HC Deb 10 February 1998 vol 306 cc205-28

Amendment made: No. 321, in page 21, line 14, at end add `after he ceases to be a Minister of the Crown'. —[Mr. McLeish.]

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 279, in page 21, line 14, at end add — `(7) Nothing in this Act shall permit Scottish Ministers to exercise any function or to enjoy any power in any part of England, Wales or Northern Ireland.'.

The Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 310, in clause 51, page 22, line 10, leave out from 'enactment' to end of line 12.

No. 305, in clause 52, page 22, line 13, at beginning insert '(1)'.

Government amendment No. 322.

No. 280, in page 22, line 29, at end add — '(2) Any dispute which arises between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Ministers as regards the exercise of powers in subsection (1) shall be resolved as a devolution issue in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 6.'. No. 286, in clause 59, page 25, line 2, after '(1),'insert `Subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament,'. Government amendment No. 323.

No. 287, in page 25, leave out line 5.

No. 288, in page 25, line 9, at end insert — '(1A) The provisions in subsection (1) above shall also apply to statutory functions exercisable by Scottish Ministers'. Government amendments Nos. 324 to 329, 306 and 330.

No. 307, in clause 101, page 45, line 11, leave out `58 to 60' and insert '58 and 60'.

Government amendments Nos. 331, 308 and 332.

Mr. Heald

Before I discuss amendment No. 279, I should say that I have similar feelings to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), but in this case about the Government's reaction to a substantial number of Conservative amendments in this group. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said: we have not seen much of this, but it is good that the Government have considered and accepted the arguments for many of our amendments in this group.

Amendment No. 286, which requires an affirmative resolution of both Houses in order to transfer additional functions from United Kingdom Ministers to Scottish Ministers, has been accepted in Government amendments Nos. 323 to 329 and Government amendment No. 306. I welcome the sight, on pages 1726 and 1728 of the Amendment Paper today, of amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, me and other colleagues, to which the Secretary of State has added his name, in a constructive spirit. He has also tabled Government amendment No. 331, which is identical to our amendment No. 307. It is good to see that he has accepted the argument that the functions of the House should not be transferred to the Scottish Parliament without adequate scrutiny and debate in this place. We are glad that we have been able to help him to improve the Bill, and we should now like him to go a little further.

7.15 pm

The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said earlier that, in this Committee, the Conservatives have not been trying to bring about an effective, workable Scottish Parliament; the amendment gives the lie to that claim, because it shows that the Conservative party has tabled amendments that even the present Government—not a Government who are very often minded to accept amendments—have accepted, and the Minister has had to accept the logic of our arguments in substantial measure in this group of amendments.

Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)

A weakness.

Mr. Heald

I would not accept that for a minute, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

The purpose of amendment No. 279 is to ensure that Scottish Ministers are not permitted to exercise functions or enjoy power in any way in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It is obvious why that should be the case. Scottish Ministers are not directly accountable to this place. If they exercise functions in England or the other countries, it is impossible for constituency Members to challenge them or in any way to bring them to account. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can give an assurance tonight that Scottish Ministers will be unable to exercise functions or enjoy powers in England. Wales or Northern Ireland as a result of clause 48 or as a result of the Bill as a whole. If he wants to give me that assurance now, I should be happy to give way.

Mr. McLeish

indicated dissent.

Mr. Heald

It looks as though he is saving that for later.

Amendment No. 310 is designed to remove the exception that at present would require the UK Government to consent to the designation of an enterprise zone by Scottish Ministers, in clause 51(2). The amendment would stop the Government centralising power over inward investment and important decisions about enterprise in the Department of Trade and Industry in London, and so the amendment would protect and enhance Scotland's ability to succeed in that area of enterprise.

It is worth highlighting the success of recent years. One of the healthiest aspects of the Scottish economy has been the record levels of inward investment. The year 1995–96 was another record year for inward investment in Scotland. Inward investment has been a vital component in transforming the Scottish economy from being reliant on the old primary industries supported by taxpayers' subsidy to being very much at the cutting edge of the new and expanding high-tech silicon industry. In the year to March 1996, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department were able to attract to Scotland 84 inward investment projects involving planned investment of nearly £1 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of more than 12,500 jobs.

Although Scotland accounts for about 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, figures published by the Invest in Britain Bureau show that, in the past few years, more than 18 per cent. of all inward investment projects attracted to the United Kingdom and about a quarter of the new jobs associated with such projects have gone to Scotland. Britain receives more foreign investment from outside Europe than all the other European Union countries combined. In 1995–96, inward investment in Scotland created 1,000 jobs on average per month. In the five years to March 1996, Locate in Scotland recorded 400 inward investment projects involving planned investment of almost £3.5 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of about 50,000 jobs.

Mr. Ernie Ross

It will do as well under the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Heald

The hon. Gentleman claims that a Scottish Parliament will be able to build on that success. That is what this amendment is about.

Mr. Rowe

Is my hon. Friend aware that one spurious reason for trying to impose on the south-east of England an entirely artificial creation called the regional development agency is that that will somehow help us to vie with Scotland and acquire silicon implants of our own?

Mr. Heald

The regionalism argument is designed to defuse the West Lothian question. Opposition Members are concerned that the idea of regionalism is offered as some sort of solution to the West Lothian question. I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) believes that there is no such thing as the West Lothian question, but most senior Labour figures have acknowledged that such a question exists and needs to be addressed. It is wrong to implant in England a form of regionalism that is alien to it and to ignore the fact that England is a country like Scotland or Wales. As to my hon. Friend's point, I see no reason why a regional development agency should be imposed on Kent when the county may not want it.

