REGISTER OF CONCORDATS

HC Deb 31 March 1998 vol 309 cc1149-62

1. '(1) There shall be a register of concordats where each concordat shall be registered.
2. (2) The register shall be held by:—
1. (a) the Public Record Office, and
2. (b) the Keeper of the Records of Scotland.
3. (3) A concordat shall be registered under subsection (1) above within four weeks of its execution.
4. (4) No Minister of the Crown shall enter into a concordat with the Scottish Executive unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.
5. (5) In this section "concordat" means any agreement between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Executive regarding the consultation arrangements and common United Kingdom guidelines in respect of:—
1. (a) any reserved matter under schedule 5,
2. (b) any devolved matter under section 29(4),
3. (c) any transfer of ministerial functions under section 49,
4. (d) any functions exercisable by agreement under section 51,
5. (e) any shared power under section 52,
6. (f) any cross—border public body under sections 83, 84 and 85, and
7. (g) any agency arrangements under section 87.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ancram

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

I did not realised that new clause 24 had not been moved.

The Chairman

It was a simple matter of running out of time. The time has elapsed, so we have moved on.

Mr. Ancram

I am grateful to you, Sir Alan. I am learning how these new business programme motions work and I am still trying to work out what time we lose and when.

I am moving the new clause because, over the past three months, we have discovered increasing evidence of the concordat—a new phenomenon in our constitutional and political life. It arose originally in respect of an agreement on inward investment being sought among the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, but since then it has found new provenance in relation to many matters arising out of the devolution legislation affecting Scotland and Wales.

The Opposition consider that it is necessary to find out precisely what is happening, what the concordats will involve and how we can keep some check on their number. I am not certain what a collection of concordats will be called—possibly a canon of concordats or a collective of concordats. [Interruption.] I hear a suggestion that it should be a charm of concordats.

The new clause seeks to find a means of registering the concordats, so that the House of Commons can be aware of what they are and what they involve, and to establish a way in which the approval of the House—and, if necessary, the Scottish Parliament—can be sought for them so that they have a provenance greater than just the agreement of those who jointly sign them.

Mr. McAllion

How can the right hon. Gentleman hope to find out what a concordat between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament will contain when the Scottish Parliament does not yet exist and cannot agree to any such concordat? In any case, I should have thought that, as Scotland's leading Roman Catholic, the right hon. Gentleman would know all about concordats. Does he not recall the concordats that the papacy entered into with Mussolini and Hitler?

Mr. Ancram

That is why I suggested that they might be called a canon of concordats. That is very much in line with the hon. Gentleman's thought process. He makes the first mistake that demonstrates the need for the new clause: he talks about a concordat between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. One thing that we do know about concordats is that they are not between Parliaments. The new clause would give Parliament the right to approve concordats before they were made. Although it is not in the new clause, I would be easy with the idea of replicating that in relation to the Scottish Parliament so that both Parliaments were involved in making the concordats.

Dr. Godman

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to obtain the support of the Scottish Parliament as well as of both Houses of Parliament at Westminster. Should not subsection (4) of the new clause have read "and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament"? Would that not have made better sense than the present wording?

Mr. Ancram

That is precisely what I said before the hon. Gentleman intervened. Obviously, he was not listening. I said that there would be some sense in applying the new clause also to the Scottish Parliament, but that might be a matter for the Scottish Parliament when it draws up its own rules.

The purpose of the new clause is to give greater provenance to the concordats than appears to be the case, as far as we are aware. We do not know very much about them, partly because, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, there is not yet a Scottish Parliament with which to make them, although my understanding is that the concordats are already in draft or are being drafted on a contingency basis, allowing the Scottish Parliament or Administration to sign up to them. That may be because the Secretary of State and the Minister of State see themselves as playing leading roles in the Scottish Parliament and believe that they will sign the concordats, although that too may not happen.

Mr. McAllion

Surely, no matter what may be drawn up on a contingency basis, it would have to be agreed to by the Scottish Parliament and might be completely revised once the Scottish Parliament had been consulted.

