LIABILITY OF ADJUDICATOR

HC Deb 08 July 1996 vol 281 cc78-88

`. Neither the adjudicator nor any employee or agent of the adjudicator shall be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of their functions as adjudicator or employee or agent of the adjudicator, unless the act or omission is in bad faith.'.—[Mr. Rarnsford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.45 pm

Mr. Raynsford

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

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 24—Liability of adjudicator (No. 2)— 'Neither the adjudicator nor any employee or agent of the adjudicator should be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of their function as adjudicator or employee or agent of the adjudicator, unless the act or omission is in bad faith.'. Government amendments Nos. 88 and 90.

Mr. Raynsford

We now reach part II of the Bill, which deals with proposals for changes in the contractual arrangements in the construction industry. Hon. Members will be aware of the background to the proposed legislation and the important study carried out by Sir Michael Latham into the construction industry, resulting in the report entitled "Constructing the Team", which was published some two years ago.

The report, which has been widely welcomed, set a series of objectives to tackle problems and to lay the foundations for a more successful, less confrontational industry in the future. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Sir Michael for his work, both on the report and on the follow-up. On behalf of the Opposition, I pay tribute to him for the way in which he addressed key issues and sought to lay the foundations for a better future for an industry which is extremely important to our national life but which has gone through some hard times in recent years.

One of the most crucial of Sir Michael's recommendations was a new approach to dispute resolution, and in particular to the role of adjudication as a means of providing a fast track for tackling disputes that might otherwise threaten to halt work on a construction contract. We all know—from our constituency experience and from knowledge of the industry—that, all too often, such disputes have been ruinously damaging to the industry, in terms of the financial implications, its credibility and morale. We have to find a way to ensure a better future for it and a better way forward without the parties rushing into court at the first opportunity. The concept of fast-track adjudication as a means of providing a quicker and better route to dispute resolution at an early stage of proceedings is therefore widely welcomed by the entire industry.

The Latham recommendations have in theory been endorsed by the Government, but the process of putting them into effect has been somewhat tortuous. When the Bill was presented in another place, it was accompanied by a draft scheme that aroused widespread concern in the industry, because it was based on arbitration procedures rather than adjudication. As a result of the outcry that greeted the scheme, and as a result of the efforts of many noble Lords, the Government agreed to withdraw it and think again. However, uncertainty has remained about whether the Government would move forward in the right way with a proper scheme that allowed adjudication to be put on the statute book.

Considerable progress was made in Committee. A series of amendments were made to ensure that the definitions were clarified and procedures sharpened, and to try to give effect to Sir Michael's recommendations as expeditiously as possible. In many respects we succeeded: the Bill is improving. That is not to say that there is no scope for further improvement, but it is much better than it was when it was introduced in another place. There is, however, one important unresolved issue, relating to the immunity to be enjoyed by the adjudicator.

If adjudication is to work, it is essential for the adjudicator to enjoy immunity from litigation. Otherwise, he will not be able to act quickly and expeditiously, but will be constantly looking over his shoulder, worrying about the prospect of a writ being issued by one of the parties who is aggrieved by the way in which he is proceeding. If we want swift adjudication, the adjudicator must have immunity. That is accepted as a principle: the Government recognise it. As originally presented, the Bill provided for immunity as part of the contract between the contracting parties—the contract that would be the subject of adjudication. There is a problem, however.

The problem is that immunity given only by contract is binding only on the contracting parties. That is fine in terms of the two parties whose dispute is being resolved, but it does not extend to other parties who may also be involved. As the industry has pointed out, there is still scope for problems, because other parties will be unhappy at the outcome—or even the procedure—of adjudication, and will seek to challenge it. If that possibility exists, and the adjudicator feels nervous about the prospect of being sued, the whole process may be jeopardised. It might well be impossible to get an adjudicator to serve in the first place, and, even if one is appointed, he will inevitably be inhibited by worries about the possibility of litigation.

