§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 18, after 'deer', insert—'(aa) have regard to the desirability of preserving freedom of access to the countryside.'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 38.
§ No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 38.
§ Mr. McFall
I shall be brief because I can see that many hon. Members are interested in this Bill. It contains a provision against night shooting, but I have a feeling tonight that I may not be safe in the Chamber as a result of that.
Amendment No. I deals with freedom of access where outdoor groups in Scotland contribute much to the highlands and islands economy—indeed, they contribute more than the red deer sports centres. Their interests are neglected and sometimes obstructed by landowners and red deer sports centres, and the amendment would maintain access.
We debated amendment No. 9 at great length in Committee and elsewhere. The wording of the clause was changed in the other place and, despite five years of consensus, an amendment moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch ensured that a third of the new Deer Commission for Scotland would comprise sporting interests. In a letter from WWF Scotland, Simon Pepper, head of operations, said:In long and tortuous discussions with civil servants and with Lord Lindsay over the last few days, we have now secured their verbal but very clear and specific confirmation that the intention of the clause is indeed to provide 'traditional sporting estate interests' with a guaranteed representation of a third of the new Commission.That destroys at a stroke the consensus about the need for a new Bill to replace the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, which did not cater for the issue of red deer in Scotland. When that Act was passed, there were some 150,000 red deer; the latest estimate is that there are more than 300,000. A consensual approach is thus needed, because the system is not working.
§ Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central)
Has my hon. Friend read about the proposal to introduce the wolf to the isle of Rum? Does he believe that it is worth exploring the reintroduction of the deer's natural predator to Scotland, rather than shooting those animals?
§ Mr. McFall
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I should be straying out of order if I pursued it. There has been interest in that, but we must take social 473 and environmental considerations into account. We shall have to discuss the matter on a future date, however. I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are nodding vigorously.
The WWF has 20 voluntary groups in the highlands and islands, including crofters, the John Muir Society and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, which are on its side in this matter. The Government have let down the people of the highlands and islands and those groups by accepting that naked amendment in the other place. The voice of the people and of those groups must be listened to. As the Government have not done that and have broken their promise, we shall press the issue vigorously.
§ Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross)
Amendment No. 9, which stands in my name, relates directly to the controversy surrounding the proposed method of selecting members of the new Deer Commission for Scotland. Many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are pertinent to my remarks.
There is no doubt about the strength of our opposition to the Government's attempt to give one specific interest group a dominant and unrepresentative influence on the control and management of deer in Scotland. The amendment seeks to combat new subsection (3B)(c), which is an explicit attempt to ensure that a third of the commission's members represent the interests of deer managers.
What the Government mean by "deer managers" can no longer be in serious doubt. The Government introduced the subsection after consistent lobbying in the other place, led by Lord Pearson, which sought specifically to protect the traditional sporting estates' interests. Lord Lindsay's initial defiance crumbled as pressure was applied by his colleagues. Bit by bit, initial Government policy unravelled, and the result was a complete betrayal of the initial commitment that the commission would not be dominated by one sectional interest. Paragraph (c) must therefore be seen as the culmination of a cynical and systematic betrayal. In short, it is an attempt to protect the sporting lobby.
That preferential treatment is entirely without justification. Its effect is not in doubt. The WWF says:Domination by the sporting interests in the 37 year history of the Red Deer Commission has been a crucial factor in the failure of the Commission to control deer numbers.The concern that has grown about the proliferation of deer in Scotland is that it has been brought about by the very big landed interests that will now be built into the new Bill if the Government have their way. It is likely that they will thereby exactly replicate the mistakes that were made in the past.
First, the preferential treatment is insupportable in the face of the facts of the deer issue in Scotland. One of the key features of the new commission is that it now has responsibility for all species of deer. Figures produced by the WWF show that more deer now live in forests and woodlands throughout Scotland than on the open hills in the sporting estates—and, perhaps more tellingly, the proportion is rapidly increasing in that direction. More people are now employed in the management of deer in woodlands than on sporting estates. More deer are killed every year to protect crops and trees than for sport.
474 Is it not clear, to even the most fervent defender of the Bill as it stands, that to give pride of place in the new commission to an interest group that is declining in relative importance is to fly in the face of common sense?
