; yet the development and use of performance indicators to affect the performance of the police is likely to remove them from some of the crucial elements that should be a priority for them.
The Bill's suggestion of a power for the Home Secretary to give and enforce directions is worrying, because it appears to run counter to a focus on specific and detailed local issues and factors that affect crime. It runs counter to the theme of the White Paper on police reform, whose aim was supposedly to empower chief constables to deliver a service that responded better to local needs and strengthened police authorities.
It seems that the Government's theme is to devolve responsibility to chief constables, but to keep carefully in the hands of the Home Secretary and civil servants a great deal of the influence on what must be chief constables' priorities. We consider that a mistake.
As drafted, the Bill involves the potential entry of the Home Secretary into local operational issues. We touched on that point in an earlier debate. The operational independence of the chief constable should not be interfered with, but the way in which national objectives are being set—not in the way that we suggest, but in the way that the Home Secretary suggests—would affect that independence.
The Bill will not serve to clarify the respective roles of chief constables, police authorities and the Home Secretary in improving accountability for the performance of the police, which was supposed to be one of the White Paper's objectives. It will enable the Home Secretary to override the police authorities' views on resources: he will be deciding the national objectives. It is likely to result in increased staffing demands on the Home Office for planning, directing, monitoring and action at local level and in specific detail. It is important for the setting of objectives, and the measuring of those objectives at local level, to be done in a way that does not increase the amount of bureaucracy in a local police force, rather than helping it to carry out its duties.
The powers in the Bill are likely to interfere and be inconsistent with the Home Secretary's responsibility for national policing efficiency, rather than for becoming involved in the detail of priorities that should be set by a chief constable and the police. They run contrary to the arrangements for performance targets that local authorities set themselves under the Local Government Act 1992.
The new clause and amendments would do three things. They represent a measured approach to the setting of national objectives, which would best aid the Government's objectives if they really want to improve policing standards. They would give police authorities an opportunity to demonstrate the responsible exercise of their functions in the interests of a locality, without depriving the centre of a locus: in other words, local police forces would be able to set objectives that recognised the nature of crime in their communities, the aspirations of the public and the experience of the police, and the centre could then learn what happens at local level. Finally, the new clause and amendments would continue to promote partnership in the best traditions of the tripartite system.
The Home Secretary should accept our new clause with enthusiasm if he meant what he said on Second Reading about not wishing to interfere with the priorities of the local police, in conjunction with local authorities that represent local people and local interests. That is where the important objectives are set, so that patterns of policing for the future can be decided.
Mr Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
I am sorry to have to disagree with the new clause. I do so not because I believe that some of its objectives are not laudable: it recognises the need to ensure that police objectives are set locally, with local considerations and priorities in mind. Nor do I fail to recognise that the new clause would, to some extent, water down the power of the Secretary of State to set the general, national objectives contained in clause 14.
I feel, however, that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) risks supping with the devil, and using too short a spoon. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the present Home Secretary—or, indeed, any foreseeable Home Secretary in the current Government—would appoint an independent person, under the terms of the new clause, to conduct a study of
the effectiveness of levels of performance
which might conceivably be acceptable to police authorities or to the police. One wonders whether the Home Secretary might have in mind for the task someone comparable to Sir Patrick Sheehy, who may be deemed the originator of much disquiet in the bosoms of the police, and who may have prevented the Home Secretary—equanimous gentleman though he is—from sleeping every now and again.
I do not believe that that task is either appropriate or capable of being performed to anyone's satisfaction. The whole concept of imposing performance targets externally on a service such as the police strikes me as misconceived. Performance targets are fairly contentious even in the areas of commerce and industry where they have been deployed, and I feel that in the police service—where so much depends on the inhibition of unlawful or disorderly behaviour, and where performance is almost impossible to measure—the exercise would be in vain.
