Victim Liaison

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] – in the House of Commons at 4:15 pm on 7th June 1995.

Alert me about debates like this

'.—Every court with criminal jurisdiction shall appoint a victim liaison officer who shall—

  1. (a) contact each complainer and ascertain whether they require—
    1. (i) advice or guidance regarding the procedure adopted by the Court,
    2. (ii) information regarding the progress of the case and its outcome, and
    3. (iii) information regarding support services for victims; and
  2. (b) having ascertained the needs of the complainer, provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be.'.—[Mr. McFall.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Photo of John McFall John McFall , Dumbarton 5:15 pm, 7th June 1995

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

New clause 7 concerns the need for a victim liaison officer to be appointed by the courts. When we discussed a similar new clause in Committee, we had a positive and constructive debate. We have redrafted the new clause because it was pointed out in Committee that the previous new clause had a certain rigidity about it. In paragraph (b) of the new clause, we have inserted that the victim liaison officer having ascertained the needs of the complainer, provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be.'. The victim liaison officer would have flexibility, as it was pointed out in Committee that perhaps not everyone involved would wish to be informed about the progress or otherwise of a case.

It is important to recognise in this debate that the Scottish legal system still has a long way to go before it treats victims properly. Information should flow from the justice system to the victim. Information from the police with whom the victim was initially involved, the procurator fiscal's departments and the courts should be sent to the victim and the victim's family. A wide definition of victim should be adopted, simply because the victim might be in hospital, for example, and the victim's family would need to be consulted on certain issues.

On the day the original new clause 6 was moved in Committee, the Minister was kind enough to send all members of the Committee a copy of a Scottish Office research paper on information needs of victims. That information came out only on that day and we had insufficient time—the Minister admitted that he, too, had insufficient time—to consider it in detail. In retrospect, we find that the central message of the report is that victims are still largely being kept in the dark.

In compiling the report, 915 victims of crime were interviewed. It found that the police were the best at telling victims and witnesses what was happening with a case and the courts and the procurator fiscal system were the worst. For example, 47 per cent. of victims were contacted by the police, less than a quarter had any contact with the procurator fiscal and only 13 per cent. were contacted by the courts. Elderly women were much more likely to be kept informed.

The report also found that a third of victims of crimes which were solved were not told that someone had been charged, more than half of the victims of unsolved crimes were not told that no charges had been brought and in more than 40 per cent. of cases in which the victims knew that someone had been charged, they were not told whether the case went to court. A further 58 per cent. had not learnt of the outcome more than 12 months after they reported the crime.

It is important to note that only 10 per cent. thought that they had been kept very well informed of key developments in the case and more than half said that they had been poorly informed. More than 90 per cent. of those who were not told that someone had been charged said that they had wanted that information and 85 per cent. of those interviewed said that they wanted to know the outcome of the case.

The report said that there was a significant level of unmet need for information… Sometimes victims were unhappy with the way they had been treated by criminal justice agencies. This was sometimes due to 'insensitive handling' rather than a lack of information. The report is not bad in itself but, as we noted in the debate in Committee, it was undertaken by a London-based firm known as MVA Consultancy. I have examined the articles and memorandum of that company, and it deals mainly with business, planning, transport and so on. In Committee, I asked a question that is worth repeating: why did the Government not give that £34,000 contract to someone in Scotland, especially the Scottish universities, which know a great deal about the subject? That question is still valid.

On page 6 of the report, sections 2.3.10 and 2.3.11 tell us that the company sent out 600 questionnaires but that only 18 per cent. came back. The problem with that 18 per cent. was that the victims had been selected and stratified by the type of offence, and according to whether the crime was detected or undetected. Crimes were also grouped in four broad categories: assault, theft from a house, other theft and other crimes. The categories excluded serious offences such as rape, serious assault and murder; they also excluded victims' relatives and victims of domestic violence.