There has been inward investment success in Scotland. It has been linked to enterprise zones, which is the burden of this amendment. It would be wrong to sell the Scottish people a false prospectus. The White Paper gave the impression that all enterprise would be devolved. It now seems from the Bill that the dead hand of Whitehall in the form of the Department of Trade and Industry will co-ordinate enterprise zones and may well act against Scotland's interest. We have moved the amendment in that spirit: it asks the Minister to provide assurances that enterprise in Scotland will be safe.

Government amendment No. 332 seeks, at a very late stage in the proceedings, to reserve to the United Kingdom Parliament the Industrial Development Advisory Board for Scotland. Is that part of the DTI agenda to retain control over enterprise policies in Scotland? Does it fit with the policy approach that is set out and that the amendment seeks to defeat? I ask the Minister to provide those assurances. Will the co-ordination of enterprise zones in Scotland require the consent of the United Kingdom? Will the DTI retain control over inward investment packages and enterprise zones in Scotland? Does Government amendment No. 332 have the same intention, reserving the Industrial Development Advisory Board for Scotland to the United Kingdom Parliament? What are the Minister's intentions in that regard? I seek his assurances that Scotland will not be short-changed.

Amendment No. 280—upon which amendment No. 305 is consequential—ensures that, when any disputes arise in respect of shared powers in clause 52 as to the prime responsibility for a particular issue, they will be resolved using the judicial procedures for devolution issues that are set out in schedule 6 to the Bill. A mechanism is clearly needed, and there seems to be no reason why the procedure in schedule 6 should not apply. What is the Minister's thinking on that important issue? Will he concede the logic of our argument in this area and agree to our amendments?

The Government have already agreed to amendment No. 286—the first in the group—which would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses for subordinate legislation to transfer additional functions from United Kingdom Ministers to Scottish Ministers. Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 go a little further than that. Amendment No. 287 would permit the transfer of additional functions only on the basis of concurrent or shared powers with United Kingdom Ministers. There would be no further transfers solely to Scottish Ministers.

That would provide some clarity. Throughout consideration of the Bill, Opposition Members have expressed concern that this is a slippery slope: it could lead to the transfer of function after function from the United Kingdom Parliament to the Scottish Parliament, and that ratchet effect would slowly drive the Scottish Parliament from being devolved to being independent.

The Minister says that the Government are totally in favour of a devolved Parliament and that they have made it clear that they do not want separatism or independence. That is what he said in the previous debate. if that is so, it is surely right to provide some clarity about what functions may be devolved and how far the process can go. That would disabuse the Scottish Parliament from the outset of the notion that the process could lead to independence. I await the Minister's answer on amendment No. 287. That would provide clarity and ensure that the Scottish Parliament would devolve future powers only on a concurrent or a shared basis.

Amendment No. 288 follows the same theme. It says that it would be possible to transfer the sole statutory functions of Scottish Ministers so that they are concurrent powers shared with United Kingdom Ministers. In other words, there would not be a ratchet effect: we should move from a one-way street to a situation of allowing some interplay between the two Parliaments. That could occur if it is found that shared or concurrent powers would be helpful in areas where the Scottish Parliament has sole statutory functions at present.

I ask the Minister: what is wrong with that? Why is it not possible to say now, with some certainty, that those are the limits within which functions will be transferred? There should be an element of flexibility, if necessary, to transfer powers that are solely Scottish to a joint and shared arrangement. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that subject.

I have already mentioned Government amendment No. 332, which seeks to reserve the Industrial Development Advisory Board to the Westminster Parliament. We are concerned that that may interfere with Scotland's ability to continue its inward investment success. Therefore, we ask the Minister to explain why the measure is proposed at this late stage.

Mr. Dalyell

Of course there will be a ratchet effect, and it will be a faster ratchet than most people imagine. Incidentally, I think that the first reference to the ratchet effect was by the late Enoch Powell, who died on Sunday. He spoke at great length in 1977–78 on precisely that mechanism.

It is sheer pretence to think that a ratchet effect will not occur, and it will be helped greatly not only by Scottish National party Members of the Parliament, but by Labour Members, Liberal Members and indeed Conservative Members of the Parliament, because they will have to explain the inadequacies in the perceptions of their constituents and how those can be met, and they cannot be met with insufficient resources. The entire scenario for the ratchet effect is there.

Mr. Heald

Does the hon. Gentleman see some hope in the fact that we have already been able to move the Minister from a position where additional functions could be transferred to Scottish Ministers simply by subordinate legislation of the Scottish Parliament, to a position where he has accepted the logic of our amendments, which require a resolution of the House of Commons, and that that should be by Order in Council?

7.30 pm
Mr. Dalyell

I do not wish to be rude or curt, but I see no hope at all. That is the blunt answer to the question. However, we must stick to clause 48. Subsection (2) omits any reference to the Solicitor-General or the junior Ministers. The reason for that, according to the Law Society, is unclear. The phrase "Scottish Minister" is used, and in terms of clause 41 that would include the First Minister, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. Can my hon. Friend clarify the situation in regard to clause 48(2)?

My next question relates to the position of the civil service. Is the civil service to remain a Westminster function? Would it be possible for a UK Minister to give a direction to a civil servant in Scotland, which that civil servant would be obliged to follow, or would the civil servant be answerable only to his own Scottish Ministers? Clause 47(1) appears to provide that Scottish Ministers can also appoint non-civil servants—that is, advisers.

