§ Order for Third Reading read—Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.7.13 pm
§ Mr. Peter Brooke (City of London and Westminster, South)
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who moved the Bill's Second Reading, is abroad on parliamentary business and is therefore unable to be present tonight.
The Bill is promoted by three colleges of the university of London, of whose council I am a member, an interest which I declare. In the era of the ultra cautious, I should perhaps add that my mother, who is entitled as a noble Baroness to sit in another place, has been an honorary fellow of Westfield, and I learnt to play tennis upon its courts. One of the colleges, St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college, is in my constituency.
The Bill is designed to bring about the merger of those three colleges. Two of them, Bart's and the London hospital medical college, are medical colleges, the third, Queen Mary and Westfield, is a multi-faculty institution. It is the fourth largest college of the university of London. The Bill is designed to bring those three colleges together into one institution in line with developments across London, which are integrating medical and dental education and research within multi-faculty institutions. Those developments enjoy the widest measure of support in the academic and medical worlds.
The Bill received overwhelming support on Second Reading after a speech of great length and admirably consistent relevance by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). It has passed its Committee stage and I hope that hon. Members will support its Third Reading.
It is now some five years since the three colleges joined together in the City and East London Confederation for Medicine and Dentistry, when the pre-clinical departments from the two medical colleges were transferred to Queen Mary and Westfield college. This has been successful, but it is now agreed that the process needs to be taken further. To be able to educate those medical and dental students with the widest curricular opportunities; to give them a much fuller experience of being educated alongside students of other subjects; and to strengthen research both within medicine and across disciplinary boundaries, that union of the colleges is imperative.
Is the Bill needed for that purpose? The answer is an unequivocal yes. The colleges have powers to co-operate and collaborate. They could create a joint school of medicine and dentistry, but without the Bill they cannot come together as a single institution with one governing body and single administrative, financial, managerial and academic structures. No misuse of the royal prerogative is involved: only legislation can bring about the full legal merger of the colleges. A number of consequential changes are then needed to the statutes of Queen Mary and Westfield college, which require the approval of the Privy Council. Those amendments will not come into force until the Bill is enacted.
80 How do the Bill and the merger proposals relate to St. Bartholomew's hospital? Hon. Members will be aware of my views about the decisions relating to St. Bartholomew's hospital to transfer its activities to the Royal London hospital at Whitechapel. The three colleges each concluded, prior to the decisions on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital, that their merger and the creation of a new school of medicine and dentistry was unquestionably the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do even if St. Bartholomew's hospital were to remain. The new school of medicine and dentistry would then teach its students and conduct its research at the Royal London hospital at Whitechapel and St. Bartholomew's hospital in West Smithfield in the City.
If Bart's closes, teaching and research will have to take place elsewhere. I still entertain the hope that, despite the decision earlier this year, Bart's will escape closure. If that is so, the new college and medical school will take full advantage of the facilities and activities at West Smithfield. If the hospital ceases its activities, it is absolutely vital that the new unified school is brought into being and the education of students and medical and dental research are able to carry on unimpeded elsewhere.
Does the Bill involve the destruction of Bart's medical college, as was alleged on Second Reading? Saving the grace of my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, it does not. A medical school or, indeed, any other academic institution, is not just the physical buildings in which it operates. It is, above all else, people working in an environment which has, over the years, developed certain characteristics, reputation and ethos.
St. Bartholomew's hospital medical college, like the London hospital medical college, will certainly undergo change in the process of amalgamation. But the same number of medical and dental students will be educated, at least the same amount of research will be prosecuted, all the staff will continue to be employed and, overall, the facilities and opportunities secured by the merger should be greater.
The process of bringing together three separate institutions such as this is not without its difficulties and the process is a challenging one for all involved. But opportunities are offered here, and all three college councils are convinced that it is the right way forward.
The Bill is important for London and for medical education generally. As can be seen from the Second Reading debate, no coherent arguments can be advanced against it. The proposal even enjoys the support of The Times Higher Education Supplement, although some might think that that is a poisoned chalice. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who spoke with his usual charm, grace and conciseness—perhaps that will be a lesson to me as I spoke for two and a quarter hours in the previous debate on the subject. I shall not do that tonight. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South certainly draws the short straw. Only a week ago he was introducing in the House a private Bill that he apparently found so disdainful that he never pressed it to a vote.
81 My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, has found it such a poisoned chalice that he has this evening absented himself on a parliamentary visit. I wonder what procedural device the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South will use to block the Bill tonight.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would come to the subject of the debate.