Mr. Ancram

Absolutely. I am not asking what will be in each concordat. I want to know the nature of the concordats. I want to find a way of ensuring that they are registered.

The Scottish Office provided us with a note about concordats on 27 February in answer to a written question. That gives us some information, but it leaves many questions unanswered. My strike rate in obtaining answers to questions during the passage of the Bill has not been high. I hope to be a bit more fortunate this time, as we come to the end of the Committee stage.

The document is called "Guidance on Concordats Between the Scottish Executive and UK Government Departments". It says that the purpose is to preserve the good working relationships which currently exist and ensure that the business of Government in Scotland and Wales and at the UK level is conducted smoothly and efficiently after devolution". It goes on: Their purpose is not"— the word "not" is underlined— to create legal obligations or restrictions on any party; rather, they will set the ground rules for administrative co-operation and exchange of information. We have heard about concordats that will be made on the arrangements for Scotland's voice to be heard in Europe and possible concordats to deal with negotiations on financial provisions for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly. The Scottish Office note says not that concordats will do more than merely preserve good working relationships, but that Other, less formal, arrangements will be appropriate in many cases, and in others there will be no need for any standing arrangements at all. As I understand it, the concordats will have no legal backing—I shall come back to that—but yesterday we were told that they would be the basis on which Scotland could be assured that its voice would be heard in the councils of the European Union.

The Scottish Office note continues: one concordat—if required—might be prepared to cover in each case a wide range of the subjects covered by each of the current Scottish Office Departments or Welsh Office Divisions. This might relate to the business of the whole Department or Division or that covered by the management level immediately below that". I do not understand what that means. With whom would such a concordat be made? It would merely register what happened in a Department.

I am even more alarmed that a different approach … is that of having an overarching concordat"— those are not my words, but those of the paper between the Scottish Executive/Welsh Assembly and each Whitehall Department with a series of subsidiary concordats underneath that." How many subsidiary concordats do the Government envisage? How many overarching concordats with a pyramid of subsidiary concordats beneath it will there be?

The note continues: in one or two cases an overarching agreement might be needed involving a number of Whitehall Departments dealing with working arrangements". Emergency planning is given as an example. We are told later that, in most cases, concordats will be bilateral". but occasionally it may be sensible to have trilateral concordats. How many Departments can be involved in the concordats?

We are then told that there is another animal—as if we do not have enough concordats running around the jungle. A separate memorandum of understanding may be needed on particular cross-border public bodies. What is the difference between a memorandum of understanding, a subsidiary concordat and an overarching concordat? What is the nature of them, what will they do and what role will the House of Commons have in ensuring that they are suitable?

I am concerned about the role of the House of Commons, because the following paragraph is entitled "Who signs concordats?" We are told not that they will always be signed by Ministers from each Administration, accountable to their Parliaments, but that Normally, concordats would be signed at senior official level, but if concordats concern politically sensitive issues they might"— not will be signed by UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers or their Welsh counterparts." What will be the criteria to decide who signs them? Will their effect vary according to the signatories? Will a concordat signed by a Minister on behalf of his Government automatically come to an end in the event of a change of Government? Will concordats on technical matters signed by officials, who are unchanging, remain in force regardless of a change of Government? We need to know more about that.

I shall not bore the Committee with a long list of all the issues in the paper; suffice it to say that there is a paradox in the description of concordats. On one hand, they are unimportant and technical and aim merely to work out or provide for working relationships between Departments; on the other hand, they will be used to put in place enormously important matters such as the representation of Scotland in Europe. It is therefore important that we have greater understanding of them.

I have searched throughout the paper to find where provision for European representation will be made, but I can find only one reference to Europe. It comes under the heading "Common provisions", of which there are many. One of them relates to exchange of information, including policy papers", so the concordats cannot exactly be high-powered. However, a little further on, we find the phrase "arrangements for liaison"—not representation— on EU and international matters". Is that the basis on which we were asked yesterday to be assured that Scotland's voice will be heard powerfully in the councils of Europe?

10.45 pm

Mr. Dewar

Dear, dear.