The authors of the report said that they excluded those individuals because they would have been precognosced by the procurator fiscal, whereas they wanted to interview people who had not been interviewed by the fiscal. What difference would it make to the statistics whether someone had been precognosced by the procurator fiscal, and how could the researchers know the seriousness of a crime when seriousness is a subjective and not an objective concept?

For example, the theft of a handbag from a young girt, if it contained only her make-up and other perfumery, may not be very serious, whereas the theft of a handbag from an 85-year-old lady, when it might contain her life savings, her birth certificate and some memorabilia, would be a serious offence with a traumatic effect on the individual victim. That illustrates the subjectivity of the idea of seriousness.

It is in precisely those cases, such as domestic violence, assault and murder, that we want to know whether the victims or their relatives have been consulted, and we want to know their views. There is a serious deficiency in the research, because it does not contain such information.

Victims and victim support must be taken seriously. The research paper tells us starkly that only 7 per cent. of victims had contact with Victim Support, and that almost 40 per cent. of those who had not had contact said that that was because no one had told them about it. In Committee we asked the Minister what the Government intended to do about that. If I remember correctly, he said that the information would be computerised so that it was readily available in the procurator fiscal's office and could be more widely consulted.

As the Government have made the idea that they care for victims the centrepiece of the law and order debate, that is an insufficient response. Their own research tells them that the victim is kept in the dark and is a subsidiary element in the whole process. That should not happen. The victim should be of primary concern, and the Government's record on the issue is deplorable.

The new clause asks the Government seriously to reconsider the situation and to tell us what they intend to do for victims in the Scottish criminal justice system. Will they sweep victims' needs under the carpet, as they do at the moment, or will they introduce a more formal set-up, involving Victim Support and other agencies, so that the victim will have assistance from the first minute that he or she is in contact with the police, the procurator fiscal and the courts?

The need for information to be conveyed thereafter, when the victim is away from court, is also paramount. We do not want to read of cases in which victims of rape are told by their neighbours that the accused is out on the streets again. It is the job of the Government and of the courts to ensure that the information is readily available, so the ball lands back in the Government's court. Let us hear the Minister's response and discover what their intentions are. I hope that the Minister will respond to the new clause in a positive and enlightening fashion to the new clause.

Photo of Jim Wallace Jim Wallace , Orkney and Shetland

Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest, as in the past few days I have joined the ranks of those who have become victims of crime. I cannot honestly say that I have more than a passing academic interest in what happens to the culprit at the end of the day, but I recognise that, for many victims of crime, especially with crimes against the person when there has been an element of personal injury, that is of considerable importance to the victims.

Only in recent times have we as a society started to pay more attention to the victims of crime. I do not advocate that our criminal justice system should be turned into a system of victim vengeance. Vengeance should play no part in the criminal justice system. However, as a constituency Member I know of cases in which victims feel that they have been lost sight of as the case against the accused takes its course, and it is almost forgotten that at the outset there was a victim.

I am thinking of a particular case in which a young constituent was killed in a road accident. The parents found out only some time later that the case had gone to court and what the outcome had been. The aspect of that case which is relevant to the new clause is that, at the outset, during the initial months, the police officer who had been dealing with it had kept in close contact with the bereaved family. But, as such things happen—no one was at fault—the police officer was moved on to another posting and the contact was lost.

When that happens, the important ties that have been established are lost, and the victims tend to go by the hoard. That is not malicious or even negligent; it is simply that the system does not have a means of keeping people involved, especially in cases where there has been a guilty plea. Obviously, when the plea is not guilty the victim may have to come to court, which presents a different set of circumstances, in which one hopes that proper attention will be paid to him or her. After a guilty plea, however, the victim is often lost from sight as the case is processed. But victims have an interest in knowing how our judicial system, acting on behalf of the community as a whole, has dealt with the perpetrator of the crime against them.