Secondly, that preferential treatment completely wrecks the consensus that was so important to the originators of the Bill. I quote the words of Lord Lindsay:If the balance of interests on the deer commission is reduced or in any way skewed so that it is less of a level balance across the different interests, the commission would be in danger of losing some of its credibility and legitimacy in the wider community in Scotland."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 16.]We should ask the simple question: what has changed? If balance was so important then, why is it no longer of interest to the Government?
Thirdly, there is disbelief in the organisations involved in Scotland's natural heritage that sporting interests are now, at a time when they are in relative decline, given greater representation than they have been allowed at any time in the past 37 years. We must ask why.
May I suggest a possible answer to those questions? Is it just possible that, once again, the Government are putting their preferences before those of the wider community? We are witnessing favouritism on a grand scale.
Let me take an example. Damage to forestry caused by deer is estimated at £10 million per annum, a figure many times greater than the money brought in by sporting estates. Despite that, the failure to recognise the importance of forestry is clear from the blatant advancement of sporting interests to the exclusion of all others. The people of Scotland can only be confirmed in their belief that what is being promoted is the result of a quasi-aristocratic relationship, which has very little to do with real consultation and shows no desire to find an effective, lasting consensus among disparate interest groups.
In opposing paragraph (c), the Scottish National party is articulating what most of the interest groups involved in the issue believe. The following is a sample of the range of interests: the National Trust for Scotland, the Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust.
I tabled amendment No. 9 because I had concerns about amendment No. 3, in the name of Labour Members. Amendment No. 3 has in common with the Scottish National party amendment the desire to remove paragraph (c), so I welcome the fact that the Labour party is on board on this issue.
There are two problems with Labour's desire to remove the stipulation that the Secretary of State mustafford to such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests of persons concerned … an opportunity to suggest the name of any person … appropriate".First, new subsection (3B)(a) provides the only effective check on the powers of the Secretary of State. Labour's amendment leaves those powers unfettered, which cannot be acceptable.
In an area as controversial as this, the removal of a guarantee that the Secretary of State will consider the views, opinions and compliance of all interested parties is 475 a deeply divisive step to take. Be in no doubt; the future success or otherwise of the new commission depends almost entirely on the maintenance of consensus and on the belief of all interested parties that they are being heard. A power of appointment without control becomes political patronage and serves only to demolish the broad alliance that it has taken so long to cement.
Secondly, not only is the control of the Secretary of State important, but so is the issue of how to resolve the problems that surround the management of deer. In all the political wrangling, there remains the question how best to move our approach to deer management to a new level.
I firmly believe that, if we allow the whole range of views and evidence to be considered, the decisions reached will be fair and widely supported. By removing the statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to allow representations from all interested parties with regard to representation on the new commission, not only is the Secretary of State given unfettered power of appointment, but that is at the expense of the good will and consensus that were so painstakingly pieced together.
One or two concerns are being expressed informally by those who are perhaps not entirely au fait with the arguments raging about the proliferation of deer in Scotland. Indeed, I believe that, in some quarters, the Bill has been rather more informally called the Bill to increase the killing of Bambi. The fact is, deer cause an enormous amount of destruction in Scotland, and—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady should be talking specifically to the amendments. There will be a Third Reading debate, when a wider speech would be more appropriate.
§ Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) concluded her remarks. In fact, if she had accepted the place offered to the Scottish National party on the Committee, she might have heard all these arguments put in Committee and we should not have been subjected to them once again tonight. However, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I shall be brief—and, unlike him, I shall indeed be brief.
The first amendment seeks to place a duty on the Deer Commission for Scotland to consider access to the countryside. One of the problems with stalking is that it sterilises the mountains while it is taking place. Not only does it sterilise them when the stalking is going on, but the landowners use it as an excuse to impose a blanket sterilisation to keep people off the mountains.
It would be much better if a system could be considered which would keep people off the mountains only when stalking was taking place. There is a sign on the road and the path up to Ben Starav down Glen Affric which tells one not to climb because stalking is in progress, and it is still there on a Sunday, when everyone knows that stalking cannot take place. Mr. Gordon-Duff-Pennington has kindly discussed that with me in private and said that he will look into it.
476 I hope that the deer commission will take that issue on board and pursue it further, to seek an amicable arrangement. Individuals should not go into the mountains when stalking is taking place, but the quid pro quo is that the landowners must ensure that their areas are opened up when stalking is not taking place.