The new clause requires the Secretary of State to
consult persons representative of police authorities
before appointing the Sir Patrick Sheehy equivalent. I am rather dubious about whether anyone would regard consultation as offering much of a safeguard. I recall that, at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth took exception to the use of the word "consultation", suggesting that "agreement" with police authority representatives and chief officers might be more appropriate when a Conservative Home Secretary was involved.
Mr Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth)
The hon. Gentleman is referring to a comment that I made about agreement between chief constables and police authorities on local objectives and plans in their areas. I am rather surprised by what he has said. Is he suggesting that he would prefer the Home Secretary to introduce national objectives without benefiting from local experience? That is what will happen unless the new clause becomes part of the Bill.
Mr Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
No, I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the proper way in which to deal with the issue of national objectives is to strike it out of the Bill. I do not think that we should countenance the suggestion that national objectives issued by any Home Secretary are tolerable. I dare say that parliamentary procedures may limit the way in which the matter can be discussed, but it seems to me that—inadvertently, perhaps—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is giving some support to the idea that national objectives might reasonably he introduced at some time if certain conditions were met.
Mr Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth)
In Committee, we said that we preferred to deal with objectives entirely as a local issue. However, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) rightly implies, we cannot have exactly the same debate on the Floor of the House as we had in Committee. We have therefore responded to Ministers' rejection of our case by coming up with a positive constructive solution. Has the hon. Gentleman tried to delete national objectives from the Bill? If so, I must have overlooked his amendment.
Mr Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
At this stage in the debate, the exercise would be in vain. But by suggesting that national objectives might be made more tolerable, the hon. Gentleman is compromising his position and that of the Labour party. If the Bill becomes the law of the land, a future Labour Home Secretary may avail himself of the power to establish national objectives. I should take equally strong exception to a Labour Home Secretary seeking to use such a power as to its use by a Conservative Home Secretary.
However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when a matter has been exhaustively debated in Committee, as this has been, it is probable, indeed almost certain, that the subject will not be reopened on Report. Therefore, to go through the charade—under provocation, I am using slightly stronger language—of implying that there is some merit in seeking, as the hon. Gentleman has done, to qualify the introduction of national objectives is dangerous; it is playing with fire. It is an ingenious debating device, but unfortunately it gives entirely the wrong signals to the police, the police authorities and the general public.
National objectives have no part in British policing. They should be struck out at the earliest opportunity, and we should make it clear now that it would be our intention to do so at the next legislative opportunity.
Mr Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)
I shall begin by explaining what the new clause would actually achieve. It would have three main effects. First, it would require the Home Secretary to have regard to the desirability of promoting locally accountable policing. Secondly, it would require the Home Secretary to appoint an independent person to consider the effectiveness of performance targets established by police authorities. Thirdly, it would prevent the Home Secretary from setting key objectives before that independent report had been laid before Parliament, and also prevent him from doing so before three years had elapsed since police authorities had been directed to set performance targets.
That seems a curious mixture of ideas, and it would be best if I dealt with them one by one. First, the Home Secretary is already required to promote the efficiency of the police. As to promoting locally accountable policing, that is the central purpose of the Bill. That is why we are setting up strong independent police authorities with clear responsibilities for providing efficient and effective local policing. That is why we are requiring police authorities to consult their communities about policing objectives and priorities in their areas. That is why we are requiring police authorities to publish annual policing plans and annual reports setting out the outcomes of those plans. So the first declared objective of the new clause is already achieved by the Bill.
The new clause would also prevent the Home Secretary from determining key objectives for policing before he had laid before Parliament an independent study of the effectiveness of local performance targets. The connection between the two elements is not at all clear. The Home Secretary's power to set key objectives is designed to enable him to focus police attention on the major areas of concern expressed by the public. The objectives set for the current year involve increasing the number of detections of violent crimes and of burglary, targeting and preventing local crimes, in partnership with the public, providing high-visibility policing and responding promptly to emergency calls. We do not require an independent study to recognise that those are common concerns of people throughout the nation.