I welcome the general thrust of the new clause. It would be difficult and perhaps burdensome to say that the procedures laid down in it should take place in every single case, because that could lead to unnecessary bureaucracy. However, someone—perhaps someone in the sheriff clerk's office—should be identified as being responsible for ensuring that the interests of the victims of crime are considered. It can be a strange thing for people who have never attended court before, especially if, as victims, they will have to give evidence, to find themselves suddenly faced with the whole panoply of the law. Someone should sit down and talk the witness through the process. After all, the chances are that the witness will not be legally represented, although the accused and the Crown will be represented. Someone from the fiscal's department may have time to explain what will happen, but one suspects that that may not necessarily be the case in a busy sheriff court or the High Court.

There should be someone in the court to say what will happen when the witness goes in, who will be sitting where, and what the procedure will be. If the witness is giving evidence for the Crown, he should be told that he will be asked questions by the procurator fiscal and will then be cross-examined. A liaison officer could simplify the process and allow witnesses some inkling of what they can expect when they go into the court.

Equally, the other two paragraphs in the new clause state that a liaison officer should provide information regarding the progress of the case, or indicate cases in which the accused pleads guilty. The officer should also provide information on victim support services. Agencies and voluntary organisations which cater for the victims of crime are growing in number in our communities. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said in moving the new clause, the number of victims who make use of those organisations is relatively small because of the lack of basic information.

I understand that there will be the usual technical objections to the new clause, but I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit in which the new clause has been moved. There must be proper recognition in society of people who fall victim to crime. A lot of sympathy is expressed at present, but that sympathy must be translated into practical action.

Photo of Mrs Maria Fyfe Mrs Maria Fyfe , Glasgow Maryhill 5:30 pm, 7th June 1995

I want to make particular reference to the victims of rape. In the debate on new clause 5, the Minister seemed to believe that the retention of the not proven verdict went a long way towards satisfying the needs of rape victims. The question of not going into the sexual history of the victim should be applied in all cases—the judge should not be free to decide whether to do so.

It is not only a matter of protecting vulnerable witness, although that was a valuable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). Counsel for the defence again and again ask questions relating to the clothing of the complainant, or the fact that she was walking alone at night. Those issues should not be raised in an attempt to defend the accused and to try to put doubt in the minds of the jury. It is not a question of departing from the standard of the case being beyond reasonable doubt. I am referring to the issues that can be raised in court.

Photo of Mr Michael Morris Mr Michael Morris , Northampton South

Order. The hon. Lady has had an opportunity to speak to new clause 5. We are now on new clause 7, which deals with victim liaison; she must address her remarks to that subject.

Photo of Mrs Maria Fyfe Mrs Maria Fyfe , Glasgow Maryhill

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to use that subject to lead into new clause 7. If we believe that victims need more support and help, new clause 7 could be of immense benefit. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will support the new clause. He must be willing to discuss the problems that victims—I am referring particularly to rape victims—can experience.

I felt that I had to relate the Minister's remarks on new clause 5 to new clause 7 because it is important that he not only supports this new clause but goes further and discusses the needs of rape victims with rape crisis centres. He must see what else can be done to ensure that trials are conducted as fairly as possible and that victims are fairly represented so that a proper verdict is delivered. After all, that is the most important thing to a victim.

An organisation based in Glasgow called Families of Murder Victims has raised with me the fact that when a loved member of a family is murdered, no one explains anything to the relatives of the victim. They do not get a transcript of the trial, which is offered free to the defendant, and they are often made to sit in the same room as the family and friends of the person accused of the murder. Families of Murder Victims feel that relatives get a raw deal, and I hope that the Minister will refer to that point.

Photo of Dr Norman Godman Dr Norman Godman , Greenock and Port Glasgow

I was only too happy to add my name to the new clause, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) will allow me to say that a more appropriate title might well have been "Witness Liaison Officer" or "Witness Adviser". We have seen a remarkable improvement in the assistance given to witnesses, particularly those whom I have long defined as vulnerable witnesses. New clause 7 would strengthen that most welcome development.