What happens when a UK Minister gives a direction to a Scottish civil servant that is contradictory to a direction given by a Scottish Minister? That is by no means a fanciful state of affairs. For example, let us take railway services, which are a UK matter. Suppose there was an environmental impact assessment of the extension of the west coast line. It may be the view of the Department of Transport that the entire scheme could be jeopardised if the information were made public—for instance, by a Scottish Minister under pressure from environmental groups to publish. That situation is quite likely, in one form or another.

The question is who rules in that case—the UK Minister or the Scottish Minister? To whom does the civil servant give her or his loyalty? That is a important and practical question. Where a subordinate Parliament is created, and it is supposed that, above all, the kingdom should be kept united, it is impossible that the civil service should serve two organisations, which may have significantly different opinions. That subject must be addressed.

Mr. Rowe

I share the gloom of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I have no doubt that the measure represents the beginning of a ratchet that will eventually divide the United Kingdom. The Government have made considerable efforts to deceive themselves that that will not happen, but their efforts are set at naught by the schizophrenia demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

One minute, my hon. Friend is desperately concerned to define and limit the powers of a Scottish Parliament by moving amendments to the Bill, and the next minute he is desperately concerned to give to Scotland unequivocally powers that the Government seem to wish to retain in Westminster. If such ambivalence is apparent on the Conservative Front Bench, the ambivalence among the other parties will be more extreme.

Mr. Heald

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, as the White Paper sets out a prospectus—which has been voted on—for devolution of the whole area of enterprise, it is right at least to probe the Government when they seem to be resiling from that?

Mr. Rowe

I could not support my hon. Friend more in his desire to find out what the Government are playing at. The Bill gives the appearance of having been carefully thought through, whereas the consequences of many decisions that have already been taken have not been addressed.

I entirely support the aim of limiting the power of Scottish Ministers so that they will have no power or function in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is a great pity that we cannot do the same for Scottish Members of Parliament. I believe passionately that one of the great underlying weaknesses of the Bill is the prospect of Scottish Members of Parliament being debarred from examining, speaking on or voting on the matters that are closest to the everyday lives of their constituents in Scotland, but being free to roam carte blanche over constituencies in England, debating and voting on corresponding issues.

That matters not a fig in a Parliament where the majority is as large as it is now, but if the next general election results in a majority of, say, 16 or 30, and decisions about English health, education and so on are taken by Scottish Members of Parliament who have no accountability whatever south of the border, that will lead to enormous instability. We should define not only for Ministers but for Members what they are entitled to do.

I am gloomy about the prospect. I have no doubt, and never have had, that Scotland is capable of running its own affairs effectively. I spent several years in the Scottish Office and was deeply impressed by the quality of my colleagues and of the institutions in Scotland. It is sad that, on a pretence that we are somehow preventing—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to return precisely to the amendment. He is going rather wide of the mark, and there will be opportunities to discuss those matters on later amendments and new clauses.

Mr. Rowe

I apologise, Mr. Lord, if I was wandering more widely. I support the proposition that the exact limits of the powers of a Minister of the Scottish Parliament should be defined unequivocally.

Mr. Collins

I shall confine my remarks principally to amendment No. 279. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) famously placed on the table the West Lothian question, which highlighted the difficulties that would arise if Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom Parliament had responsibilities for matters relating to England, even though they were not sent there by their constituents in Scotland for that purpose. Amendment No. 279 deals with the difficulties that would arise in relation to Ministers. If there are difficulties in England about the role of MSPs, surely they would be even greater if there were any risk, however theoretical, that a Scottish Minister, accountable to an entirely different Parliament, could take decisions in England affecting English citizens.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Can the hon. Gentleman give me an example of the difficulty that he foresees? I fail to see anything in the Bill that would allow a Scottish Minister to exercise any powers south of the border.

Mr. Collins

If the hon. Gentleman is right in his assumption, he must, by definition, be in favour of amendment No. 279, because that merely seeks to include in the Bill the position that he understands to be the case and that we all hope to be the case. However, with legislation of this constitutional sensitivity, significance and importance, it is important to include in the Bill the exact understanding at the time that it is debated.

Dr. Lynda Clark

The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the legal process here. The Bill gives Ministers certain powers, but no powers whatever in relation to English matters. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment.

Mr. Collins

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for saying what she says, but if that is her understanding of the Bill, she and her hon. Friends on the Front Bench should have no objection in principle or in practice to amendment No. 279. It is important that her understanding and mine of the intention of the legislation should be stated clearly and without any ambiguity in the Bill.

We have no doubt that the Bill will be enacted and that it will set in place a constitutional settlement for Scotland and its relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, which is likely to endure for decades. Therefore, it is important at the start of this constitutional experiment, this immense voyage, that there be clarity.

My understanding of the hon. and learned Lady's point is not that she objects to amendment No. 279, merely that she thinks that it is inherent in the Bill. If so, simply to clear up any misunderstanding, to avoid any difficulty, legal challenges or political confusion in future, those provisions should be stated clearly as amendment No. 279 sets out.

Dr. Clark

My point is that there is no need for the amendment, because there is no possibility of any misunderstanding in a court of law or elsewhere. The Bill is perfectly plain. The powers derive entirely from the Bill. If no powers are given, no powers can exist, so the amendment is unnecessary. It would be equally daft having an amendment saying that no powers exist all over the place. No powers have been given in the Bill to Scottish Ministers in relation to English affairs. That must be the end of the matter.