§ Mr. Sedgemore
Of course, I shall, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to give a charming and easy introduction to put everyone at ease.
We meet on a tumultuous evening, with historic events about to take place tomorrow. People are naturally asking me what the link is between the Queen Mary and Westfield College Bill and the election of the leader of the Conservative party. I imagine that it is precisely because there is a link that the Chairman of Ways and Means has tabled the Bill for debate tonight. There is such a disruptive campaign taking place that we all expect an election, probably by Christmas—by spring at the latest—which, of course, the Labour party will win. That means that St. Bartholomew's hospital will be saved. After the hospital has been saved, we shall look again at the position of the medical colleges of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the London hospital.
I am told that there is only one unifying force in the extraordinarily disruptive campaign involving the Prime Minister, the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). If we look at the list of proposed Cabinets, we see that the Secretary of State for Health does not appear in any of them. That makes a difference to us because perhaps after this week we shall be able to discuss the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital and its medical college in rational terms—something which we have not been able to do.
I wish to make a plea to two sets of people tonight. First, I wish to ask Conservative Members to vote down the Bill. Secondly, I wish to make a plea to peers of the realm in another place. Should the Bill receive a Third Reading in the House, I ask them to block it, delay it and vote it down when it comes to its Second Reading in the other place.
I ask Conservative Members to think back to that great Conservative philosopher, Edmund Burke—perhaps the greatest Tory philosopher there has ever been. Edmund Burke based his theory on the virtues of custom, tradition, stability, continuity, renewal and excellence. St. Bartholomew's hospital and its medical college stand for all those virtues.
I could understand it if the Labour party in the 1960s proposed to abolish St. Bartholomew's hospital and to merge its medical college with the Royal London hospital. I cannot understand how the Conservative party in the 1990s should be advancing that proposal. I ask Conservative Members to stand back, think of the great Conservative philosopher and reject barmy 18th century notions of classical liberalism that appear to form the theory driving the two proposals.
I suppose that it may be impertinent for a mere commoner, dressed in a shabby lounge suit, to tell peers of the realm what to do. However, I ask them to come to 82 London and vote down the Bill on its Second Reading in the Lords, should it go through the House tonight. I make that plea not just to life peers, but to hereditary peers—the squirearchy of England. I ask all 1,200 them to come down here, if necessary with their footmen, livery men, maids, and perhaps even mistresses, to vote the Bill down. They will be defending the greatest medical college in the world. It only needs one peer to block a Bill in the House of Lords. Whom shall we choose? We know that the Duke of Gloucester spoke on the subject of St. Bartholomew's hospital in the House of Lords, damned the Secretary of State to eternity—and did so beautifully. Perhaps he can do it; if not him, perhaps another peer will.
Stopping the Bill is an important matter. Not so long ago—not even a week ago—I went to a ball organised by St. Bartholomew's college. I shall let the House into a secret: the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South went to the same ball; we sat at the same table. His wife and I exchanged views that were so confidential that I dare not talk about them in the House.
§ Mr. Sedgemore
Not at all.
While I was moving around the ball I was stopped by consultant after consultant who told me that every week and every month that I hold up the Bill, I am doing St. Bartholomew's hospital a good turn. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South said about the enthusiasm with which St. Bartholomew's hospital supports the Bill, not one of those whom I met at the ball told me that it would be helpful if I stopped what I was doing because I was making a nuisance of myself. No—I received 100 per cent. support. It is ironic that, in politics, one can use balls instead of the corridors of Westminster as a good way of conducting research into important issues such as those that we are now discussing.
I said that St. Bartholomew's was a place of excellence. I was looking through the exam results from 1988 to 1993. There are nine London medical colleges and I see that, in 1988 St. Bartholomew's ranked second overall in pass rates, first in 1989, third in 1990, first in 1991, first in 1992 and third in 1993. We should surely not abolish a place that produces excellence, but in terms of distinctions, the college came second in 1988, first in 1989, first in 1990, first in 1991, third in 1992 and first in 1993.
I looked at the latest results for 1994 and found that, in terms of distinctions, 33 per cent. of those who took the exam at St. Bartholomew's received distinctions and the college was ranked first. At the London hospital, 21 per cent. of those who took the exam received distinctions and the medical school ranked fourth. At University College hospital—the place of greatest excellence—17 per cent. received distinctions and the college ranked ninth. There should be no doubt about it—we are talking about a medical college of great academic distinction.