The Minister will surely agree that clause 18, while providing a most welcome step forward, falls far short of the provisions contained in sections 33 and 35 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. I am sure that the Minister was not attempting to compare clause 18 favourably with the two sections of the 1993 Act, but he will surely agree that much more assistance needs to be given to vulnerable witnesses.

Section 33 of the 1993 Act allows for the appointment of a commissioner—who could act as a witness adviser or a safeguard—who must act as an independent evidence-gatherer. Similarly, section 35 of the Act allows for a child's evidence to be given by television link. It is essential that the sheriff's office has a victim liaison officer—or witness liaison officer—where closed circuit television is used. I have looked at the installation in Greenock, and incidentally I am pleased to say that—judging from a recent letter I received from the Minister—it seems that the installation is to be permanent. That will be most welcome in Greenock, if not in Paisley.

If further use of television screens is to be made, a young witness would benefit from the advice of a "safeguarder" or adviser as envisaged in new clause 7. That will be extremely helpful whether the case takes place under what I call the old-fashioned proceedings or, under sections 33 and 35 of the 1993 Act, evidence is taken outwith the court room.

The Minister should have some sympathy for the new clause. As envisaged, the development of witness advisers could be as welcome and as radical as those sections of the 1993 Act, in which the Minister played an important role. By and large, the interests of child witnesses are now dealt with compassionately, and sheriffs and judges treat such vulnerable witnesses sympathetically. But that more sensible and compassionate approach does not deny the usefulness of the officer envisaged in the new clause.

Although most courts take care of the interests of vulnerable witnesses, how many sheriff courts and courts used by the High Court are in every sense barrier-free for the visually handicapped? I should have thought—

Photo of Mr Michael Morris Mr Michael Morris , Northampton South

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He is rather stretching this new clause.

Photo of Dr Norman Godman Dr Norman Godman , Greenock and Port Glasgow

I am sorry that you say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because an adviser could be in a powerful position to advise disabled witnesses, particularly where there are no facilities for that person to give his or her evidence in a comfortable frame of mind. In numerous courts the visually handicapped are handicapped as witnesses, and the same applies to people confined to wheelchairs. Such witnesses would benefit enormously from advice given by an adviser as defined in new clause 7. I fail to see why you brought me to order on that point.

Photo of Mr Michael Morris Mr Michael Morris , Northampton South

I did so simply because the hon. Gentleman was out of order. He was seeking information on exactly how many courts had this, that and the other. Although it may be appropriate for an adviser to seek such information, it is hardly appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to develop that line of argument this afternoon. I should be grateful if he would desist from doing so.

Photo of Dr Norman Godman Dr Norman Godman , Greenock and Port Glasgow

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Such an adviser could play an important role in helping disabled witnesses. He could certainly help complainers in rape cases by advising on the likelihood of the court trawling through their sexual history on cross-examination. They should be regarded as vulnerable witnesses and a victim or witness liaison officer, as proposed in the new clause, could be of considerable help to complainers or child witnesses in such cases.

Another group who should be assisted by such an adviser is people with learning difficulties. I have always argued that they should be treated as vulnerable witnesses. It must be an awful ordeal for such people to go into a court of law. Some manage better than others, but with the help of an adviser the difficulties experienced by such people in attending and giving evidence in our courts would be dramatically reduced.

There is therefore a strong case for such an adviser to be employed by the courts' administration solely for the purpose of easing the difficulties faced by vulnerable witnesses.

Photo of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Lord James Douglas-Hamilton , Edinburgh West

Although we debated this issue thoroughly in Committee, I am happy that we have returned to it today, because it is extremely important. It gives me an opportunity to repeat the Government's commitment to ensuring that victims are dealt with correctly and sensitively.

Victims have an important place in our criminal justice system, which must be fully recognised. If victims were to lose faith in how the system treated them or delivered justice, fewer would report crimes or act as witnesses. That in turn would reduce the system's effectiveness and capacity to identify offenders and bring them to justice.