I conclude by referring to amendment No. 3 and by quoting from The Herald. A letter to the paper stated:That consensus was the result of compromise by all parties—not least the landowners' recognition of the legitimate concern of other bodies in relation to natural heritage.The letter continued:We consider the specific recommendations to the Secretary of State—that at least a third of the commission shall be persons having knowledge or experience of deer management".That is a re-writing of history. The Government did not wish to have the amendment—it was forced on them by the landowning groups and by Lord Pearson. The letter concluded:The proposal should not be seen as being about the promotion of landowning interests but as proper management by people with the required expertise.The letter is signed by the Association of Deer Management Groups and by the Landowners Federation. The people with expertise are those who produced the problem in the first place—we are allowing those who created the problem to write the legislation to deal with the problem. They will be over-represented on the commission, which cannot be right.
This is an historic piece of legislation: it will be the last time that vested interests—the Scottish landowners and the hereditary interests—will write legislation in their own interests. From now on, they will have to queue up with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, have a cup of tea and a biscuit with the Minister—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is beginning to sound like a Third Reading speech.
§ Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute)
I am concerned that we are still arguing about the membership of the Deer Commission for Scotland. As far as I am concerned, the two amendments are six of one and half a dozen of the other.
We went through this matter on Second Reading and in Committee. In clause 1, the Secretary of State is given the power to appoint nine to 12 members whom he considers appropriate, including those who represent the interests of persons and organisations concerned with deer management. It is important that we have people on the deer commission who know about deer management. In addition, many people in the highlands believe that it is important to have representation from agriculture, particularly hill farming.
The Bill includes crofting—although crofting is in parentheses, and it should not be, because it is a legitimate and particular interest. In fact, while I am talking about words in brackets, the next thing that the Secretary of State should do is get rid of the brackets round the word "Scotland", which appear in all such Bills. Perhaps the Secretary of State can think about that for the next Scottish Grand Committee.
Obviously and rightly, there is representation from forestry and woodland management, and from natural heritage. The Bill says that the Secretary of State should 477 appoint appropriate people, which I take to mean people who have a legitimate interest in, and a knowledge of, all the duties that the deer commission has to carry out, as spelt out in the Bill. We must look for a balanced membership.
In Committee, the Minister said that he wanted to create more flexibility. That flexibility is immediately lost by the inclusion of new subsection (3B). Under new subsection (3A), the Secretary of State can appoint from deer management organisations, including those with sporting interests. The turnover of estates with sporting activities is approximately £154 million, which is a considerable contribution to the economy.
It is irritating that there is all this hassle and argument, which can only be damaging to relationships. Why does the Minister put up with it? He is making matters worse by insisting on the inclusion of new subsection (3B), when the powers for a balanced commission are already in the Bill. As I said earlier, it is important that some members of the commission have a real knowledge of deer management. After all, that is the purpose of the commission and the Bill. Why make it more difficult with the inclusion of this unpopular new subsection (3B)? I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.
§ Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)
What we are discussing in amendment No. 3 is more fundamental to the future of democracy in this country than anything that we shall discuss later tonight.
I refer to the Second Reading of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill in the other place. Members of the House of Lords who have landowning interests in Scotland queued up to argue their vested interests under the guise of being parliamentarians. Of the eight speeches made from the Back Benches in support of the Bill, six Members found it necessary to declare a vested interest as a landowner. Baroness Robson of Kiddington commenced her speech as follows:My Lords, before speaking I have to declare an interest as I am an owner of a deer forest in the western Highlands.Lady Saltoun of Abernethy commenced her speech as follows:My Lords, I suppose that I have to declare an interest because, although I do not own a deer forest, my husband did own Mar Forest".The Earl of Woolton commenced his speech as follows:My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak today as a relative newcomer to the subject of deer management in Scotland, but now finding myself at the very centre of the issue as the owner of an estate in the Angus glens.Lord Campbell of Croy stated:I declare an interest. I and my son own a modest estate in northern Scotland where there are many roe.Lord Pearson of Rannoch commenced his speech as follows:My Lords, I should start by declaring an interest as the largely absentee owner of a west Highland sporting estate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 December 1995; Vol. 567, c. 835–49.]478 Lord Burton is so arrogant that he did not even bother to declare an interest, but I assure hon. Members that he owns—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to be careful in his use of language. I remind him that he should not be quoting directly from the other place unless it is a ministerial statement.