Mr. Collins

Again, I hear what the hon. and learned Lady says. The amendment seeks to amend clause 48, and clause 48(1) states: Statutory functions may be conferred on the Scottish Ministers The hon. and learned Lady is right to say that, elsewhere in the Bill, there is an interpretation of those powers, but nothing in clause 48 limits the powers that are granted in the way that she says. Therefore, our case is that clause 48 should state clearly that no functions can be exercised in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Linlithgow talked about the possible confusion relating to civil servants. They will be in the difficult position of being accountable to Ministers in two separate Governments. That is the nature of this part of the Bill. It concerns not just the establishment of a separate Parliament, which is the way in which public debate has hitherto always been conducted, but the establishment of an entirely separate Government. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow rightly pointed out, if there are two separate Governments, there is inherent in that situation the possibility of confusion and difficulty for civil servants.

I give an example that builds on one given by the hon. Gentleman. What will happen where a document involves civil servants from several different Departments? In an attempt to achieve a coherent, common UK Government position, many issues cross departmental boundaries which affect civil servants working in the Scottish Office and in other UK Departments such as the Department of the Environment and the Department for Education and Employment. At the moment, civil servants know where they stand in the preparation and dissemination of such documents. They know that they are accountable, through Ministers, ultimately to a United Kingdom Cabinet headed by a UK Prime Minister appointed by a UK Head of State and answerable to this UK Parliament.

What will happen in future when there is a wish to have a common UK position? There must be many instances when, even after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, it will be for the convenience of the Scottish people, as for those in the rest of the UK, that there should be commonality. We can all imagine the issues. There will be issues relating to, for example, the environment, transport links and exam procedures when some commonality will be convenient. There will be plenty of issues where there will be a common UK position.

7.45 pm
Mr. McLeish

The hon. Gentleman refers to the need for commonality in exams. Scotland has a separate education system. It is time served. It has been around for a long time. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept, with a bit of humility, that this is a complex subject. We are talking about the administrative devolution of reserved powers. There are three types. First, Westminster and Holyrood can agree that certain functions will be completely devolved to the Scottish Executive. Secondly, some responsibilities and functions can be carried out concurrently. Other powers will be carried out in consultation between Westminster and Holyrood. The Bill contains the comfortable and attractive proposition that Westminster's legislative competence can be handed to Scotland by way of Executive devolution. What is the problem?

Mr. Collins

I hear what the Minister says, and he is right to point out—I was not remotely seeking to pretend otherwise—that Scotland has and has had for a long time a separate examination system. However, I am sure that he will acknowledge that it remains the case, and will remain the case after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, that there will be movement at primary and secondary levels, and particularly at higher and further levels, from one side of the border to the other, and there will continue to be points and purposes Where it will be sensible for there to be some co-ordination on education matters, as on others. I do not limit my point to education matters. I am talking about a range of other matters where common discussion is needed.

My point was simply that discussion and the circulation of papers will happen not as it does now, within a UK civil service, accountable to a UK Government, but between two separate Governments. The issue that then arises, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, is what will happen when a Minister in one Government takes a different view from a Minister in another about the dissemination, provenance and contents of a paper, assembled jointly by civil servants from two different Governments. There is a real possibility of civil servants being given conflicting advice.

Mr. Heald

As my hon. Friend will know, clauses 83 and 84 make provision for cross-border public bodies. Clause 84(1) states: Subordinate legislation may make provision in relation to a cross-border public body …enabling powers to be exercised or requiring duties to be performed by the Scottish Ministers instead of by a Minister of the Crown, or by the one or by the other, or by both jointly or by either with the agreement of or after consultation with the other". That is the point that the Minister was making.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in that context, if powers may be exercised by Scottish Ministers, instead of by a Minister of the Crown, it is only right that there should be an assurance that nothing can be done by Scottish Ministers—no function performed, no power given—in respect of England, Wales or Northern Ireland? There is no accountability in the Scottish Parliament for what occurs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Collins

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the matter. The issue at stake is whether there are any circumstances in which a Minister accountable to the Scottish Parliament can take decisions that affect citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom who have no say in, or influence over, his election to that Parliament, or over the actions, identity or philosophy of Scottish Ministers. It is an important philosophical question, and it is not an artificial question for my constituents in Cumbria.

When I am at home in Kendal, we watch Border Television and we have access to a range of services. Sometimes, we are very conscious of the fact that we are a great deal closer to Edinburgh than to London. We are conscious that there will be occasions when people might well say that Cumbria should be governed by one of the cross-border public bodies, as it is already for the purposes of the ITV network. Amendment No. 279 is important because it would alleviate, or even remove, our worries that decisions affecting English citizens could be taken by Ministers who have no accountability to the people of England through the United Kingdom Parliament. That is a serious question, which I hope the Minister will seriously consider. He must not dismiss it lightly.

If people felt that they had no control over those taking decisions affecting their lives, there would be a serious question of democracy in this country which could only cause great tension between Scotland and England, something that all Opposition Members are striving hard to minimise, rather than maximise.

Mr. Gorrie

Three issues have emerged in the debate. First, there is the question of the amendments affecting industrial development powers, about which the Conservatives may have a point. We should like the Minister to make things clearer, as he seems to be reducing the power of the Scottish Parliament.

Secondly, there is the question of the dual loyalty of civil servants—a point that I fail to grasp. It seems straightforward that civil servants who work for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Office will meet their Westminster counterparts about joint enterprises. They will then report back to their bosses in Holyrood or St. Andrew's house. The issue is clear cut; people will be serving two different Governments, working jointly, reporting back and doing what their political masters tell them. I see no problem in that.