Mr. Ancram

The Secretary of State says, "Dear, dear," but he was the one who said yesterday that we do not need to stipulate such matters in the Bill because they will all be governed by concordat. If that is so, we have a right to know the basis of the concordats. They cover any financial arrangements; the whole question of Scotland's financing after devolution will be covered by the phrase relating to concordats, which are not based in any parliamentary provision, but are purely agreements made between two Administrations, and—as we understand it—normally signed by officials.

That brings me to questions to which we need answers tonight. We are told that concordats will be non-statutory; they are not intended to be legally enforceable contracts between the parties. I find that hard to understand. An agreement is a contract. Normally, from an agreement flow legal consequences. Will the concordats be justiciable in any form? What happens if somebody's rights are affected by either the making or the breaching of the concordat? Is that person entitled to go to court? Can he ask for judicial review? Can he ask for a finding of breach of contract because an agreement that he has made with somebody else has been broken? It is all very well writing on a bit of paper that such concordats are not legally enforceable, but they must have some provenance in law. We are not told what it is. To rely on something that is stated as having no legal enforceability in order to provide for vital Scottish interests seems to be less than appropriate.

Are the concordats of any legal value? Are they unilaterally capable of being breached? Am I right in thinking that one side can just say that it has decided not to continue with a concordat and that there is no remedy available if that should happen? What is the current example of a concordat? I understand from the paper that there are to be concordats between several Departments to regulate their relationships. Can we see the sort of concordats used at the moment—if they exist—so that we can have some idea of what such animals will look like? Who decides what is an overarching concordat? What is a concordat that is big enough to carry the type of representation in Europe and the type of financial provision that will need to be made? Who will decide when concordats are merely technical and are to govern relationships between officials?

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend has obviously analysed the provisions carefully. Is there any provision to enable the House of Commons, either now or at any time in future, to scrutinise or debate the content of concordats?

Mr. Ancram

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. There is nothing to that effect in the provisions as stated on the piece of paper with which we were provided as a result of a written question, but new clause 28 says: A concordat shall be registered under subsection (1) … within four weeks of its execution. No Minister of the Crown shall enter into a concordat with the Scottish Executive unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament." That is important in establishing that concordats have some provenance in the democratic institution of the United Kingdom House of Commons.

Mr. Grieve

Does the information say whether, if a concordat were made and a private individual in reliance on it carried out an action, he would have a remedy by way of judicial review if the concordat were breached?

Mr. Ancram

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. As I said earlier, I am looking for an answer to such questions. The paper merely says that the contract is non-statutory and not legally enforceable. There must be some remedy available against the breach of an agreement that is not a pactum illicitum—and there is no sign that such agreements are pacta illicita.

We need a reassurance about the concordats. They are the equivalent of what in America are called Executive agreements, the purpose of which is to bypass the need for Congress to scrutinise and agree treaties. Executive agreements are a means of bypassing the legislature. I am concerned by the fact that we are putting in place a process that could over time multiply in a big way. Literally hundreds of concordats could be signed by junior officials in Departments; yet, as things stand, there is no scrutiny of them in the House of Commons and no means of knowing what and where they are—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. There are too many conversations going on in the Committee.

Mr. Ancram

I shall finish on the following point, Mr. Martin. My new clause is designed to ensure that a register of the concordats is kept so that we know what they are and what they do. It also asks for the House of Commons and the other place to be given the right to approve them, to give them a basis in our constitution.

Mr. Dalyell

We have now come very near to the epicentre of the Bill, and we are on sensitive ground. This is part of the difficulty of having a subordinate Parliament in part—and only part—of a unitary state. Because of the lack of time, I have only one question for the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. When they have flown the coop, and are away from the House of Commons and installed in Holyrood, if they are Ministers, will they not expect the absolute loyalty of the civil servants who work for them, draft the concordats and do the day-to-day work?

To whom will those civil servants be finally responsible? Will they be responsible to Ministers in Holyrood or will they be part of the home civil service? Will they be ultimately responsible to the head of the home civil service—Sir Richard Wilson, or whoever his successor may be?