I wish to answer the points made by the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who say that there is agreement about the Bill. There is not. I know that it looks odd because St. Bartholomew's hospital is one of the Bill's supporters. That is what everyone finds difficult to understand.
83 This afternoon, I looked through the annual reports of the medical colleges and found that in 1985, 1986 and 1987 there were great criticisms of the proposal when Dr. Kelsey Fry was the dean. I see also that there was a judicial review and that the merger between St. Bartholomew's and the London medical college was dropped in favour of the City and East London Confederation for Medicine and Dentistry to which the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South referred. The confederation has worked perfectly happily ever since and, in my view, could still.
In 1992, the Tomlinson report recommended first, the closure of the hospital and secondly, the complete merger, both pre-clinical and clinical, of the two medical colleges. Professor Lesley Rees, currently the dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college and someone who, presumably, knows as much as anybody about the matter, is a superstar if ever I have met one. When the Tomlinson report came out in 1992, she wrote in the Christmas 1992Barts Journal:As far as the Medical College is concerned the Tomlinson Report recommends a merger with The London Hospital Medical College and Queen Mary and Westfield College. I believe that the City and East London Confederation for Medicine and Dentistry (CELC) provides the optimum link between the two Medical Colleges and Queen Mary and Westfield College. The Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences at QMW has largely met the claims made for medicine being placed within a multi-faculty college of the University. Cementing further the CELC arrangement will provide no added advantage that I can see in a medical faculty structure for teaching and research. Indeed with activities on at least three major sites such a Faculty structure would be unlikely to create economies of scale.The current dean of St. Bartholomew's medical college says that there is no added advantage. If there are hon. Members with the ability to contradict Professor Rees, I should like to hear them.
Of course, she may have changed her mind since then but in the annual report of the medical college in 1993, Professor Rees said:This has been a momentous year in the fortunes of the College and for our hospitals.In line with Government Policy we were required to inform the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) by the 1st October 1993, of our intention to merge with the London Hospital Medical College and Queen Mary and Westfield College.I repeat that she says "we were required".
Members of Parliament are versed in the subtleties of what people have to do by force majeure and what they do voluntarily. When the dean of a medical college writes "we were required" to do something and finds no higher words of praise than that, one must take it that the dean is saying that something that the college does not want to be done is being forced on it. That is the truth. This is not a private Bill and never has been. It is a public Bill; it was whipped on Second Reading and is to be whipped again tonight. That is why I am going to keep my speech short. There is no point arguing against the force majeure of votes in the House.
When the Bill's Second Reading was moved, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said:My second reason for claiming that this Bill should be largely uncontroversial is that the merger is an agreed measure … In no sense is it a takeover bid, either by the London medical college for Bart's medical college or by Queen Mary and Westfield medical college for the other two.84 In favour of his argument, he went on:As for personnel, the warden of the new school of medicine and dentistry will come from the London, and all those concerned want his deputy and successor to come from Bart's."—[Official Report, 19 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 277.]I can tell right hon. and hon. Members that the warden of the new medical college is Sir Colin Berry. His so-called deputy is Professor Lesley Rees from Bart's. The principal of the medical college, Professor Zellick, wrote to me in connection with the Bill and blocking motion saying that it was not a takeover and that Sir Colin Berry from the London was the warden—selected before the Bill had had a Second Reading, an odd way of going about creating a new institution which has no parliamentary approval of any kind. Never mind, we know that Professor Zellick has contempt for Parliament because he had to apologise through his agent at the Bill's unopposed Committee stage, which I personally attended. He also said that Lesley Rees had the offer to be the dean of clinical medicine. What could be fairer than that? I sent his letter to Professor Rees for her comments. They are very brief. In a letter dated 12 April 1995, she said:I made it quite clear to Professor Zellick that my application was for the Wardenship only and that I was not interested in the position of Dean of Clinical Medicine. The 'package' he mentions was never publicised or discussed with me before or during the interview. In fact, the intention at the time was to advertise for the position of Dean of Clinical Medicine.I also made it abundantly clear to Professor Zellick and to many others that in the event I was not appointed as Warden, I would not be an applicant for the post of Dean of Clinical Medicine.We have Professor Zellick telling my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who moved the Bill's Second Reading, and writing to me, giving information which misleads us, in the hope presumably that we will mislead the House. I had the good sense to check it. That is the truth of the matter, so let us not say that there is massive agreement and that it is no sense any kind of takeover.