§ Mr. Wilson
I am grateful, because I have finished. The Minister, the Earl of Lindsay, said that it is terribly important that the commission commands status and respect among all those who are likely to have an interest in the way that deer are managed and that it is not simply seen as the supporter of one particular interest group. That is exactly what has happened.
Those people had the power to argue their case in what is theoretically the highest debating chamber in the land, and they had their interests written into the Bill. There are no crofters along the corridor, there are no conservation groups along the corridor and there are no other vested interests that form themselves into groups to pass legislation in the House along the corridor—only the Scottish landowning fraternity has that privilege, and that must end.
No Member of the House of Lords is there as an elected right—if they stood for their local district council, they would be defeated, and many of them have indeed been defeated. They go into what is theoretically the highest debating chamber in the land and they legislate in their own interests. What is even more shameful is that the elected Members of this House—who have responsibility for the legislation—are not prepared to reverse what has been written into this naked piece of special pleading in the House of Lords. That is a scandal.
When the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill is forgotten and when the rest of tonight's proceedings are forgotten, there will be a case for abolishing the hereditary principle in the House of Lords.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he is speaking to the amendment and not making a general speech.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is trying hard—perhaps he could become a little more successful.
§ Mr. Wilson
The case for amendment No. 3 lies exclusively in the genesis of the amendment that was written into the Bill in the other place—and that must not happen again. It is an affront to a democratic society. It is a constitutional issue on which I would be happy to march the length and breadth of Scotland and Britain to argue. The hereditary principle is an affront to any self-respecting democracy.
§ 8 pm
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson)
I shall refer first to the issue of access, raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). We recognize 479 the importance of access to the countryside. However, the Deer Commission for Scotland is concerned primarily with issues relating directly to deer. We do not consider it appropriate or necessary to create a primary function for the commission of having regard to preserving freedom of access to the countryside. The access issue is more relevant to the role of Scottish Natural Heritage arid it is currently being pursued through the access forum, which includes the Association of Deer Management Groups. I believe that that is the most appropriate way forward.
Much has been said about the amendments that were accepted in another place. I assure the House that they have not changed the Government's policy. The amendments were designed to clarify the Bill's provisions and to state the Government's intention more explicitly. Opposition Members claim that the appointments provision has damaged the consensus surrounding the Bill. However, the legislation before us today is based firmly on proposals submitted to us by the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington. I pay tribute to the work that he has done in bringing all interested parties together around the table.
Consensus requires some flexibility on the part of each interest group. Opposition Members are focusing on one small part of the appointments provision in isolation. That does a great disservice to all those who have worked hard to secure the legislative changes necessary to provide for effective deer management in the future.
The commission, whatever its precise composition, will have to work within its new legal framework, which provides important new functions and duties. The commission's role is extended to cover all species of deer, and it will have a new function of furthering the sustainable management of wild deer. The Bill gives the commission important new powers to protect the natural heritage, while retaining the rights of farmers, crofters and foresters to protect crops and woodland. The Bill strengthens the commission's powers to promote voluntary control and agreements. Overall, it is a balanced measure, which contains something positive for all interests.
§ Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles)
Will the Minister confirm that, if the Bill is passed, it will give deer management interests—that is, the sporting interest—a larger proportion of places on the commission than they have enjoyed during its 37-year history? Why is the Minister doing that this year?
§ Mr. Robertson
The Bill gives deer management interests one third of the commission's membership, which means that the other two thirds will comprise other interest groups. By anyone's arithmetic, that constitutes a minority for the deer management interests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some organisations argued for a majority interest on the commission, or that all commission members should have knowledge or experience of deer management. We resisted that move.
The proposal of one third retains the balance with other interests. I have made it clear, as has my noble Friend Lord Lindsay, that the remaining two thirds of the commission will be appointed to cover all other interests. The provision accurately reflects the Government's intentions and it is now stated expressly in the Bill in order to remove any doubt.