In fact, there is already an independent person, appointed on my recommendation, whose task it is to report annually on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces and their performance. Let me reassure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that that person is not Sir Patrick Sheehy, but Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. He is entirely independent—I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not want any of his remarks to be taken as implying otherwise—and has under his control a number of inspectors responsible for inspecting police forces.
Inspectors of constabulary are independent of the police service, and are accountable to the Home Secretary for carrying out their responsibility. Part of their job will be to consider the effectiveness of the performance targets established by police authorities under the Bill, and to report accordingly. Inspection reports are published, as is the annual report of the chief inspector to the Home Secretary. I therefore see no purpose whatever in establishing yet another independent person to cover the same ground as the existing independent inspectorate.
The fact is that the Labour amendments on national objectives are a red herring. The simple truth is that Labour Members do not want national objectives at all. Judging by the other amendments that they have tabled, Labour Members do not want local police authorities to set out local policing plans with local objectives, either.
The Labour party simply does not understand the first thing about measuring and improving the performance of public services. They always take the side of the producer, never the side of the consumer or of the public. In that respect the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is just as prehistoric as his Front-Bench colleagues. He is interested only in rehearsing tired arguments about giving new duties to local authorities. That would be the effect of the new clause on which he chose to speak, and that speaks volumes for his priorities. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that we need a body separate from the police—in this case, the police authority—to set objectives and to measure performance.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield should listen to the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I know that he will find this hard to take, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West is not only a closet moderniser, but more of a moderniser than the hon. Member for Sedgefield. When asked how to reform public services the hon. Member for Oldham, West explained:
If you are going to make it work seriously you have to set targets independently.
I do not always agree with the hon. Gentleman—in fact, I do not often agree with him. But I entirely agree with him on that, and that is precisely the point that we are making in the Bill. Regrettably, that is entirely lost on the hon. Member for Sedgefield. He talks about modernising public services, but votes against the very measures that will make that happen.
In his recent Police Foundation lecture, the hon. Member for Sedgefield called for a
proper national strategy and framework
to deal with crime, yet today he rejects that. As usual, he is all sound bite and no substance.
The hon. Gentleman talks as though he has just bought his first modern textbook on management, but has read only the index. Some of the words are there— "performance", "efficiency", even "accountability" but he does not understand what they mean. The hon. Gentleman would not reform public services to make them better. He would simply say to those responsible for delivering services, "Set your own targets, measure your own performance, and don't bother to publish the results." Indeed, that was the philosophy that lay behind the speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). It is entirely inconsistent with a proper approach to accountability.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) does not want targets of any kind. That is the approach taken by the modern purposive Liberal Democratic party.
To sum up, the new clause—
Mr Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)
The Home Secretary does me a disservice in misrepresenting what I said. I am much in favour of local police authorities having targets and local policing plans, but I object to the Home Secretary's taking that authority into his hands, and to his dictating what the national targets should be. I do not believe that he is sensitive to local needs.
Mr Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)
Of course, it is always possible that the words which the hon. Gentleman used in his speech earlier did not adequately convey the meaning which he intended to convey. However, if he reads those words in Hansard, he will find that the representation which I made of them a few moments ago is entirely justified and accurate.
To sum up, the new clause is misguided and unnecessary. It is misguided because it suggests that the Home Secretary cannot set key objectives to reflect major concerns of the people of the country without first having some sort of investigation into the way in which police authorities have set local targets. It is unnecessary because it seeks to duplicate the independent review and assessment function that is already provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 20 would detach performance targets, which police authorities may be required to set, from the key objectives, but there is an inescapable connection between the Home Secretary's key objectives and the police authorities' performance targets. Otherwise, there would be no common point of reference, no way in which people could establish how their police force had performed against the objectives and no possibility of making any comparisons. Clearly, the performance targets to be set by the police authorities should relate to the key objectives. Equally, it is right that the Home Secretary's powers and responsibilities in that area should clearly link the two issues.