There is a real dilemma here. Civil servants have to be responsible to one so-called "master"—although I do not particularly like the word. They cannot serve two masters. In that situation, they may have to choose. I ask simply: what will the choice for the civil service be? Will civil servants owe loyalty to Holyrood or to Westminster? If to Holyrood, that would represent the beginnings of the break-up of the British state.

Mr. Salmond

The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) waited a long time—until the very last debate in Committee—to begin his filibuster on the Bill. He took an extravagant length of time to make a point that, although important, could have been made simply and directly.

I have had some experience of the concordats, because some of them have fallen into my hands in a way that the Labour party used to relish in opposition, but deplores now that it is in government. One such was the concordat on inward investment, and in November I outlined its contents in an Adjournment debate.

The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) asked me whether I could give him a copy of the concordat, which put me in some difficulty, because, although I am committed to freedom of information, I am also committed to not helping the Tory party in any circumstances. There was therefore some tension, which I resolved by saying that I would place a copy in the Library.

Unfortunately, when I went to the Library to deposit a copy, I was told that it was a leaked document, and the Library's instructions were not to accept leaked documents for the perusal of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks pleaded with me again and again, but I had to refuse him.

I did put the concordat on the SNP internet site. If the right hon. Member for Devizes peruses that site, he will see a copy of the proposed concordat on inward investment which he is extremely anxious to see. It has been on that site for the best part of two months. I do not want to pursue how computer literate the right hon. Gentleman is, but he should get back to his office, dial it up as quickly as possible and print out a hard copy so he has it in front of him for the next debate.

My second experience of concordats was with the MAFF concordat on agriculture and fisheries with the Scottish Office. I received the concordat and some correspondence surrounding the negotiations on bringing forward the concordat. Significantly, memos from the Scottish Office said that the prime aim of MAFF in the negotiations was to preserve its position as the lead Department in agriculture and fisheries matters. As if by magic, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has materialised on the Government Front Bench to confirm that point. That is very interesting.

Yesterday, in the debate on Europe, the Secretary of State for Scotland, no less, told us that the Scottish Ministers would have the opportunity to lead on agriculture and fisheries matters in the new arrangements. How fortuitous it is to have the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench tonight—he was not here yesterday—to tell us that MAFF' s objective in the concordat is to preserve its position as the lead Department in the UK. I smell a rat, and all concordats on fish, agriculture, cows and other things should be published.

The very last point I want to make—

Mr. Davidson

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond

No. I would love to give way to hon. Gentleman who, in his former constituency, had one farmer—I remember that from a previous speech. I want to ask the Minister a question which even the hon. Gentleman would not be able to answer, and I want to give the Minister two or three minutes to answer. In a previous parliamentary debate, I was told unambiguously that these concordats would not come into operation until the Scottish Parliament itself came into being. There is a suggestion going around Scotland that the concordat on inward investment will be implemented this summer. I want an unambiguous assurance from the Minister that no concordat will come into operation until the Scottish Executive—whoever that may be—is in a position to judge if that concordat is in the best interests of the Scottish people.

Mr. Davidson

Could I clarify whether the list of concordats in which the Scottish National party is interested includes the letter to Ian Lang, as was, from Margaret Ewing—headed "Dear Ian" and signed, "Love and kisses, Margaret"—when they were carving up the seats on one of the European commissions? Is that the sort of thing that the Scottish National party has in mind—because, if I remember correctly, it was not keen on having that made public at the time?

Mr. Hogg

I wish to build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It is plain from the discussion that the concordats are intended to regularise the relationship between Edinburgh and London. Inevitably, that will occasionally involve a shift in responsibility from London to Edinburgh. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned an example in relation to agriculture and fisheries. Surely this House should have an opportunity to decide whether or not we wish to approve a movement of responsibility from London to Edinburgh. There may be a good cause for that, but one thing is certain—this House must and should have the opportunity to debate it. Is the Minister proposing such a debate? If he is not making provision for such a debate, why not?

Dr. Godman

I promise to be brief. May I respond to what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has just said? If this House and the other place have to give approval, why not the Scottish Parliament? That also responds to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).