In an industry that is not agreed on every aspect of the legislation, there is almost complete unanimity on the issue of immunity for the adjudicator. The Association of Consulting Engineers writes: The Government do not seem to understand the problem. If the immunity is contractual, it only binds the parties to the adjudication. However, others—third parties—may say in law that they relied on the adjudicator's decision. If an adjudication takes place between a main contractor and a client, it is certainly possible that consultants (the architect or engineer administering the contract) or sub-contractors, for example, will rely on that decision, or will allege that they have. On the basis of reliance"— the association then cites the case of Hadley Bryne v. Heller— a third party can sue in tort. It is not known what the courts would make of such claims, but there is no question that adjudicators should not be vulnerable to the possibility of claims being made against them in this way. The Construction Industry Council reinforces the point, writing: It is pleasing that the Government has recognised that the adjudicator requires immunity. Having recognised this need, it is idiosyncratic that the immunity is then limited. As stated earlier, third parties will be affected by adjudicator's decisions. The adjudicator cannot be protected from the actions of a third party by a contractual immunity. In its list of key priorities for amendments on Report, the Institution of Civil Engineers stresses the need for a statutory immunity for adjudicators and employees or agents, save for acts of bad faith". The Association of Consultant Architects writes that it has seen the final version of the amendments dated 2nd July which in general seem satisfactory apart from the fact that the Adjudicator will only have immunity under contract and not statutory immunity. The ACA believe that this will affect his ability to make a rapid and effective decision knowing that he could be sued by third parties who are affected by that decision. There we have it: clear, unanimous evidence from the industry that statutory immunity is required. Contractual immunity is not sufficient.

In Committee, we tabled an amendment to remove contractual immunity, which was carried. Unfortunately, a parallel amendment to institute statutory immunity was not. The purpose of new clause 2 is to remedy that defect. The new clause establishes a statutory immunity applying to adjudicators, preventing them from being sued by any party. It is modelled on procedures that apply equally to arbitrators. I see no possible objection to the existence of statutory immunity; indeed, I can envisage many problems for the industry without it. This is a commonsense new clause, which gives effect to the recommendations of the Latham report. It has the backing of the industry, and would make the adjudication system work in principle. I strongly commend it to the House.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones)

Our debate on part II began with some scene-setting by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I do not dissent from the scene that he set, but I wish to colour it in a little on the basis of my experience of working in the construction industry before I came to the House.

The curse of that industry, which makes it not only controversial but less competitive than it might otherwise be, is a tendency to spend a good deal of time arguing, and to spend more time on litigation than on research and development. That is what these measures aim to put right, in so far as it can be put right. Not all the Latham process consists of legislation; much of it has been addressed to the industry, and we expect the industry to play its part in reforming itself in order to deliver a much better service in future.

Let me associate myself with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Greenwich to Sir Michael Latham, which is wholly appropriate. When this process is over, he may have not only helped to reform the industry in which he, too, spent a good deal of time, but added to the English language: I have no doubt that such words as "Lathamisation" will eventually appear in the dictionary.

It appears from what the hon. Member for Greenwich has said—and, indeed, from what is said outside the House—that an adjudicator should enjoy immunity in regard to actions taken, or not taken, during adjudication proceedings, as long as he has performed his duties in good faith. That almost goes without saying. The dispute is about the extent of that immunity. We believe that, as adjudication is a contractual process, the adjudicator's immunity should be restricted to the contract in question, and that any protection from actions taken by third parties should be a matter for contracting parties.

We have been over this ground at some length in Committee, and I do not wish to detain the House for longer than necessary. However, I shall briefly state the reasons why I cannot accept new clause 2 or new clause 24—which would give the adjudicator statutory immunity—and why I support amendment No. 88, which would require him to be given immunity under the contract. Amendment No. 90 is consequential on that.

Adjudication is not practised nearly enough in the construction industry, but it is not unknown. It is a recognised dispute resolution procedure, which is employed on hundreds of contracts each year. To say that such procedures cannot take place without statutory immunity must therefore be nonsense: they have worked perfectly well so far.

Let me also remind the House that the adjudicator is a creature of the contract. Interests from all sides of the construction industry have stressed throughout our proceedings on the Bill that the adjudicator should not be confused with an arbitrator, whose quasi-judicial role is spelt out at length in statute. That point was laboured by the hon. Member for Greenwich. It strikes me as entirely appropriate that a statutory arbitrator should enjoy statutory immunity, but that an adjudicator—whose existence is to be almost entirely governed by the contract—should look to the contract for protection from third parties. In a nutshell, we do not want the adjudicator to wear a wig and gown, or to behave as if he did. That could happen in a number of ways, the most obvious of which is that parties could indemnify the adjudicator. He might simply decide to rely on insurance, the premiums for which would be reflected in his fees.