Amendment No. 12 arises from a misunderstanding about the Home Secretary's powers in relation to performance targets. The Home Secretary has no power at all under the Bill to set performance targets. The power to set the targets quite deliberately rests with the police authority. Since the Home Secretary has no power to set targets, but merely to direct the police authorities to do so, it follows that he does not need to consult anyone before he decides to issue a direction. It is a matter for him and him alone to decide how, when or if to instruct police authorities to set performance targets, but when he has instructed them to do so, the targets will be determined locally with local consultation. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth did not speak to amendment No. 17, which is included in the group, so there is no need for me to deal with it.
The new clause and the amendments epitomise the muddle which has characterised the approach of the Labour party to the Bill. They are misconceived, misguided and unnecessary. They illustrate how remote the Labour party is from any true appreciation of how accountability of public involvement in policing can best be achieved, and I urge the House to reject them.
Mr Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth)
That was a nice try by the Home Secretary to sound as if he was being reasonable in rejecting the new clause. He is not. However, I shall first refer to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). His speech was disappointing. He sometimes disappoints and, sometimes, one finds him supporting rational argument on such issues. He seemed to be suggesting an agenda for misrepresentation on a fresh issue of focus in the near future, which rather misrepresents the nature of the debate.
The Home Secretary paid my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) the compliment of concentrating on my hon. Friend's speech in an earlier debate, during which the Home Secretary chose not take part, before leading his troops into the Lobby to vote against local partnerships for crime prevention. The Home Secretary missed his chance on that occasion. That is his mistake and he cannot recover with a sound bite in this debate.
If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would be a victory for common sense over dogma—such as the victory that we have heard has taken place this evening in another place. The Home Secretary has been given another bloody nose because of his pursuit of dogmatic attitudes towards the problems of crime and crime prevention, rather than listening and learning from those who have been involved in and have been trying to tackle those issues over the years.
I am glad that the Home Secretary thinks that he understands the new clause, but he has not explained to us why he will vote against having regard to the desirability of promoting local, accountable policing. That is what the new clause requires.
Mr Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth)
It is not what the whole Bill is about. The whole Bill, I tell the Home Secretary, is about centralising power in his hands. He has had that exchange before. He will not get away with it. People will—belatedly, perhaps—recognise how centralising and damaging and constitutionally bad the Bill is. He has an opportunity today to accept the new clause, which would move us a little in the right direction.
The Home Secretary has talked about a study by an independent person. Why is he so against learning from experience? Why is he so against learning from what happens when local police authorities and chief constables set objectives and seek to meet them? Why will not he learn from the combined experience of all local police authorities and forces in every part of the United Kingdom? He says that he already has an independent person to look at such issues, so why not accept the new clause?
Labour Members understand the setting of priorities and the use of objectives. I told the Home Secretary that I have had positive experience of that myself. It should be done locally, on the basis of partnership, with the experience of the police and on the aspirations of the public. The police authorities will set targets, but those targets will be distorted by the imposition of national objectives, which the Government seek to set, unless the Home Secretary accepts the new clause, as he should if he is really interested in local, effective and accountable policing.