The new clause is inadequate, and offensive to those who are seeking to become Members of the Scottish Parliament. I might have had some sympathy with the new clause if subsection (4) had included a reference to seeking the approval of the Scottish Parliament. As it stands, it reflects normal parliamentary practice in seeking approval.

Mr. Ancram

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

11 pm

Dr. Godman

I promise that I shall give way in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is painting a gloomy picture of developments and talking about the unravelling of the United Kingdom. I offer a general comment that relates, I think, to the new clause. We are engaged in the radical changing of our constitution. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would agree with me when I say that I hope fervently that within a short period we shall be debating in this place the setting up of a Northern Ireland assembly, along with developments elsewhere that you, Mr. Martin, would not allow me to discuss in detail.

It would be interesting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about the devolution of powers to such an assembly. He talks about hundreds of concordats, but I would say that there will have to be terms of agreement involving what has been described as a subordinate Parliament. We are changing the constitution of the United Kingdom, as I have said. We have the Welsh assembly, and the Scottish Parliament is on the stocks. We may soon have a Northern Ireland assembly on the parliamentary stocks.

Some of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are legitimate, as are some of those made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, particularly in relation to the fishing industry. This will never happen, but were I to be the Government spokesman for fisheries in the Scottish Parliament—

Mr. Salmond

Is the hon. Gentleman volunteering?

Dr. Godman

No, I am not.

With respect, I think that I have known the fishing industry longer than any other Member. My mother was a fishergirl, as was her mother, who came from Aberdeen. I made my first trip to the Arctic when I was 12; I stowed away on a trawler. I know something about the industry.

Were I to become the Fisheries Minister in Scotland, I would expect to play an equal role with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My hon. Friend is, of course, a first-class Fisheries Minister. It is easy for me to say as a Back-Bench Member—I see the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan nodding—but as a team of Ministers going to a meeting of the Council of Fisheries, it is up to the member state to determine the roles played by the—

Mr. Salmond

A few minutes ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was nodding—the Committee saw him doing so—when I said that he was trying to have that Department as the lead Department. The Minister nodded when he said that it would be a position of equality. In the space—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. That has nothing to do with the matters that are before us.

Dr. Godman

I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to lead me astray, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Salmond

On a point of order, Mr. Martin. My intervention was related directly to the contents of concordats, which we are debating. If you would reflect on the matter, Mr. Martin—

The First Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman was referring to a Member nodding to someone else. I shall not allow that to enter into the proceedings when the Committee is dealing with a far more serious matter.

Dr. Godman

I shall behave myself, Mr. Martin.

We are dealing with important matters, especially for the fishing industry and for inward investment. I believe that the Scottish Parliament will need to be encouraged to develop its modus operandi, and the two Parliaments will have to develop the modus vivendi to diminish the chance of stress and conflict between them. That is where the concordats come in. They can be arranged harmoniously among the Departments in this multinational state of ours.

Mrs. Laing

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman

I am sorry; I do not have time. I beg the hon. Lady's forgiveness. I shall not be churlish enough to admit that she did not give way to me earlier. That is another point.

When the right hon. Member for Devizes was at the Scottish Office, there must have been times when agreements had to be reached among a number of Departments—the Scottish Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Transport. I believe that concordats can achieve a good relationship between the Parliaments.

Mr. McAllion

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I will not allow myself to be led astray by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I find it far too easy to lead myself astray, without other people helping me to do it.

I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has a leaked copy of a concordat on inward investment. As he may know, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is about to conduct an inquiry into inward investment. If the Clerks to the Committee are not able to accept the leaked copy, I shall certainly accept it on their behalf—

Mr. Grieve

rose—

Mr. McAllion

No, I do not have time.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is surprised that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should attempt to defend its position as the lead authority. I hope that the equivalent Department in the Scottish Parliament will try to defend its position as the lead authority. That is how politics works. I do not think that we should be bothered with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) always overstates his case—he probably thinks the same about me—but when he says that this matter is the epicentre of the Bill, I think that there is some truth in that. He said that civil servants cannot operate with two masters, and in a sense that is what we have to come to terms with in the devolution process. From here on in there cannot be one master. The Bill changes for ever the United Kingdom constitution as we knew it. We have to learn anew how to work together with the devolved Parliament and a Parliament at the UK level. The concordats will play a part in that. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's explanation.