Indeed, as regards personnel I give credit to the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South who, in one of our more general debates on Bart's hospital, first raised the point about the number of people at the medical college who were leaving because of the uncertainty that had been created. A lot of the personnel do not want the merger.
To bring matters right up to 1995, there is my research last week at the ball, where all the consultants were saying to me, "Keep it up Sedgemore. For the first time in your life, you are doing a bit of practical good in Parliament." If the House is to support an institution, the institution has to be able to show that it has acted in good faith. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but the college lost a wonderful opportunity when it turned down Professor Rees as warden and appointed Sir Colin Berry before, as I said, Second Reading.
It was bizarre that Eastman dental hospital, which is not part of the new institution, had a vote on who should be the warden of the medical college. That struck me as extraordinary. But the choice of Sir Colin Berry suggests that it is not the sort of institution to which the House should give its approval.
Clive Priestley, who is lay vice-president of St. Bartholomew's medical college, said to me in the presence of Professor Zellick, that he had asked before the warden was appointed whether it would be in order for him to ask one of the candidates whether there was 85 anything to that candidate's detriment that might damage the college. That seems a perfectly reasonable question—the sort of question asked at all kinds of interviews. However, Professor Zellick ruled the question out of order.
I have never heard of a principal of a college ruling out of order a question that could discover whether a person who might be about to be appointed has some skeleton in the locker that could damage the college. In this case, we know that the warden, as a pathologist, had in fact misdiagnosed two women whose breasts were cut off, and we know that there had been a vote of no confidence in him by some staff. Even the general and fat controller at the Royal Hospitals NHS trust, Sir Derek Boorman and Gerry Green, realise that it has all been a terrible mistake.
Perhaps my point is laboured because I understand that the Government may be prepared to bail out Queen Mary and Westfield college. There is a real chance, I am told, that none of the people there will ratify the appointment of Sir Colin Berry as warden. The Government now realise that he is so useless that they could make him chair of a quango and therefore satisfy everyone.
The medical college at St. Bartholomew's hospital has existed almost from the time of the hospital itself. It was founded in 1123 by Rahere, an Augustinian monk, and was linked to the priory at St. Bartholomew's hospital. Soon, there were apprentices who worked with the doctors and they, in effect, were the first students at the medical college. I think that Conservatives should recognise that, down the centuries, it has fought off a number of tremendous attempts to close it, and it is ironic that they who should be the creatures of custom, tradition, excellence and renewal in the style of Edmund Burke are now about to change all that.
Henry VIII desperately tried to close the college. He wanted to dissolve the monasteries and introduced the Acts of Dissolution 1536 and 1539. The college refused to close itself and eventually Thomas Vicary, who had trained at Bart's and who was Henry VIII's surgeon, persuaded the king to grant it a royal charter in 1546. A hospital that fought off Henry VIII cannot survive the modern House of Commons.
In September 1666, the great fire of London did its worst and tried to destroy the hospital and the medical college. On that occasion, God and the weather came to the aid of the medical college, and I very much hope that tonight God will come to its aid again.
§ Mr. Brooke
The hon. Gentleman knows that he and I are shoulder to shoulder on some aspects of the matter, although we are on opposite sides on the Bill. He has in his narrative relating to the hospital, omitted one of my favourite passages which is that the index of the history refers to "English Civil War (Effect on the Parish)". An institution has to be pretty self-confident to make that its single reference to the English civil war.
§ Mr. Sedgemore
The right hon. Gentleman—I was about to call him my right hon. Friend because we are so close on this matter—shows how great and self-confident one can be. I think Balliol college, Oxford, used to call it the unconscious realisation of effortless superiority, which is something that St. Bartholomew's as well as Balliol college had. Certainly, I doubt that it is something that the Minister will have when he replies. However, we shall see.
86 The medical college did not entirely escape the ravages of the great fire of London. Much of Bart's property was destroyed, and it was calculated that it lost income of £2,000 a year. It was a huge sum but Bart's quickly recovered. Therefore, the medical college survived Henry VIII and the great fire of London, but it cannot apparently survive the House of Commons in 1995.
In the war, Hitler's bombers tried to destroy the hospital and the medical college. On 23 and 24 September 1940, they bombed the medical college and, in October that year, they bombed Charterhouse square, which is mentioned in one of the clauses. Shortly after the war, and as a result of all the bombing, the Department of Health said that it should perhaps close the hospital. Perhaps it was that niggle which entered the psyche of the Department of Health as long ago as 1945 which has found fruition 50 years later and led to the suggestion that the hospital be shut and the medical college wound up. Sometimes the bureaucrats never give up. I speak as someone who worked in the civil service—I know the way its mind works. In any event, the college beat Henry VIII, the great fire of London and Hitler's bombers, but we cannot beat the Conservatives in the House of Commons in 1995.