The third issue about which there has been much sound and fury is mentioned in the amendment. I do not enjoy any power, but I do enjoy Tory terminology. The amendment states: Nothing in this Act shall permit Scottish Ministers to exercise any function or enjoy any power"— that is Tory terminology— in any part of England, Wales or Northern Ireland. I was dismayed when, this morning in Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who is no longer in his place, accused me℄if that is the right word℄of being a clever Edinburgh lawyer. I am not a lawyer and whether I am clever or not is a matter of opinion, but I do come from Edinburgh. My point is that there is a Latin legal phrase, which I do not know, but which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) may be able to tell me, the gist of which is that, if one mentions certain things in a list, one opens up the possibility of other things that are not on that list entering the frame. An amendment that states that Scottish Ministers may not exercise functions in England, Wales or Northern Ireland opens up the possibility that they could exercise powers and functions in Germany, France, the Channel Islands and so on. The phrase is misguided.

Mr. Heald

We do not mind if Ministers exercise power in Germany, but if they wish to exercise powers in England, they should be accountable. The only way that that can be done is by a Minister of the Crown under the auspices of this Parliament.

Mr. Gorrie

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. He is opening up a can of worms, and he is also preventing sensible co-operation.

There are gloom merchants in the Chamber, such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Instead of Bloody Dalyell℄his famous ancestor℄we have Gloomy Dalyell, who may play as big a part in history as his ancestor. We also have gloom merchants in the Conservative party, who think that everything will be a disaster.

Many of us think that there are opportunities, one of which is for constructive co-operation between the Scottish Parliament and Executive and the Westminster Parliament and Executive. There might be agreed, joint efforts in Cumbria or elsewhere in which there would be co-operation. If the amendment were passed, no Scottish Minister or Member of the Scottish Parliament could take part in any of those joint efforts. For example, the amendment would rule out the creation of a country park on either side of the border which was jointly managed from both countries.

The amendment is misguided, and the answer℄as I have said before, with all due respect℄is for the English to think about how they wish to run their own affairs. They could then set up their own Parliament or regional assemblies. The sooner they do so, the better.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

I had begun to doubt myself. Having intended to speak in favour of amendment No. 279, I began to have my doubts when I heard Labour Members question my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). However, I have now returned to my former opinion℄even more starkly℄having heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), who raises every fear that I had about the Bill.

The Bill states: Statutory functions may be conferred on the Scottish Ministers". Having read the Bill in its totality, I would welcome the addition of the rider: "but not in so far as they might affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland." That seems entirely proper, and everything that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has said confirms that.

It is difficult to confer a general duty on a Member of Parliament to hold the Executive to account when there remains a possibility℄albeit theoretical℄that the Executive are not accountable to him. That is a theoretical argument, but there is a more important argument which has more resonance in terms of public opinion. I would say to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark) that, in these matters, perceptions are even more important than reality.

Even now, I am approached by constituents at meetings and in public℄in a most unwelcome, unsolicited and unhelpful way℄who share their observation that, "Now Scotland is getting its own Parliament, isn't it awful and awkward that we have a Government entirely dominated by Scottish Members?" I have to point out to them that their concern is quite illegitimate and that they have no proper grievance. Those who sit on the Treasury Bench have a mandate and are very properly there. I should hate it if a situation arose in which my constituents had a legitimate grievance, and amendment No. 279 would prevent that from happening. As said, perception is important in these respects, and the Committee has a duty to remove such sources of conflict and public discontent.

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

I endorse the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Having sat through many hours of debate on the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, I am worried about disputes, because both Bills have the potential to create a great many disputes. That is one reason why I support amendment No. 280, which gives guidance on how some disputes might be resolved.

Amendment No. 279 concerns potential disputes, or at least confusion, so I support what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said about clarifying the Bill. We must make it plain that nothing in the Bill permits Scottish Ministers to exercise any functions℄or "enjoy" any power, if that word is preferable℄in any part of the United Kingdom other than Scotland. That helps to clarify the Bill.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, before the Conservatives get anywhere in Scotland, the penny must drop that no one there is vaguely interested in exercising power south of the border, or in seeing Scottish Ministers exercising power south of the border? The people of Scotland simply want to get on with running Scotland; we are not interested in what happens south of the border.

8 pm

Mr. Robertson

I am grateful for that intervention, which gives me the opportunity to say that, although what the hon. Gentleman says may be true in relation to the Scottish people, we in Westminster still face the prospect of Scottish Members coming down here and voting on purely English matters while we cannot vote on Scottish matters. So the potential for disputes still exists. I accept that the Scottish people have no selfish interest in matters outside Scotland, but the amendment attempts to clarify the matter. If the hon. Gentleman says that there is no potential for problems, why should the clarification not be included in the Bill?

Mr. Ancram

I was most interested in the intervention from a Scottish Nationalist, particularly given the geographical area that he represents, because it is precisely in areas near the border that we have all sorts of questions about rights over fishing on rivers and fishing within the Solway, all of which may well require decisions affecting cross-border issues. It seems strange that he should say that the Scots have no interest in those issues.

Mr. Robertson

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Some issues may come under the jurisdiction of Scotland or England; I suggest that they should come under the jurisdiction of the Crown. That would be the best way to proceed.