7 pm

My main concern about statutory immunity is the impact that it could have on third parties. It would not be right for people to be able to make contracts that took away the rights of third parties. Plainly, they must be allowed to seek redress for actions that were taken under a contract to which they were not party and which had affected them adversely. We think that it would be difficult for someone to establish that an adjudicator had a general duty of care to third parties and that a third party would do better to pursue any claim against the parties to the main contract. We would not wish the main parties in those circumstances to be able to shelter in some way behind the statutory immunity of an adjudicator.

I am aware that some construction professionals from whose ranks it is likely that adjudicators will be drawn have been pressing for statutory immunity, but the position is perhaps a little more complex than the hon. Member for Greenwich has been prepared to admit. The hon. Gentleman cited the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Construction Industry Council, which have also written to me at some length about the need to protect the rights of third parties. I am sure that the professionals would agree that third parties will be far less inclined to pursue an adjudicator if his decisions are only ever of temporary effect. That, of course, is what the House accepted when it agreed to amendment No. 87. When I met representatives of the CIC recently, they were good enough to confirm that that amendment made much difference to the strength with which they were pursuing the argument.

I hope that what I have said will be enough to persuade the hon. Member for Greenwich that the matter is being taken too far and that he should not press his new clause.

Mr. William O'Brien

The Minister said that he had consulted the Construction Industry Council. Page 4 of the CIC's letter dated 2 July, which has been sent to hon. Members, refers to the architect as the third party. The architect plays a major part in many construction projects, but he would not be included in the adjudicator's programme if the new clause was not accepted. Will the Minister comment on that paragraph about the architect in the letter and say how it would apply under his proposals?

Mr. Jones

I am a little puzzled as to what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. The behaviour of the contractor or the contractee can have consequences for third parties. For example, an adjudication could stop work on a project, leaving a road totally closed to a third party such as a company or a farm. If the farmer or the company choose to pursue legal action, they will be unlikely pursue it against the adjudicator because his is only a temporary binding ruling. They are much more likely to pursue a case against the contractor or contractee. That is why we think that third-party rights are extremely important and why, despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Greenwich, we do not think that there is as much of a problem as he suggests.

Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)

I, too, should like to express my appreciation of the work of Sir Michael Latham and of the construction industry over the past few years in trying to tease out and produce a workable construction contract. The construction industry is concerned about the limiting of immunity to the contract rather than to the statute. I was involved in the construction industry—I was a professional engineer for some 26 years and dealt with construction contracts of all sizes, from multi-million-pound motorways to small housing refurbishment. On the basis of that experience, I am concerned that the Bill is likely to be unworkable.

The Minister should reflect on three matters. An unworkable situation could arise because of the difficulties of appointing an adjudicator; because of the vulnerability of small firms; and because of the risk of third-party claims. I shall deal first with the difficulty of appointing adjudicators. The Minister said that adjudicators were likely to seek some form of indemnity to protect their interests. If an adjudicator is liable to claims outside the contract and if he does not have immunity in law, how will we find people who are prepared to take that considerable risk?

In the context of the vulnerability of small firms, unless adjudicators have immunity in law, they will want to be indemnified for the risks that they will have to carry. That could be extremely costly for the small firms, the sub-contractors that we are trying to protect in this contract relationship from the heavyweights, the main contractors who tend to call the shots. When an adjudicator demands recompense for the high indemnity costs that he will have to bear, small firms may find themselves unable to afford to go to him and will not be able to pursue the adjudication process against the main contractor. Does not that negate the whole process that we are trying to establish?

Finally, I am concerned about the risk of third-party claims. The Minister spoke eloquently about his concern for the contractual relationship and for third parties. If the adjudicator has no immunity from third-party claims, there will be a distinct possibility or probability that he will become liable for the actions of others within the contract because he has had to adjudicate on a claim within it. I shall give a simple example from my professional experience.