I shall draw my remarks to a close, but many people, past and present, will be saddened by what we are doing. They include the eminent surgeon Percival Pott, who was one of the first people to act as a real professor at the medical college; John Abernethy, who effectively formalised teaching at the hospital and who is usually regarded as its founder in the 18th century; Lord Horder, Sir Archibald Garrod and William Marsden, who was ultimately responsible for the foundation of the Royal Marsden hospital in 1851.
Last but not least I must mention the great W. G. If anyone knows who the great W. G. is, it will be the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South. I am sure that all hon. Members know that I am referring to Dr. W. G. Grace, the greatest Englishman who ever lived and one of the finest batsmen the world has ever known. W. G. qualified as a doctor at St. Bartholomew's hospital and he will be turning in his grave tonight. There is no better reason to oppose the Bill than to let W. G. rest in peace.
I believe that the hospital can be saved; then we can look again at the medical college. That would be the wisest and best thing that we could do. I hope that hon. Members will oppose the Bill.
§ Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup)
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). In doing so, I must, in deference to Mr. Justice Nolan, declare an interest in that Queen Mary college conferred an honorary degree on me. That fact is listed in all publications and is well known throughout the country. I received no remuneration although I was given one free meal. Having established that, I can say that I strongly agree with what my right hon. Friend said.
I am amazed at the contribution by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I have heard him make a serious and persuasive speech, but that was certainly not the case tonight. The frivolity with which he treated the matter is deplorable. To begin by 87 saying that the Bill was to be debated at this time because of a party leadership election shows that he is living in a world of fantasy. As for the hon. Gentleman's arguments, my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South dealt with them.
I share my right hon. Friend's view that the decision taken about Bart's was and is a mistake. The Tomlinson committee considered every technical and physical development of the hospitals; the only matter that it did not consider was the people. It is for that reason that the decision was a mistake, quite apart from Bart's great history. Although we had an interesting history lesson this evening, the fact that Handel played the organ at Bart's was omitted—that is perhaps the most important thing of all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South said that there was no reason why the change suggested in the Bill should not go ahead. We have been given no real reasons against that. I accept what my right hon. Friend said and the advice that I have received.
Most unusually from an Opposition Member, we heard a quotation from Edmund Burke. Burke also said:Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment".I have endeavoured over the past 45 years to contribute some industry; now I contribute my judgment, which is that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
§ The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who made some cogent remarks. I, too, was interested in the alliances forged by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He called on forces beyond the grave in the shape of Dr. Grace and attempted to forge what was, to my mind, a rather unusual alliance with the other place. The thought of him leading the combined forces of that other place on any subject is indeed an interesting one. However, I am not sure that he did his case much good by referring to the peers of the realm as the squirearchy. That will perhaps set back his cause to some extent. In any event, it was an interesting notion.
The House is well aware of the fact—I shall, nevertheless restate the convention—that my purpose in such debates is to give a broad outline of the Government's position. I greatly welcome the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has put before us in the case for the merger of the medical schools within the Queen Mary and Westfield college. I am happy once more to state the Government's broad position in welcoming the Bill and the opportunities that it presents for developing a continuing partnership between medical education, research and clinical services in east London.
As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made clear on Second Reading, and as my right hon. Friend reiterated this evening, the Bill has the support of the institutions involved. The principles supporting the case for the merger of the colleges have been laid before the House and, I believe, stand firmly on their own merits.
88 To put it in context, the Bill is one of a number introduced over the past 20 years or so to unite medical colleges within multi-faculty colleges of the university of London. It will strengthen the institutions concerned and develop important links with departments of life sciences. It will also ensure that the tradition of excellence in medical teaching and research in that part of London will continue from a strong academic base.