I have much sympathy with the sentiments behind the new clause. All coherent and sensible measures to improve the position of victims are to be welcomed. But the statutory path suggested by the new clause is the wrong one to follow. The right path is the one on which we have already embarked, which builds on much existing good work being carried out by the agencies of the criminal justice system, based on research and pilot projects.

5.45 pm

Unlike the new clause, our support for victims is not only court-based. Under the justice charter, police forces are expected to put victims in touch with local victim support schemes if the victim so wishes, and all police forces have an official policy to provide the necessary information to victims. Equally, once a trial is over, the efforts of Victim Support (Scotland) will continue to support victims who still need emotional support. Government funding to Victim Support (Scotland) has increased enormously from £600 in 1985 to £878,000 in 1994 and it is being increased by a further 11 per cent. this year up to £1 million.

I was specifically asked in Committee about action that we shall take in the light of the research report. I say to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that the contract for research on the information needs of victims was put out to selective tender and was won by MVA in December 1993 for a total of more than £34,000, which has now been paid in full. Most of the research commissioned by the Scottish Office's criminal research office is undertaken by Scottish universities. That research required expertise in what could be described as "market research"—sending out questionnaires to large numbers of individuals. MVA was considered to have the expertise available as well as previous experience in Scottish criminal justice. I cannot say at this time who else submitted proposals for that research, but I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Photo of John McFall John McFall , Dumbarton

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. He mentioned research. Does he accept that, as I said earlier, the crimes that were excluded from paragraphs 2, 3, 10 and 11 included those such as rape and other sexual assault? It is on precisely such areas that we need information. As a result, does he accept that that research is deficient in terms of what we do in the future?

Photo of Lord James Douglas-Hamilton Lord James Douglas-Hamilton , Edinburgh West

Any research is not necessarily complete, but it must be used as a basis for going forward. If further evidence is required we could usefully look into that. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's point to the Minister of State responsible.

The report makes it clear that there is an unmet demand for more information, and we acknowledge that there is definitely room for improvement. To construct a system to cope effectively, speedily and comprehensively, and at a reasonable cost, with the provision of more information to victims, as outlined in the report, is no easy task, nor can it be done overnight, but since the report's publication we have made a number of initial moves.

First, the report suggested that local police guidelines on the provision of information could be operated much more consistently and we are pursuing that matter with chief police officers in Scotland to see how they could achieve greater reliability and coverage in keeping victims informed of progress. Secondly, we have accepted an invitation from Victim Support (Scotland) to participate in a steering group formed to consider proposals for pilot projects targeted on supporting victim witnesses in court.

The Crown Office obviously has a leading role to play in providing case-specific information at certain stages of the process. The Lord Advocate and his officials will proceed in relation to aspects of the report that fairly fall to them and to procurators fiscal.

I strike a note of caution. The research findings clearly highlighted the fact that the majority of victims definitely want to be well informed about case-specific information, general criminal justice procedures and contact points for assistance. However, it is clear from the report that a range of options is available for providing that additional information, which might work differently in practice.

Under, for example, the first option, victims of serious offences and vulnerable witnesses would be given information at key stages but other victims would have to telephone for information. That is attractive, as it seeks to target the provision of information, but, as the report says, that gives no guarantee that the victims who most need or want it would automatically receive what they require.

The second option, whereby victims would opt into a system of automatic information provision, largely gets round the problem of victim selection associated with the first option. However, as with the third option, whereby all victims would automatically be kept informed, it is questionable whether it would be a wise use of taxpayers' funds to place no limits on the supply of information, especially where the case concerned might be minor. In addition, the third option takes no account of those victims who do not want information, who may simply want to put the experience of the crime behind them.

All those considerations need to be given careful thought. Even Victim Support (Scotland) remains in the process of digesting the report and reaching an opinion about the options.