I also endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said about enterprise zones. The statistics for Scotland are, indeed, impressive. If we are to engage in the new spirit of co-operation℄in which the Minister seems to be willing to engage, albeit to a limited extent℄we want the best for Scotland. I admit that the Conservative party does not want a Scottish Parliament in the first place, but we do want what is best for Scotland. Amendment No. 310 deals with that issue. Like Wales, Scotland has attracted a disproportionate amount of inward investment in relation to its population, and we want that to continue for the purpose of creating more jobs and more wealth.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan

Will the Minister clarify amendment No. 322, which seems to remove from the clause the references to sections 10 and 14 of the Industrial Development Act 1982? I understand that section 14 of that Act does not apply to Scotland in any event, whereas section 10 does. Is it correct that the change to the clause does not diminish the powers of Scottish Ministers but merely enables UK Ministers also to exercise certain functions, and that we may therefore be in the lucky position of having two sets of Ministers?

Mr. Heald

The amendment is purely technical. If the hon. Gentleman reads amendment No. 332, which seeks to reserve the Industrial Development Advisory Board to the Westminster Parliament for the first time at this late stage in the proceedings, he may be a bit more concerned.

Mr. Morgan

I was about to express my concern about section 10 of the 1982 Act. It strikes me as strange that the powers under section 10 should be exercised by two sets of Ministers. Given all the talk about co-ordination and the need for a concordat to prevent different people from going in different directions, how does having two sets of Ministers exercising the same function improve that co-ordination?

Mr. McLeish

The debate has ranged from the ultra-theoretical to the issue of public perception. It may therefore be useful to try to take the middle route and discuss realism and pragmatism in relation to some of the issues that have been dealt with.

Before I deal with the amendments, may I say a word about clause 59 and the Executive devolution order generally? The clause enables subordinate legislation to provide for the transfer to Scottish Ministers of statutory ministerial functions to be exercisable by them either instead of, or as well as, by the UK Minister. I alluded earlier to the three-tier structure of that system. It also provides for the adaptation of such functions by requiring UK Ministers to consult with, or obtain the agreement of, the Scottish Ministers before they exercise statutory functions.

The Government have made available to hon. Members copies of a working draft of a clause 59 order, which I shall refer to as the "Executive devolution order". That draft order lists over 300 functions in relation to reserved matters, which will be exercisable in or as regards Scotland by the Scottish Ministers, or in relation to which Scottish Ministers will be consulted before the UK Minister exercises the function.

The draft order covers functions to be transferred in a wide range of areas, including betting, gaming and lotteries, firearms licensing, extradition, lord lieutenants, the Government indemnity scheme and the acceptance of property in lieu of tax, the funding of Gaelic television and radio, tribunals, electricity supply, environmental impact assessments, civil nuclear installations, roads, railways, airports, public sector pension schemes, abortion clinics and medicines legislation. It covers a wide sweep of Executive responsibility. It also provides for Scottish Ministers to be consulted over the appointment of the Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission. It delivers the Government's commitments on Executive devolution made in the White Paper.

Amendment No. 279 seeks to ensure that Scottish Ministers cannot exercise any function or power outside Scotland. It is inappropriate because it would prevent Scottish Ministers from exercising some functions that are essential for the discharge of their responsibilities in relation to Scotland.

The functions transferred to Scottish Ministers by virtue of clauses 49 and 59 will be exercisable not just in Scotland but as regards Scotland. There will certainly be circumstances where functions exercisable as regards Scotland need to be exercised outside Scotland, including in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For example, Scottish Ministers will need to exercise certain functions in relation to some public bodies based in England that have functions in Scotland, such as the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

Furthermore, Scottish Ministers will, on occasion, in exercising a devolved function, require to meet Ministers of the UK Government, for example in considering the formulation of policy, particularly where there are potential advantages in maintaining a degree of consistency in policy both north and south of the border. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made a passing reference to that. At a practical level, Scottish Ministers will need to have the authority to pay the property and staffing costs of any representative office in London.

Although the Scottish Parliament will only be able to make laws that form part of the law of Scotland, it should, and will, be able to confer functions on Scottish Ministers which are exercisable outwith Scotland. That reflects the fact that there will be circumstances where Scottish Ministers will need to exercise functions outside Scotland to secure the effective implementation of policy on devolved matters north of the border.

For example, it should be open to the Scottish Parliament to confer functions on Scottish Ministers of promoting a devolved matter such as Scottish sport outside Scotland. If Glasgow℄or Glenrothes in my constituency℄wants to launch a bid to host the Olympic games, Scottish Ministers should be able to do their bit in promoting that bid abroad. The amendment would prevent them from doing that. That may sound trite, but I am trying to emphasise the fact that the amendment could result in functions and activities being stifled.

The amendment would deprive the Scottish Ministers of any powers to exercise functions outside Scotland, even if they clearly related to devolved matters in Scotland and formed part of Scots law. It is therefore quite inappropriate. For those reasons, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment No. 279.

Amendment No. 280 would provide that a dispute between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Ministers arising from the exercise of powers that the Minister of the Crown is permitted to exercise under clause 52 should be dealt with as a devolution issue under the provisions of schedule 6. I shall explain why I do not think that such a provision is necessary, or would be an appropriate use of the procedures in schedule 6.

Clause 52 provides for a limited number of exceptions to the general rule that functions transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of clause 49 will cease to be exercisable by Ministers of the Crown in or as regards Scotland. In a number of cases, it makes sense for Ministers of the Crown to be able to continue to exercise certain powers as well as the Scottish Ministers. Almost all the powers concerned involve the provision of grants or loans from the departmental resources of the Ministers of the Crown, for transport infrastructure, certain scientific research, grants and loans to industry and road safety measures. Clause 52 also enables UK Ministers to continue the levy scheme used to promote the export of wool textiles.