|Division No. 283]||6.25 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Dewar, Donald|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Dixon, Don|
|Ainger, Nick||Donohoe, Brian H.|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Dowd, Jim|
|Allen, Graham||Dunnachie, Jimmy|
|Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Eagle, Ms Angela|
|Ashton, Joe||Eastham, Ken|
|Austin-Walker, John||Enright, Derek|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Etherington, Bill|
|Barnes, Harry||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Barron, Kevin||Fatchett, Derek|
|Battle, John||Fisher, Mark|
|Bayley, Hugh||Flynn, Paul|
|Bell, Stuart||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Foulkes, George|
|Bennett, Andrew F.||Fraser, John|
|Benton, Joe||Fyfe, Maria|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Galbraith, Sam|
|Berry, Roger||Galloway, George|
|Betts, Clive||Gerrard, Neil|
|Blair, Tony||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Blunkett, David||Godsiff, Roger|
|Boateng, Paul||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Boyes, Roland||Gordon, Mildred|
|Bradley, Keith||Graham, Thomas|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Burden, Richard||Grocott, Bruce|
|Byers, Stephen||Gunnell, John|
|Callaghan, Jim||Hain, Peter|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Hall, Mike|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Hanson, David|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Harvey, Nick|
|Canavan, Dennis||Henderson, Doug|
|Cann, Jamie||Heppell, John|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Hill, Keith (Streatham)|
|Church, Judith||Hinchliffe, David|
|Clapham, Michael||Hodge, Margaret|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||Hoey, Kate|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Home Robertson, John|
|Clelland, David||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Coffey, Ann||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cohen, Harry||Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)|
|Connarty, Michael||Hoyle, Doug|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Corbett, Robin||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Ingram, Adam|
|Cousins, Jim||Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)|
|Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)||Jamieson, David|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John||Janner, Greville|
|Dafis, Cynog||Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)|
|Darling, Alistair||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Davidson, Ian||Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)|
|Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Keen, Alan|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)||Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)|
|Denham, John||Khabra, Piara S.|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)||Purchase, Ken|
|Lestor, Joan (Eccles)||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Lewis, Terry||Radice, Giles|
|Liddell, Helen||Randall, Stuart|
|Livingstone, Ken||Raynsford, Nick|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Redmond, Martin|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Reid, Dr John|
|Loyden, Eddie||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|McAllion, John||Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Roche, Mrs. Barbara|
|McCartney, Ian||Rogers, Allan|
|Macdonald, Calum||Rooker, Jeff|
|McFall, John||Rooney, Terry|
|McKelvey, William||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Rowlands, Ted|
|McMaster, Gordon||Ruddock, Joan|
|MacShane, Denis||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McWilliam, John||Sheerman, Barry|
|Madden, Max||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Mahon, Alice||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mandelson, Peter||Simpson, Alan|
|Marek, Dr John||Skinner, Dennis|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)|
|Martlew, Eric||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Maxton, John||Snape, Peter|
|Meacher, Michael||Spearing, Nigel|
|Meale, Alan||Spellar, John|
|Michael, Alun||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Milburn, Alan||Stevenson, George|
|Miller, Andrew||Straw, Jack|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Timms, Stephen|
|Morgan, Rhodri||Tipping, Paddy|
|Morley, Elliot||Turner, Dennis|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)||Tyler, Paul|
|Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Vaz, Keith|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold|
|Mullin, Chris||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Murphy, Paul||Wareing, Robert N|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Watson, Mike|
|O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)||Wicks, Malcolm|
|O'Brien, William (Normanton)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Olner, William||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Orme, Rt Hon Stanley||Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)|
|Parry, Robert||Winnick, David|
|Pendry, Tom||Worthington, Tony|
|Pickthall, Colin||Wray, Jimmy|
|Pike, Peter L.||Wright, Dr Tony|
|Pope, Greg||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Mr. John Cummings and|
|Prescott, John||Mr. Eric Illsley.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Beggs, Roy|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Beith, Rt Hon A. J.|
|Alexander, Richard||Bellingham, Henry|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Bendall, Vivian|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Beresford, Sir Paul|
|Amess, David||Blackburn, Dr John G.|
|Ancram, Michael||Body, Sir Richard|
|Arbuthnot, James||Bonsor, Sir Nicholas|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Booth, Hartley|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)||Boswell, Tim|
|Ashby, David||Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia|
|Aspinwall, Jack||Bowden, Sir Andrew|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Bowis, John|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Brandreth, Gyles|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)||Brazier, Julian|
|Baldry, Tony||Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Browning, Mrs. Angela|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)|