A design failure may result in the collapse of a structure, causing public injury. The Minister may know from his experience that, during the design process, the construction drawings for any project must be signed by a chartered engineer who is responsible in law for the accuracy and viability of the design. If the design fails, the engineer is personally liable and may be guilty of criminal negligence. The adjudicator may try to resolve a dispute over, for example, a design condition in a design-and-build contract. If there is a failure after his decision, is the adjudicator liable for consequent third-party claims that would previously have been the responsibility of the design engineer?

For those reasons, I ask the Minister to reconsider and to provide statutory immunity to adjudicators to make the contract work.

Mr. Robert B. Jones

I can see no reason why there should be any difficulty in appointing an adjudicator. My postbag is full of letters from people who, as individuals or professionals, state that they are admirably suited to be adjudicators. Not all of them were Liberal Members. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) will appreciate, they would not be very well qualified, because adjudicators have to make a decision.

The insurance market will be perfectly capable of developing a scheme to cover adjudicators. However, it is most unlikely that anyone would bring a case against an adjudicator.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the vulnerability of small companies because of the high costs if insurance were taken out. Of course, there will be many parties to contracts. Sometimes they will be of considerable financial means and sometimes of less financial means, depending on the size of the service that they provide and the complexity of the contract. Normally, the contract's overall costs will be apportioned between the parties on a recognisable basis. It is most unlikely that all the costs will fall, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, on one small company that is party to those contracts.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about liability for what others do. In the example that he gave, where a building had collapsed or something else had gone drastically wrong, and the incident caused death, injury or various other serious consequences, and where the adjudicator had ruled on the matter, surely the most likely action would be to pursue the person who was thought to be guilty of that particular fault in the contract. Why should the adjudicator be pursued? It is an improbable circumstance, but I see that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to reinforce his point.

Mr. Chidgey

I thank the Minister for giving way and for asking me to comment. My concern is that, by not providing the adjudicator with indemnity, we could visit on him the responsibilities of others, because he has had to be involved in making a judgment on the design process as part of the contract.

Mr. Jones

I go back to what I said in my opening remarks about having to prove the adjudicator's responsibility. Before a third party could succeed in a claim against an adjudicator, he would first have to establish that the adjudicator owed a duty to him, and not to the contracting parties. That would be extremely difficult to prove. The adjudicator has taken on a duty to the parties, but that is different from having a general responsibility to third parties.

All in all, therefore, the fears that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) expressed are not real. What is a real fear, however, is that we could end up, not with adjudication, but with arbitration by the back door, with the adjudicator promoted to being an arbitrator, with all the legal paraphernalia that go with that. That is not what the industry wants, but it is the unintended consequence of the direction for which the hon. Members for Greenwich and for Eastleigh have been arguing. That is why, in my discussions with the CIC and others, the point has softened somewhat, as we have moved away from a long-term, binding adjudication towards the short fix—sorry, the dirty fix—that the industry asked for. I hope, therefore, that I have reassured both hon. Gentlemen. It is an important point, but their worries are misplaced.

Mr. Raynsford

I am not in the least convinced by what the Minister said. He has conjured the image that we are seeking to bring in arbitration by the back door. The opposite is the case. We have consistently argued for adjudication to be separated from arbitration and for its distinct role to be recognised. We are delighted to have made much progress in that direction. The new clause is designed to go a little further.

The Minister prayed in aid the Construction Industry Council. May I remind him of what the CIC told Members of Parliament in its most recent letter, dated 2 July? After describing the reasons that I alluded to, it says: There is only one solution to this conundrum and that is to provide a full statutory immunity for adjudicators. That is what it wants. That is what we want. It makes sense.

The Minister argued that the adjudicator was a creature of the contract, so it would be inappropriate to give the adjudicator statutory immunity. That is not so. The Minister will know that clause 108(3) clearly states: If the contract does not comply with the requirements of subsections (1) and (2), the adjudication provisions of the Scheme for Construction Contracts apply. A statutory basis for adjudication is provided for in the Bill and there is no justification for not giving statutory immunity to adjudicators.