Scotland will continue to benefit from the United Kingdom Government's legitimate continuing interest in supporting such activities in Scotland. Given the nature of the powers concerned, there is very little likelihood of any significant dispute about how they are exercised. Our view is that any necessary co-ordination on these matters between the Scottish Executive and the relevant Department in Whitehall should be carried out on a non-statutory basis, and any dispute should be resolved in the same way. That is in line with the Government's approach to co-ordination between the Scottish Executive and Whitehall generally.

I believe that any amendment to impose a statutory procedure for dispute resolution would be unnecessary and inconsistent with our general approach to the future management of the relationship between the Scottish Executive and United Kingdom Departments.

Mr. Heald

If there is a dispute about the prime responsibility for one of those issues, and if agreement cannot be reached, how is it to be resolved?

Mr. McLeish

That is another timely intervention. Schedule 6 deals with devolution issues that are confined to judicial issues, and are intended to police the boundaries of the devolution settlement. Obviously, if a dispute arising from the exercise of functions referred to in clause 52 raised such questions, they could be dealt with as devolution issues as the Bill is currently drafted. For example, any question whether a Minister of the Crown had gone beyond what is authorised by clause 52 and was therefore purporting to exercise a function that was a devolved matter would fall within the definition of a devolution issue under schedule 6(1)(f).

However, in the unlikely event of other disputes arising out of the exercise of the shared powers under clause 52, they would fall to be resolved under the non-statutory arrangements that I have described, because they would be of a policy rather than a judicial nature. There is an important distinction between matters that relate to devolution issues and justiciable factors concerning the boundaries of the settlement, and matters that clearly relate to policy.

Amendment No. 305 is purely consequential on amendment No. 280, as it simply tidies up the numbering of the subsections in clause 52.

Amendments Nos. 280 and 305 are unnecessary and inappropriate, and I invite the Committee to reject them.

I can be more positive about amendment No. 286, and the consequential amendment No. 307, which raise a valid point that I accept in principle. Amendment No. 286 seeks to ensure that subordinate legislation under clause 59 is subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The Bill currently provides that subordinate legislation under clause 59 can be made by Her Majesty by Order in Council or by a Minister of the Crown by order. Under the Bill, subordinate legislation is subject to the negative resolution procedure in both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament, although it could be subject to affirmative procedure if the person making it were so to choose.

Given the importance of Executive devolution orders, I agree that it would be more appropriate for subordinate legislation under clause 59 to be made only by Her Majesty by Order in Council, and for it to be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which is the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes and his Front-Bench colleagues. Subordinate legislation must also be subject to an affirmative resolution of the Scottish Parliament: there can be no question of imposing functions on the Scottish Executive without the equal agreement of the Scottish Parliament.

An Order in Council, affirmative resolutions of both Houses and an affirmative resolution of Holyrood would require consensus and agreement, so I hope that that will allay the fears of Opposition Members about conflicts that may arise. Government amendments Nos. 306, 308, 323, 324 and 329 to 331 make the changes necessary to achieve that, and are all related to this key principle.

8.15 pm

Unfortunately, I cannot take such a sympathetic view of amendment No. 287, and I ask the Committee to resist it. It strikes at the heart of clause 59, and of our proposals for Executive devolution. It would remove the provision that allows statutory functions of UK Ministers of the Crown to be exercisable in or as regards Scotland by the Scottish Ministers instead of by the UK Minister. Although it would leave the possibility for functions to be exercisable concurrently by Scottish Ministers and by UK Ministers, it would not allow a straightforward transfer of functions from the UK Minister to the Scottish Ministers.

I referred earlier to the three tiers of the arrangement. It is eminently sensible for the affirmative resolution procedure to take place and for the transferred functions to be wholly exercised by Ministers of the Scottish Parliament. The amendment is unacceptable, because it would result in an unnecessary and unworkable duplication of powers in relation to Scotland. Clause 59 already provides for functions to be exercised concurrently if the UK Government and the Scottish Executive agree that that is the right approach.

An order under clause 59 cannot be made without agreement. We fully recognise that concurrent exercise of functions will be the right approach when it is necessary to ensure compliance with European obligations. However, that can be provided for in the order itself: there is no need for the legislation to require that such functions can be transferred only on a concurrent basis.

Amendment No. 288 is unacceptable because it seeks to provide a mechanism for functions exercised by the Scottish Ministers in relation to devolved matters to be exercisable in or as regards Scotland by UK Ministers. That would be quite contrary to the scheme of devolution set out in the Bill. The right hon. Member's objective may be to probe us on whether functions that have been made exercisable in or as regards Scotland by the Scottish Ministers by an order under clause 59 should be capable of being transferred back to a UK Minister.

I am willing to consider whether any additional provision is needed to deal with that scenario, and what the nature of any such provisions should be. In any event, any re-transfer should be subject to the agreement of both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. In view of that, I should be grateful if the right hon. Member would not press amendment No. 288.

Amendment No. 310 would remove the requirement for Treasury consent to the designation of an enterprise zone by the Scottish Ministers. We consider that that would be wrong, because of the tax privileges conferred by enterprise zone status.

Clause 51 removes requirements for UK Ministers to agree to, or be consulted about, the exercise of functions by the Scottish Ministers by virtue of clause 49. It would clearly be inappropriate for such controls to be maintained over functions that relate to devolved matters. I hope that hon. Members will agree that amendment No. 310 is inappropriate.