|Bates, Michael||Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)|
|Batiste, Spencer||Budgen, Nicholas|
|Burns, Simon||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie|
|Burt, Alistair||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Butcher, John||Hannam, Sir John|
|Butler, Peter||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Butterfill, John||Harris, David|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Hawkins, Nick|
|Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hawksley, Warren|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hayes, Jerry|
|Carttiss, Michael||Heald, Oliver|
|Cash, William||Hendry, Charles|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Hicks, Robert|
|Chapman, Sydney||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.|
|Churchill, Mr||Hill, James (Southampton Test)|
|Clappison, James||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Horam, John|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)||Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Coe, Sebastian||Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)|
|Colvin, Michael||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Congdon, David||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Conway, Derek||Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Hunter, Andrew|
|Cormack, Patrick||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Cran, James||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)||Jessel, Toby|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Davies, Quentin (Stamford)||Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)|
|Day, Stephen||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Key, Robert|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Kilfedder, Sir James|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Knapman, Roger|
|Dover, Den||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Duncan, Alan||Knight, Greg (Derby N)|
|Duncan-Smith, Iain||Knox, Sir David|
|Dunn, Bob||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Elletson, Harold||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)||Legg, Barry|
|Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)||Leigh, Edward|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Lennox-Boyd, Mark|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Evennett, David||Lidington, David|
|Faber, David||Lightbown, David|
|Fabricant, Michael||Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Lord, Michael|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Luff, Peter|
|Fishburn, Dudley||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Forman, Nigel||Lynne, Ms Liz|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||MacKay, Andrew|
|Forth, Eric||Maclean, David|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)||McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick|
|Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)||Madel, Sir David|
|Freeman, Rt Hon Roger||Maitland, Lady Olga|
|French, Douglas||Malone, Gerald|
|Fry, Sir Peter||Mans, Keith|
|Gale, Roger||Marland, Paul|
|Gallie, Phil||Marlow, Tony|
|Gardiner, Sir George||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Garnier, Edward||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Gill, Christopher||Merchant, Piers|
|Gillan, Cheryl||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)|
|Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair||Mills, Iain|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Moate, Sir Roger|
|Gorst, Sir John||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)||Moss, Malcolm|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Needham, Rt Hon Richard|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Grylls, Sir Michael||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Hague, William||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Steen, Anthony|
|Norris, Steve||Stephen, Michael|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley||Stern, Michael|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Stewart, Allan|
|Ottaway, Richard||Streeter, Gary|
|Page, Richard||Sumberg, David|
|Paice, James||Sweeney, Walter|
|Patnick, Irvine||Sykes, John|
|Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Pawsey, James||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth||Taylor, John M. (Solihull)|
|Pickles, Eric||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Thomason, Roy|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Rathbone, Tim||Thurnham, Peter|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Rendel, David||Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Tracey, Richard|
|Richards, Rod||Tredinnick, David|
|Riddick, Graham||Trend, Michael|
|Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm||Trimble, David|
|Robathan, Andrew||Trotter, Neville|
|Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Viggers, Peter|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Ross, William (E Londonderry)||Walden, George|
|Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela||Ward, John|
|Ryder, Rt Hon Richard||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Sackville, Tom||Waterson, Nigel|
|Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas||Watts, John|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Wells, Bowen|
|Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian||Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Whitney, Ray|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Whittingdale, John|
|Shersby, Michael||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Sims, Roger||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Wilkinson, John|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Willetts, David|
|Soames, Nicholas||Wilshire, David|
|Speed, Sir Keith||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Spencer, Sir Derek||Wolfson, Mark|
|Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)||Wood, Timothy|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)||Yeo, Tim|
|Spink, Dr Robert||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Sproat, Iain||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)||Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and|
|Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John||Mr. Andrew Mitchell.|
|Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|