My Department and the Department for Education welcome the Bill. It will contribute to securing London's leading position in these fields as well as securing a medical and dental school of great distinction in east London to match those that are being established in other parts of the capital. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South on putting the case for the merger so concisely and well. I hope that the Bill can now proceed quickly for consideration in another place, perhaps free of the cohorts that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch hoped to bring as legions to oppose it. The Bill deserves to be placed on the statute book as quickly as possible, and the Government confirm their broad support for the measure.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 56.90
|Division No. 190]||[7.50 pm|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Coe, Sebastian|
|Alexander, Richard||Colvin, Michael|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Congdon, David|
|Alton, David||Conway, Derek|
|Amess, David||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)|
|Ancram, Michael||Cope, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Arbuthnot, James||Cormack, Sir Patrick|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Couchman, James|
|Ashby, David||Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Robert||Dalyell, Tam|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Davies, Quentin (Stamford)|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Day, Stephen|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||Deva, Nirj Joseph|
|Baldry, Tony||Dicks, Terry|
|Banks, Matthew (Southport)||Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen|
|Bates, Michael||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Bellingham, Henry||Dover, Den|
|Bendall, Vivian||Duncan, Alan|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Dunn, Bob|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Durant, Sir Anthony|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Dykes, Hugh|
|Booth, Hartley||Eggar, Rt Hon Tim|
|Boswell, Tim||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)|
|Bowis, John||Evans, Roger (Monmouth)|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes||Evennett, David|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Fabricant, Michael|
|Brazier, Julian||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Bright, Sir Graham||Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Fishburn, Dudley|
|Burns, Simon||Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)|
|Burt, Alistair||Forth, Eric|
|Butcher, John||Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)|
|Butler, Peter||Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Freeman, Rt Hon Roger|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)||French, Douglas|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Gale, Roger|
|Carrington, Matthew||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Cash, William||Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Garnier, Edward|
|Chapman, Sydney||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Clappison, James||Gorst, Sir John|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)||Merchant, Piers|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Hague, William||Mills, Iain|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Hannam, Sir John||Nelson, Anthony|
|Hargreaves, Andrew||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Hawkins, Nick||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Hawksley, Warren||Nicholson, David (Taunton)|
|Hayes, Jerry||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Heald, Oliver||Norris, Steve|
|Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward||Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley|
|Hendry, Charles||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hill, James (Southampton Test)||Ottaway, Richard|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Page, Richard|
|Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)||Paice, James|
|Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)||Patnick, Sir Irvine|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Hunter, Andrew||Pawsey, James|
|Jack, Michael||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Pickles, Eric|
|Jessel, Toby||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Rendel, David|
|Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)||Richards, Rod|
|Key, Robert||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Robathan, Andrew|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Robinson, Mark (Somerton)|
|Knapman, Roger||Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Knight, Greg (Derby N)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)||Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian|
|Knox, Sir David||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Kynoch, George (Kincardine)||Shersby, Sir Michael|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Lamont, Rt Hon Norman||Spicer, Michael (S worcs)|
|Lang, Rt Hon Ian||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Lawrence, Sir Ivan||Squie, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Lidington, David||Stephen, Michael|
|Lightbown, David||Stern, Michael|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Stewart, Allan|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)||Streeter, Gary|
|Lynne, Ms Liz||Sweeney, Walter|
|MacKay, Andrew||Sykes, John|
|Maclean, Rt Hon David||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Malone, Gerald||Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)|
|Mans, Keith||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Marland, Paul||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Marlow, Tony||Thurnham, Peter|
|Townsend, John (Bridlington)||Whitney, Ray|
|Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)||Whittingdale, John|
|Trotter, Neville||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Twinn, Dr Ian||Wiggin, Sir Jerry|
|Tyler, Paul||Wilkinson, John|
|Walker, Bill (N Tayside)||Willetts, David|
|Waller, Gary||Wilshire, David|
|Ward, John||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Wardell, Gareth (Gower)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)||Wood, Timothy|
|Waterson, Nigel||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Watts, John||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Wells, Bowen||Mr. Peter Brooke and|
|Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John||Mr. Michael Lord.|
|Adams, Mrs lrene||Loyden, Eddie|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Barnes, Harry||McKelvey, William|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Burden, Richard||Maxtor, John|
|Caborn, Richard||Meale, Alan|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Cann, Jamie||Miller, Andrew|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Mullin, Chris|
|Cummings, John||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)||O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)|
|Dafis, Cynog||Olner, Bill|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Pike, Peter L|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Purchase, Ken|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Galloway, George||Simpson, Alan|
|Godman, Dr Norman A||Skinner, Dennis|
|Godsiff, Roger||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Golding, Mrs Lin||Spearing, Nigel|
|Grant Bernie (Tottenham)||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|Hanson, David||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Hill, Keith (Streatham)||Wareing, Robert N|
|Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)||Welsh, Andrew|
|Hood, Jimmy||Wray, Jimmy|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Lewis, Terry||Mr. Harry Cohen and|
|Livingstone, Ken||Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time and passed.