I have said to the hon. Member for Dumbarton that we will carefully consider all the issues, and consider whether it is necessary to prepare a leaflet for victims so that they should be better informed.

To summarise, I must restate our opposition to the new clause. Although the sentiment is laudable, the amendment is misguided. Better victim liaison will not be achieved by placing such a statutory duty on the courts. Instead we should pursue, as the Scottish Office is already, a flexible and co-ordinated approach throughout all agencies of the criminal justice system, working in close contact with Victim Support (Scotland) and other voluntary organisations.

With those assurances in mind, I hope that the hon. Member for Dumbarton will not press his amendment.

Photo of John McFall John McFall , Dumbarton

I thank the Minister for his reply, but a deficiency remains. [Interruption.] The Minister has kindly replied to me, so I would not say that.

There is a deficiency in the Government's approach because the figures that stand out are that only 7 per cent. of victims had contact with Victim Support (Scotland). What will the Government do to bring victims far more into the mainstream regarding the courts? Will he reflect on the fact that two out of every five victims who were contacted by Victim Support (Scotland) said that they had not contacted victim support because no one had told them of its existence?

If there is a dearth of information in the first place, the Minister's suggestion that a leaflet be produced for victims should be implemented immediately. That is important.

The Minister said that the new clause was inflexible because it imposed a statutory duty. However, subsection (b) offers flexibility because we say in that, having ascertained the needs of the complainer, the victim liaison officer would provide such advice, guidance or information as the case may be. Flexibility is therefore built into the new clause.

I took the arguments made by hon. Members. For example, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that someone from, perhaps, the procurator fiscal's department should act as a victim liaison officer. At the moment, each department is charged with keeping the victim informed voluntarily, but it does not happen. There must be some co-ordination. The victim liaison officer, being appointed by a court with criminal jurisdiction, would satisfy that demand. It would allow for someone to sit down and talk to witnesses and victims.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, the nomenclature of a witness liaison officer may be more appropriate. Regardless of nomenclature, there is a need for victim support.

The Government's lack of financial support is reprehensible. Victim Support (Scotland) has provided briefings to us as Members of Parliament. One briefing mentioned the need for fair compensation for crime victims by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It is absurd that the board would still award £1,000 for a child who has been sexually assaulted, compared with £1,250 for an adult who suffers a dislocated finger.

The Government's attitude to that is topsy-turvy. It is time that they entered the real world. The least that the Minister should do is to take the issue seriously so that victims receive the message from the debate that they do have a place in the criminal justice system. The Opposition suggest that they have a primary place; the Government have relegated them to the second and third division. We consider that their needs are much more important than that, and should be considered.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 259.