Mr. McLeish

Let me assure the Committee that the proposed concordats between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive will not make provision in respect of matters that should properly be covered in the Bill. Nor will they be a sinister means to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) says, "Come off it." His strike rate has been abysmally low throughout the eight days of the Bill's consideration in Committee, so his chances of increasing it are quite remote.

As the guidance note that we made available on 27 February made clear, the purpose of concordats would be to promote effective communication and good administrative practice in relations between UK Government Departments and the Scottish Executive. That will be in the interest of all parties. The agreements are not intended to be legally binding. Unless it would cause substantial harm on one of the clearly defined grounds set out in the recent White Paper on freedom of information, the agreements will be published.

Work on draft concordats will proceed before devolution, but they cannot be agreed until the Scottish Executive is established. The coverage of each agreement would be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to agree. Likely common topics include consultation arrangements in relation to proposals for legislation and Executive action; exchange of policy papers, analysis and statistics; participation in working groups and official committees; liaison on EU and international matters; and, of course, consultation about UK or GB public bodies.

It is important to stress that no concordats have yet been published, for the simple reason that work is still at an early stage. Draft agreements will be published in due course when they are available, although it is too early to say when or how many there will be.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made the point, and I want to reinforce the response again, that agreements cannot be made until the Scottish Executive is up and running, and it should be clear that draft agreements cannot in any way be considered to be binding on it.

I hope that in the light of these comments, the new clause will be withdrawn.

Mr. Ancram

I listened to hear one single answer to one single question that I asked. I heard none. [Interruption.] The guidance note does not answer the questions, which is why I asked them. Having received no answers, I shall not withdraw the new clause, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 272.

Division No. 238]	[11.8 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Amess, David	Brady, Graham
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Brazier, Julian
Arbuthnot, James	Browning, Mrs Angela
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Burns, Simon
Baldry, Tony	Butterfill, John
Beresford, Sir Paul	Cash, William
Body, Sir Richard	Chope, Christopher
Boswell, Tim	Clappison, James
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Loughton, Tim
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth	Luff, Peter
(Rushcliffe)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Collins, Tim	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Sir Patrick	MacKay, Andrew
Curry, Rt Hon David	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	May, Mrs Theresa
Day, Stephen	Moss, Malcolm
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Norman, Archie
Duncan Smith, Iain	Ottaway, Richard
Evans, Nigel	Page, Richard
Faber, David	Paice, James
Fabricant, Michael	Paterson, Owen
Fallon, Michael	Pickles, Eric
Flight, Howard	Prior, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Randall, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam	Robathan, Andrew
Fraser, Christopher	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Gale, Roger	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Garnier, Edward	Ruffley, David
Gibb, Nick	St Aubyn, Nick
Gill, Christopher	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair	Soames, Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Spicer, Sir Michael
Gray, James	Spring, Richard
Green, Damian	Steen, Anthony
Greenway, John	Swayne, Desmond
Grieve, Dominic	Syms, Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hawkins, Nick	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Hayes, John	Tredinnick, David
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Trend, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Tyrie, Andrew
Horam, John	Viggers, Peter
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Walter, Robert
Hunter, Andrew	Wardle, Charles
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Wells, Bowen
Jenkin, Bernard	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Johnson Smith,	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Wilkinson, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Willetts, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Woodward, Shaun
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Yeo, Tim
Leigh, Edward	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Letwin, Oliver
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Lidington, David	Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Nigel Waterson.
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ainger, Nick	Bradshaw, Ben
Alexander, Douglas	Brake, Tom
Allan, Richard	Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Allen, Graham	Browne, Desmond
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Buck, Ms Karen
Atkins, Charlotte	Burnett, John
Austin, John	Byers, Stephen
Baker, Norman	Caborn, Richard
Banks, Tony	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Barnes, Harry	Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Bayley, Hugh	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Beard, Nigel	Canavan, Dennis
Begg, Miss Anne	Cann, Jamie
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Casale, Roger
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Caton, Martin
Benton, Joe	Chidgey, David
Bermingham, Gerald	Chisholm, Malcolm
Betts, Clive	Clapham, Michael
Blackman, Liz	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Clark, Dr Lynda