The Minister said that he did not want adjudicators having wigs and gowns. I could not agree with him more. We do not want that, but he will be aware that, if we do not pass the new clause, the adjudicator will be constantly worried that he will be pursued by gentlemen or ladies in wigs and gowns because he will be liable to be sued by third parties, a point made forcefully in the debate.

7.15 pm

The Minister's final line of defence is to say, "What is all the fuss about? The adjudicator is doing something only of a time-limited nature and the matters will all be sorted out by arbitration or litigation later." That may be the case, but while there are fears that people will not serve as adjudicators because they are nervous about being sued, or while they will serve only if they are covered by highly expensive insurance policies, the benefit of quick, fast-track and relatively cheap adjudication as an alternative to lengthy, cumbersome and expensive litigation or arbitration will not be achieved. In the new clause, we are arguing for simple, fast-track adjudication, with proper statutory immunity. That is what we and the industry want. I urge colleagues to vote for that in a Division, which we will most certainly now seek.

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

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 275.

Division No. 175]	[7.15 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cohen, Harry
Adams, Mrs Irene	Connarty, Michael
Anger, Nick	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Corbyn, Jeremy
Allen, Graham	Corston, Jean
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Cousins, Jim
Austin-Walker, John	Cummings, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Barron, Kevin	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Battle, John	Dalyell, Tam
Bayley, Hugh	Darling, Alistair
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Davidson, Ian
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Bell, Stuart	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bennett, Andrew F	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Bermingham, Gerald	Denham, John
Berry, Roger	Dewar, Donald
Betts, Clive	Dixon, Don
Blunkett, David	Dobson, Frank
Boateng, Paul	Donohoe, Brian H
Bradley, Keith	Dowd, Jim
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)	Eagle, Ms Angela
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Eastham, Ken
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Etherington, Bill
Byers, Stephen	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Caborn, Richard	Fatchett, Derek
Callaghan, Jim	Faulds, Andrew
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Fisher, Mark
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Flynn, Paul
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Campbell-Savours, D N	Foster, Don (Bath)
Canavan, Dennis	Foulkes, George
Cann, Jamie	Fraser, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Fyfe, Maria
Chidgey, David	Galloway, George
Chisholm, Malcolm	Gapes, Mike
Clapham, Michael	Garrett, John
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Gerrard, Neil
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Clelland, David	Godsiff, Roger
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Golding, Mrs Llin
Coffey, Ann	Gordon, Mildred

Graham, Thomas	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Morgan, Rhodri
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Morley, Elliot
Grocott, Bruce	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Gunnell, John	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Hain, Peter	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Hall, Mike	Mowlam, Marjorie
Hanson, David	Mudie, George
Harman, Ms Harriet	Mullin, Chris
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Murphy, Paul
Heppell, John	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hinchliffe, David	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hodge, Margaret	O'Hara, Edward
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	Olner, Bill
Home Robertson, John	O'Neill, Martin
Hood, Jimmy	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hoon, Geoffrey	Parry, Robert
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Pearson, Ian
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)	Pendry, Tom
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)	Pickthall, Colin
Hoyle, Doug	Pike, Peter L
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Pope, Greg
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hutton, John	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Illsley, Eric	Primarolo, Dawn
Ingram, Adam	Purchase, Ken
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Radice, Giles
Jamieson, David	Randall, Stuart
Janner. Greville	Raynsford, Nick
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)	Reid, Dr John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Rendel, David
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Rogers, Allan
Jowell, Tessa	Rooker, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Keen, Alan	Rowlands, Ted
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)	Salmond, Alex
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)	Sedgemore, Brian
Khabra, Piara S	Sheerman, Barry
Kilfoyle, Peter	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Kirkwood, Archy	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Terry	Short, Clare
Liddell, Mrs Helen	Skinner, Dennis
Litherland, Robert	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Livingstone, Ken	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Soley, Clive
Loyden, Eddie	Spearing, Nigel
Lynne, Ms Liz	Spellar, John
McAllion, John	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
McAvoy, Thomas	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
McCartney, Ian	Steinberg, Gerry
Macdonald, Calum	Stevenson, George
McKelvey, William	Stott, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew	Strang, Dr. Gavin
McLeish, Henry	Sutcliffe, Gerry
McMaster, Gordon	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
McNamara, Kevin	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
MacShane, Denis	Timms, Stephen
McWilliam, John	Tipping, Paddy
Madden, Max	Touhig, Don
Maddock, Diana	Trickett, Jon
Mahon, Alice	Turner, Dennis
Mandelson, Peter	Vaz, Keith
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)	Walley, Joan
Meacher, Michael	Wareing, Robert N
Meale, Alan	Watson, Mike
Michael, Alun	Wicks, Malcolm
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Wigley, Dafydd
Milburn, Alan	Wlliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Miller, Andrew	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Winnick, David