Division No. 160][5.55 pm
AYES
Ainger, NickBattle, John
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)Bayley, Hugh
Alton, DavidBeggs, Roy
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)Beith, Rt Hon A J
Ashton, JoeBell, Stuart
Austin-Walker, JohnBenn, Rt Hon Tony
Barnes, HarryBennett, Andrew F
Barron, KevinBenton, Joe
Bermingham, GeraldHarvey, Nick
Berry, RogerHenderson, Doug
Blair, Rt Hon TonyHeppell, John
Blunkett, DavidHill, Keith (Streatham)
Bradley, KeithHodge, Margaret
Bray, Dr JeremyHome Robertson, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)Hoyle, Doug
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Burden, RichardHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Byers, StephenHughes, Roy (Newport E)
Caborn, RichardHughes, Simon (Southwark)
Callaghan, JimHutton, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)Illsley, Eric
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)Ingram, Adam
Campbell-Savours, D NJackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Cann, JamieJackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Chidgey, DavidJamieson, David
Chisholm, MalcolmJones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Clapham, MichaelJones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)Jowell, Tessa
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)Khabra, Piara S
Clelland, DavidKilfoyle, Peter
Clwyd, Mrs AnnKirkwood, Archy
Coffey, AnnLestor, Joan (Eccles)
Cohen, HarryLewis, Terry
Connarty, MichaelLiddell, Mrs Helen
Cook, Robin (Livingston)Livingstone, Ken
Corbett, RobinLloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Corbyn, JeremyLoyden, Eddie
Corston, JeanLynne, Ms Liz
Cummings, JohnMcAllion, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)McAvoy, Thomas
Cunningham, RoseannaMcCartney, Ian
Darling, AlistairMacdonald, Calum
Davidson, IanMcFall, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)McKelvey, William
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)McMaster, Gordon
Denham, JohnMcNamara, Kevin
Dixon, DonMadden, Max
Dobson, FrankMaddock, Diana
Donohoe, Brian HMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Dowd, JimMarshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Dunnachie, JimmyMartin, Michael J (Springburn)
Dunwoody, Mrs GwynethMartlew, Eric
Eagle, Ms AngelaMaxton, John
Eastham, KenMeacher, Michael
Enright, DerekMeale, Alan
Etherington, BillMichael, Alun
Ewing, Mrs MargaretMichie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Fatchett, DerekMichie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Flynn, PaulMilburn, Alan
Foster, Rt Hon DerekMiller, Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath)Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Foulkes, GeorgeMoonie, Dr Lewis
Fraser, JohnMorley, Elliot
Fyfe, MariaMorris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Galbraith, SamMorris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Galloway, GeorgeMowlam, Marjorie
Gapes, MikeMudie, George
George, BruceMullin, Chris
Gerrard, NeilMurphy, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman AO'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Godsiff, RogerO'Brien, William (Normanton)
Golding, Mrs LlinO'Hara, Edward
Gordon, MildredOlner, Bill
Graham, ThomasO'Neill, Martin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)Parry, Robert
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Patchett, Terry
Grocott, BrucePickthall, Colin
Gunnell, JohnPike, Peter L
Hall, MikePope, Greg
Hanson, DavidPowell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hardy, PeterPrentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)Steinberg, Gerry
Prescott, Rt Hon JohnStevenson, George
Primarolo, DawnStrang, Dr. Gavin
Purchase, KenSutcliffe, Gerry
Quin, Ms JoyceTaylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Radice, GilesTaylor, Matthew (Truro)
Raynsford, NickThompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Reid, Dr JohnTimms, Stephen
Rendel, DavidTouhig, Don
Robertson, George (Hamilton)Turner, Dennis
Roche, Mrs BarbaraTyler, Paul
Rogers, AllanWallace, James
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)Watson, Mike
Rowlands, TedWelsh, Andrew
Ruddock, JoanWicks, Malcolm
Sheldon, Rt Hon RobertWigley, Dafydd
Simpson, AlanWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Skinner, DennisWilliams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)Winnick, David
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)Wise, Audrey
Smyth, The Reverend MartinWorthington, Tony
Snape, PeterWright, Dr Tony
Spearing, NigelYoung, David (Bolton SE)
Spellar, JohnTellers for the Ayes:
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)Ms Estelle Morris and
Steel, Rt Hon Sir DavidMr. Geoffrey Hoon.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Aitken, Rt Hon JonathanClifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Alexander, RichardCoe, Sebastian
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)Colvin, Michael
Amess, DavidCongdon, David
Ancram, MichaelCoombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Arbuthnot, JamesCoombs, Simon (Swindon)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Ashby, DavidCormack, Sir Patrick
Atkins, RobertCran, James
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)unninghan, Roseanna