(Edinburgh Pentlands)	Home Robertson, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	Hood, Jimmy
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hoon, Geoffrey
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Clelland, David	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clwyd, Ann	Howells, Dr Kim
Coaker, Vernon	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Colman, Tony	Humble, Mrs Joan
Connarty, Michael	Hutton, John
Cooper, Yvette	Iddon, Dr Brian
Corbyn, Jeremy	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Corston, Ms Jean	Jamieson, David
Cotter, Brian	Jenkins, Brian
Cousins, Jim	Johnson, Miss Melanie
Cranston, Ross	(Welwyn Hatfield)
Crausby, David	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cummings, John	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dalyell, Tam	Keeble, Ms Sally
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Davidson, Ian	Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)	Khabra, Piara S
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Kidney, David
Dawson, Hilton	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Kingham, Ms Tess
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald	Kirkwood, Archy
Dismore, Andrew	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Donohoe, Brian H	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Doran, Frank	Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Dowd, Jim	Lepper, David
Drew, David	Leslie, Christopher
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Levitt, Tom
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Edwards, Huw	Linton, Martin
Efford, Clive	Livsey, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Lock, David
Etherington, Bill	Love, Andrew
Fatchett, Derek	McAllion, John
Fearn, Ronnie	McAvoy, Thomas
Field, Rt Hon Frank	McCabe, Steve
Fitzpatrick, Jim	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Fitzsimons, Lorna	McDonagh, Siobhain
Flint, Caroline	Macdonald, Calum
Flynn, Paul	McFall, John
Foster, Don (Bath)	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	McIsaac, Shona
Foulkes, George	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Fyfe, Maria	McLeish, Henry
Galbraith, Sam	McNamara, Kevin
Galloway, George	Mactaggart, Fiona
Gardiner, Barry	McWalter, Tony
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Mallaber, Judy
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Gerrard, Neil	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gibson, Dr Ian	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Martlew, Eric
Godman, Dr Norman A	Meale, Alan
Goggins, Paul	Michael, Alun
Golding, Mrs Llin	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Gorrie, Donald	Miller, Andrew
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	Mitchell, Austin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Moffatt, Laura
Grogan, John	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Moore, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hanson, David	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Morley, Elliot
Hepburn, Stephen	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Heppell, John	Mudie, George
Hesford, Stephen	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Hill, Keith	Norris, Dan

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Stott, Roger
O'Neill, Martin	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Stringer, Graham
Palmer, Dr Nick	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Pearson, Ian	Stunell, Andrew
Pendry, Tom	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Perham, Ms Linda	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Pickthall, Colin	(Dewsbury)
Pike, Peter L	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Pope, Greg	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Pound, Stephen	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Prosser, Gwyn	Timms, Stephen
Purchase, Ken	Todd, Mark
Rapson, Syd	Touhig, Don
Raynsford, Nick	Trickett, Jon
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Truswell, Paul
Rendel, David	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Rogers, Allan	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Roy, Frank	Tyler, Paul
Ruane, Chris	Vis, Dr Rudi
Ruddock, Ms Joan	Wallace, James
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Walley, Ms Joan
Ryan, Ms Joan	Ward, Ms Claire
	Watts, David
Sawford, Phil	White, Brian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Skinner, Dennis	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Willis, Phil
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Winnick, David
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Snape, Peter	Wise, Audrey
Soley, Clive	Woolas, Phil
Southworth, Ms Helen	Worthington, Tony
Spellar, John	Wray, James
Squire, Ms Rachel	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Steinberg, Gerry
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Tellers for the Noes:
Stinchcombe, Paul	Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.
Stoate, Dr Howard

Question accordingly negatived.

It being more than six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clauses 111 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.