The Bill's underlying strategy is the promotion of the voluntary principle. The commission must retain the confidence and co-operation of deer managers if it is to 480 exercise its new powers effectively. Without that confidence and co-operation, the deer commission would find it very difficult to carry out its day-to-day work. In order to ensure the continuing confidence of deer managers in the work of the commission, the Bill provides that a third of those appointed should be nominees of organisations representing the interests of deer managers. That ensures representation for those whose primary interest is deer.
We intend that provision to cover organisations that represent deer managers as one of their main concerns. Deer management includes the sporting interest, and organisations representing that interest will be included in that category. Those who manage deer, but whose primary interest is natural heritage or forestry, already have an alternative route for appointment to the commission.
As things stand at present, bodies such as the Association of Deer Management Groups, the Scottish Landowners Federation, the British Deer Society and the British Field Sports Society can be said to have representation of deer managers, including those with a sporting interest in deer, as a main concern. In the past, those bodies were considered eligible to nominate members to the commission. Taken together, the representation of nominees from those organisations under the new system would be broadly in line with what occurs under the present system. That is entirely reasonable, as they represent a group that is vital to the commission's work.
Opposition Members claim that the Government accepted the provisions only in response to vested interests. As I said before, the Government's strategy is the promotion of the voluntary principle. The commission must retain the confidence and co-operation of deer managers in order to be able to exercise its new powers effectively. We have amended the Bill in order to clarify our intentions and to improve it. The policy proposals made by the commission and accepted by the Government for inclusion in the legislation remain intact in the Bill before the House today. Therefore, I believe that the Bill deserves the full support of the House. I hope that Opposition Members will not press their amendments, but if they do, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 38.—[Mr. McFall.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 257.483
|Division No. 189]||[8.05 pm|
|Adams, Mrs Irene||Benn, Rt Hon Tony|
|Ainger, Nick||Bennett, Andrew F|
|Allen, Graham||Benton, Joe|
|Alton, David||Bray, Dr Jeremy|
|Austin-Walker, John||Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)|
|Barron, Kevin||Callaghan, Jim|
|Battle, John||Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)|
|Beggs, Roy||Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)|
|Bell, Stuart||Campbell-Savours, D N|
|Canavan, Dennis||McAllion, John|
|Cann, Jamie||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)||Macdonald, Calum|
|Clark, Dr David (South Shields)||McKelvey, William|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Mackinlay, Andrew|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||McLeish, Henry|
|Coffey, Ann||McNamara, Kevin|
|Connarty, Michael||McWilliam, John|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Madden, Max|
|Corbett, Robin||Maddock, Diana|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Mahon, Alice|
|Corston, Jean||Martlew, Eric|
|Cousins, Jim||Meacher, Michael|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Meale, Alan|
|Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Dafis, Cynog||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Miller, Andrew|
|Darling, Alistair||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Davidson, Ian||Morley, Elliot|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)|
|Dewar, Donald||Mudie, George|
|Dixon, Don||Mullin, Chris|
|Dobson, Frank||Olner, Bill|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Parry, Robert|
|Eagle, Ms Angela||Pike, Peter L|
|Eastham, Ken||Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)|
|Etherington, Bill||Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)|
|Fatchett, Derek||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Faulds, Andrew||Primarolo, Ms Dawn|
|Flynn, Paul||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||Randall, Stuart|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Reid, Dr John|
|Fyfe, Maria||Rendel, David|
|Galbraith, Sam||Robertson, George (Hamilton)|
|Galloway, George||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Garrett, John||Rooker, Jeff|
|Gerrard, Neil||Rooney, Terry|
|Godman, Dr Norman A||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Sheerman, Barry|
|Gordon, Mildred||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Graham, Thomas||Simpson, Alan|
|Grant Bernie (Tottenham)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Grocott, Bruce||Spearing, Nigel|
|Gunnell, John||Spellar, John|
|Hain, Peter||Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)|
|Hanson, David||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Hardy, Peter||Stott, Roger|
|Harvey, Nick||Strang, Dr. Gavin|
|Hill, Keith (Streatham)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Home Robertson, John||Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)|
|Hood, Jimmy||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Hoon, Geoffrey||Tipping, Paddy|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley North)||Trickett, Jon|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Turner, Dennis|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Tyler, Paul|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Vaz, Keith|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Wallace, James|
|Hutton, John||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Ingram, Adam||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||Wilson, Brian|
|Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)||Winnick, David|
|Jowell, Tessa||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Keen, Alan||Worthington, Tony|
|Khabra, Piara S||Wray, Jimmy|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Liddell, Mrs Helen||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Livingstone, Ken||Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. John Cummings.|
|Lynne, Ms Liz|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Faber, David|
|Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan||Fabricant, Michael|
|Alexander, Richard||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Fishburn, Dudley|
|Amess, David||Forth, Eric|
|Arbuthnot, James||Fowler, Rt Hon Sr Norman|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)|
|Ashby, David||French, Douglas|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Robert||Fry, Sir Peter|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Gale, Roger|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Gallie, Phil|
|Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||Gill, Christopher|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Gillan, Cheryl|
|Bates, Michael||Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair|
|Batiste, Spencer||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Bellingham, Henry||Gorst Sir John|
|Bendall, Vivian||Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Body, Sir Richard||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)|
|Booth, Hartley||Grylls, Sir Michael|
|Boswell, Tim||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Hannam, Sir John|
|Bowis, John||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes||Haselhurst, Sir Alan|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Hawkins, Nick|
|Brazier, Julian||Hawksley, Warren|
|Bright Sir Graham||Heald, Oliver|
|Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)||Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)||Hendry, Charles|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Hicks, Sir Robert|
|Burns, Simon||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence|
|Burt, Alistair||Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)|
|Butcher, John||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)|
|Butler, Peter||Horam, John|
|Butterfill, John||Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)|
|Cash, William||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)|
|Churchill, Mr||Hunter, Andrew|
|Clappison, James||Jack, Michael|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Coe, Sebastian||Jessel, Toby|
|Congdon, David||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Cope, Rt Hon Sir John||Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)|
|Couchman, James||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Cran, James||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Key, Robert|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Day, Stephen||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Diva, Nirj Joseph||Knight Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)|
|Devlin, Tim||Knox, Sir David|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Dover, Den||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Duncan, Alan||Lang, Rt Hon Ian|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Lawrence, Sir Ivan|
|Dunn, Bob||Legg, Barry|
|Durant Sir Anthony||Leigh, Edward|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark|
|Eggar, Rt Hon Tim||Lidington, David|
|Elletson, Harold||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Lord, Michael|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)||Luff, Peter|
|Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Evans, Roger (Monmouth)||MacKay, Andrew|
|Evennett, David||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Soames, Nicholas|
|Madel, Sir David||Speed, Sir Keith|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|Malone, Gerald||Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)|
|Marland, Paul||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Marlow, Tony||Spring, Richard|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Sproat, Iain|
|Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Mates, Michael||Steen, Anthony|
|Merchant, Piers||Stephen, Michael|
|Mills, Iain||Stern, Michael|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Stewart, Allan|
|Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)||Streeter, Gary|
|Moate, Sir Roger||Sumberg, David|
|Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector||Sweeney, Walter|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Sykes, John|
|Needham, Rt Hon Richard||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Thomason, Roy|
|Norris, Steve||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Ottaway, Richard||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Page, Richard||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Paice, James||Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Patnick Sir Irvine||Tracey, Richard|
|Patton, Rt Hon John||Trotter, Neville|
|Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Pawsey, James||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Pickles, Eric||Viggers, Peter|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Waldegrave, Rt Hon William|
|Porter, David Waveney,)||Walden, George|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Waller, Gary|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Ward, John|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Richards, Rod||Waterson, Nigel|
|Riddick, Graham||Watts, John|
|Robathan, Andrew||Wells, Bowen|
|Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn||Whitney, Ray|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Whittingdale, John|
|Robinson, Mark (Somerton)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Wilkinson, John|
|Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)||Willetts, David|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian||Wood, Timothy|
|Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)||Yeo, Tim|
|Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Shersby, Sir Michael|
|Sims, Sir Roger||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Derek Conway.|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 38.—[Ms Roseanna Cunningham.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 24, Noes 254.485
|Division No. 190]||[8.16 pm|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Harvey, Nick|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||Hughes, Simon (Southwark)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Dafis, Cynog||Lynne, Ms Liz|
|Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||Maddock, Diana|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Rendel, David||Wallace, James|
|Salmond, Alex||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Steel, Rt Hon Sir David||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Taylor, Matthew (Truro)||Mr. Andrew Welsh and Ms Roseanna Cunningham.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)||Elletson, Harold|
|Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan||Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Alexander, Richard||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)||Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)|
|Allason, Rupert (Torbay)||Evans, Roger (Monmouth)|
|Amess, David||Evennett, David|
|Arbuthnot, James||Faber, David|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Fabricant, Michael|
|Ashby, David||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Robert||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)||Fishburn, Dudley|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Forth, Eric|
|Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)||Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman|
|Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)||French, Douglas|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Fry, Sir Peter|
|Bates, Michael||Gale, Roger|
|Batiste, Spencer||Gallie, Phil|
|Bellingham, Henry||Gardiner, Sir George|
|Bendall, Vivian||Gill, Christopher|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Gillan, Cheryl|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair|
|Body, Sir Richard||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Booth, Hartley||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Boswell, Tim||Gorst, Sir John|
|Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)||Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)|
|Bowden, Sir Andrew||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Bowis, John||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)|
|Brandreth, Gyles||Grylls, Sir Michael|
|Brazier, Julian||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald|
|Bright, Sir Graham||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Hannam, Sir John|
|Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)||Hargreaves, Andrew|
|Budgen, Nicholas||Haselhurst, Sir Alan|
|Burns, Simon||Hawkins, Nick|
|Burt, Alistair||Hawksley, Warren|
|Butcher, John||Heald, Oliver|
|Butler, Peter||Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward|
|Butterfill, John||Hendry, Charles|
|Carlisle, John (Luton North)||Hicks, Sir Robert|
|Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)||Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)|
|Cash, William||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney||Horam, John|
|Churchill, Mr||Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Clappison, James||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)|
|Coe, Sebastian||Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)|
|Congdon, David||Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)|
|Conway, Derek||Hunter, Andrew|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Jack, Michael|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Cran, James||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)||Jessel, Toby|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Day, Stephen||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Deva, Nirj Joseph||Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)|
|Devlin, Tim||Jopling, Rt Hon Michael|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Dover, Den||Key, Robert|
|Duncan, Alan||King, Rt Hon Tom|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Knapman, Roger|
|Dunn, Bob||Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Knox, Sir David|
|Eggar, Rt Hon Tim||Kynoch, George (Kincardine)|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian|
|Lang, Rt Hon Ian||Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)|
|Lawrence, Sir Ivan||Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)|
|Legg, Barry||Shersby, Sir Michael|
|Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)||Sims, Sir Roger|
|Lidington, David||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Lord, Michael||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Luff, Peter||Smyth, The Reverend Martin|
|Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Soames, Nicholas|
|MacKay, Andrew||Speed, Sir Keith|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Spencer, Sir Derek|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)|
|Madel, Sir David||Spink, Dr Robert|
|Maitland, Lady Olga||Spring, Richard|
|Malone, Gerald||Sproat, Iain|
|Marland, Paul||Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)|
|Marlow, Tony||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Steen, Anthony|
|Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)||Stephen, Michael|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Stern, Michael|
|Mates, Michael||Stewart, Allan|
|Merchant Piers||Streeter, Gary|
|Mills, Iain||Sumberg, David|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Sweeney, Walter|
|Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)||Sykes, John|
|Moate, Sir Roger||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Needham, Rt Hon Richard||Thomason, Roy|
|Neubert, Sir Michael||Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Thornton, Sir Malcolm|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Norris, Steve||Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)|
|Oppenheim, Phillip||Tracey, Richard|
|Ottaway, Richard||Trotter, Neville|
|Page, Richard||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Paice, James||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Patnick, Sir Irvine||Viggers, Peter|
|Patten, Rt Hon John||Walden, George|
|Pawsey, James||Walker, Bill (N Tayside)|
|Pickles, Eric||Waller, Gary|
|Porter, Barry (Wirral S)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Waterson, Nigel|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Watts, John|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wells, Bowen|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Whitney, Ray|
|Renton, Rt Hon Tim||Whittingdale, John|
|Richards, Rod||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Riddick, Graham||Wilkinson, John|
|Robatnan, Andrew||Willetts, David|
|Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)||Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)|
|Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)||Wolfson, Mark|
|Ross, William (E Londonderry)||Yeo, Tim|
|Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy|
|Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Mr. Timothy Wood and Dr. Liam Fox.|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (pudsey)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.