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Baldry, TonyDavies, Quentin (Stamford)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)Davis, David (Boothferry)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Day, Stephen
Bates, MichaelDeva, Nirj Joseph
Batiste, SpencerDevlin, Tim
Beresford, Sir PaulDouglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnDover, Den
Body, Sir RichardDuncan, Alan
Bonsor, Sir NicholasDuncan-Smith, Iain
Booth, HartleyDunn, Bob
Boswell, TimDurant, Sir Anthony
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)Dykes, Hugh
Bottomley, Rt Hon VirginiaEggar, Rt Hon Tim
Bowden, Sir AndrewElletson, Harold
Bowis, JohnEmery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Brandreth, GylesEvans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Brazier, JulianEvans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Bright, Sir GrahamEvans, Roger (Monmouth)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)Evennett, David
Browning, Mrs AngelaFaber, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)Fabricant, Michael
Burns, SimonFenner, Dame Peggy
Burt, AlistairField, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Butler, PeterForman, Nigel
Carlisle, John (Luton North)Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)Forth, Eric
Carrington, MatthewFowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Carttiss, MichaelFreeman, Rt Hon Roger
Cash, WilliamFrench, Douglas
Channon, Rt Hon PaulFry, Sir Peter
Chapman, SydneyGale, Roger
Clappison, JamesGardiner, Sir George
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)Garnier, Edward
Gill, ChristopherMartin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gillan, CherylMates, Michael
Goodlad, Rt Hon AlastairMawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr CharlesMerchant, Piers
Gorman, Mrs TeresaMitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Gorst, Sir JohnMitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)Moate, Sir Roger
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)Monro, Sir Hector
Greenway, John (Ryedale)Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)Neubert, Sir Michael
Hague, WilliamNewton, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir ArchibaldNicholls, Patrick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Hampson, Dr KeithNicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hanley, Rt Hon JeremyNorris, Steve
Hannam, Sir JohnOnslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Hargreaves, AndrewOttaway, Richard
Harris, DavidPage, Richard
Hawkins, NickPatnick, Sir Irvine
Hawksley, WarrenPattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hayes, JerryPawsey, James
Heald, OliverPeacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Heathcoat-Amory, DavidPickles, Eric
Hendry, CharlesPowell, William (Corby)
Hicks, RobertRedwood, Rt Hon John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir TerenceRichards, Rod
Hill, James (Southampton Test)Riddick, Graham
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir PeterRobathan, Andrew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Hunter, AndrewRumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Jack, MichaelRyder, Rt Hon Richard
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)Sackville, Tom
Jenkin, BernardSainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Jessel, TobyShaw, David (Dover)
Johnson Smith, Sir GeoffreyShaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Key, RobertShepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Kirkhope, TimothyShersby, Michael
Knapman, RogerSims, Roger
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)Speed, Sir Keith
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)Spencer, Sir Derek
Knox, Sir DavidSpicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Lait, Mrs JacquiSpink, Dr Robert
Lamont, Rt Hon NormanSpring, Richard
Lang, Rt Hon IanSproat, Iain
Lawrence, Sir IvanSquire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Legg, BarryStanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Leigh, EdwardSteen, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Sir MarkStephen, Michael
Lidington, DavidStern, Michael
Lightbown, DavidStreeter, Gary
Lilley, Rt Hon PeterSumberg, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)Sweeney, Walter
Lord, MichaelSykes, John
Luff, PeterTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir NicholasTaylor, John M (Solihull)
MacGregor, Rt Hon JohnTaylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
MacKay, AndrewTemple-Morris, Peter
Maclean, DavidThompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
McLoughlin, PatrickThompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir PatrickThornton, Sir Malcolm
Madel, Sir DavidThurnham, Peter
Maitland, Lady OlgaTownsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Malone, GeraldTredinnick, David
Mans, KeithTrotter, Neville
Marland, PaulTwinn, Dr Ian
Marlow, TonyVaughan, Sir Gerard
Marshall, John (Hendon S)Viggers, Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)Walden, George
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)Wilkinson, John
Ward, JohnWilletts, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Waterson, NigelWinterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Wells, BowenWood, Timothy
Whitney, RayYoung, Rt Hon Sir George
Whittingdale, JohnTellers for the Noes:
Widdecombe, AnnMr. Derek Conway and
Wiggin, Sir JerryDr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.