Wise, Audrey	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wray, Jimmy
Wright Dr Tony	Ms Janet Anderson and
Young, David (Bolton SE)	Mr. Joe Benton.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Duncan Smith, Iain
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Dunn, Bob
Alexander, Richard	Dykes, Hugh
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Eggar, Fit Hon Tim
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Elletson, Harold
Amess, David	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Ashby, David	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Evennett, David
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Faber, David
Baldry, Tony	Fabricant, Michael
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bates, Michael	Fishburn, Dudley
Batiste, Spencer	Forth, Eric
Bellingham, Henry	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Bendall, Vivian	Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Biffen, Rt Hon John	French, Douglas
Body, Sir Richard	Fry, Sir Peter
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Gale, Roger
Booth, Hartley	Gallie, Phil
Boswell, Tim	Gardiner, Sir George
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Garnier, Edward
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Gill, Christopher
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Gillan, Cheryl
Bowis, John	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Brandreth, Gyles	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Brazier, Julian	Gorst, Sir John
Bright, Sir Graham	Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Budgen, Nicholas	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Burns, Simon	Hampson, Dr Keith
Burt, Alistair	Hannam, Sir John
Butler, Peter	Hargreaves, Andrew
Butterfill, John	Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Hawkins, Nick
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hawksley, Warren
Carrington, Matthew	Hayes, Jerry
Carttiss, Michael	Heald, Oliver
Cash, William	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hendry, Charles
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, Mr	Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Clappison, James	Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Horam, John
Colvin, Michael	Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Congdon, David	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Cormack, Sir Patrick	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Couchman, James	Hunter, Andrew
Cran, James	Jack, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Jenkin, Bernard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Jessel, Toby
Day, Stephen	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Devlin, Tim	Kellet-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Key, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dover, Den	Kirkhope, Timothy
Duncan, Alan	Knapman, Roger

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Shaw, David (Dover)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Legg, Barry	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Leigh, Edward	Shersby, Sir Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Sims, Sir Roger
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Lidington, David	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Speed, Sir Keith
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Spencer, Sir Derek
Lord, Michael	Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Luff, Peter	Spink, Dr Robert
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Spring, Richard
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Sproat, Iain
MacKay, Andrew	Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
McLoughlin, Patrick	Steen, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Stephen, Michael
Madel, Sir David	Stern, Michael
Malone, Gerald	Stewart, Allan
Mans, Keith	Streeter, Gary
Marland, Paul	Sumberg, David
Marlow, Tony	Sweeney, Walter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Sykes, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mates, Michael	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Merchant Piers	Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Mills, Iain	Temple-Morris, Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Thomason, Roy
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)	Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Moate, Sir Roger	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James	Thurnham, Peter
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Moss, Malcolm	Tracey, Richard
Needham, Rt Hon Richard	Tredinnick, David
	Trend, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael	Trotter Neville
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Twinn, Dr Ian
Nicholls, Patrick	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Viggers, Peter
Norris, Steve	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Oppenheim, Phillip	Walden, George
Ottaway, Richard	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Page, Richard	Waller, Gary
Paice, James	Ward, John
Patnick, Sir Irvine	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Waterson, Nigel
Pawsey, James	Watts, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Wells, Bowen
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)	Whitney, Ray
Porter, David (Waveney)	Whittingdale, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael	Widdecombe, Ann
Powell, William (Corby)	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Rathbone, Tim	Wilkinson, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim	Willetts, David
Richards, Rod	Wilshire, David
Riddick, Graham	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm	Wolfson, Mark
Robathan, Andrew	Wood, Timothy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Tellers for the Noes:
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)	Mr. Derek Conway and
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Dr. Liam Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.