Government amendment No. 322 amends clause 52, which enables the UK Government to continue to share certain powers in relation to devolved matters. It makes two amendments to the reference to the Industrial Development Act 1982. It removes a reference to section 14, which does not apply in Scotland. It also deletes the reference to section 10, which concerns the Industrial Development Advisory Board. That body is responsible for advising the President of the Board of Trade about certain powers to provide financial assistance to industry.

We propose that the board should be reserved, as there is already a parallel Scottish body, the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board, which was established under quite different legislation. SIDAB rather than IDAB should be the appropriate source of advice for the Scottish Ministers. The effect of reserving IDAB is that ministerial powers in respect of the board set up under section 10 of the 1982 Act will remain with the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Ancram


Mr. McLeish

One of those bodies advises the Secretary of State for Scotland on industrial development. It examines applications for regional selective assistance from indigenous companies and inward investment where the amount of grant likely to be offered is more than £250,000. An identical organisation services the President of the Board of Trade down south.

Mr. Dalyell

The argument is difficult to follow, although I am not making a criticism. Have the Scottish Office and the Minister satisfied the Law Society℄they may well have℄that the reasons for the joint-exercise provision need to be made clear?

Mr. McLeish

I hope that the Law Society will be satisfied. My hon. Friend has asked for clarification; we are trying to clarify something that is not clear in the Bill as it stands, and I think that, in relation to the two organisations, it makes sense for us to proceed on the basis that I have outlined.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan

The fact that the Industrial Development Advisory Board is included in the list of bodies with reserved powers suggests to me that the board will still have some functions with regard to Scotland, which will remain reserved.

Mr. McLeish

Let me allay the hon. Gentleman's fears. Ours is a genuine tidying-up operation in relation to two organisations, one servicing the President of the Board of Trade and the other servicing℄currently℄the Secretary of State, but in future the First Minister of the Scottish Executive. We are simply saying that the position should be made clear in schedule 5. Nothing is being lost. We have a powerful advisory body, which will continue. It is replicated in the south, in relation to the President of the Board of Trade.

The effect of reserving the IDAB is that the ministerial powers in respect of the board that were set up under section 10 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 will remain with the United Kingdom Government. There is no need for them to be shared, and the reference in clause 52 should therefore be deleted.

Clause 52 provides for a limited number of exceptions to the general rule that functions transferred to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of clause 49 will cease to be exercisable by Ministers of the Crown in or as regards Scotland. In a number of cases, it makes sense for Ministers of the Crown to be able to continue to exercise certain powers alongside the Scottish Ministers.

Nearly all the powers concerned involve the provision of grants or loans from the departmental resources of the Ministers concerned, for matters such as transport infrastructure℄to which I referred earlier℄scientific research, industry and road safety measures. The clause also allows United Kingdom Ministers to continue to impose the various levies that we have described. In all those matters, the United Kingdom Government have a legitimate continuing interest in supporting activities throughout the UK, from which Scotland should continue to benefit.

Amendment No. 332 would add the Industrial Development Advisory Board to schedule 5, which deals with reserved matters. It is a technical amendment, designed simply to help to ensure that the board's role in advising the President of the Board of Trade remains entirely a matter for the UK Government and the UK Parliament. The board is established under the Industrial Development Act 1982, under which it advises the President of the Board of Trade on the exercise of certain powers under that Act to give financial assistance to industry.

As the Bill is currently drafted, the board would fall within the devolved classification involving financial assistance for industry. It would therefore be treated as a cross-border public body, and would share certain functions with the separate Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board. We consider that it would make more sense for the UK body's activities to remain a matter for the UK Parliament, for functions relating to it to be a matter for the UK Government and for the Scottish body℄which will be fully devolved℄to advise Scottish Ministers. Amendments Nos. 322 and 332 will enable that to happen.

Mr. Heald


Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Is it in order for us to discuss clause 53 stand part?

The Second Deputy Chairman

When we reach it.

Mr. Heald

I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but℄certainly in respect of amendment No. 279℄he did not really deal with the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). They asked how it was right for there to be cross-border public bodies and powers that, as a result of subordinate legislation, might be exercised by Scottish Ministers in respect of England℄or, indeed, Wales or Northern Ireland℄when there would be no accountability to this Parliament.

The Minister said that some functions relating solely to Scotland might be required to be exercised in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. In a spirit of conciliation, let me offer him the chance to give me the assurance that Scottish Ministers shall not be permitted to exercise any function other than as regards Scotland, or enjoy any power in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

We seek that for reasons of accountability. The Minister will understand our point if he looks at clauses 83 and 84. Indeed, he described the workings of those clauses rather well himself. If Scottish Ministers are indeed to deal with certain functions in respect of England, perhaps the Minister will justify that. Perhaps, in relation to amendment No. 279, he will also consider the issue of fishing in the border area℄in rivers such as the Tweed and the Esk, and in sea waters off the coasts of Scotland and England. Is he really saying that such matters could be dealt with solely by Scottish Ministers?

Mr. Grieve

I was interested in clause 99, which has a bearing on the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. One reading of the clause is that, unless Scottish Ministers are appointed to the Privy Council, they will have no say in the operation of the fisheries on the Esk or the Tweed.

Mr. Heald

Clause 99 states: Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for regulating fishing for salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish in the River Tweed and the River Esk. No doubt that is due to a proper concern that fishermen on the English side of the Tweed and at the English end of the Esk might wish to fish on Sunday, and might not be able to do so if fishing were regulated solely by Scots law. That is not the only issue of its kind, however. A range of cross-border issues may arise, not just in relation to rivers but in relation to sea water. I ask the Minister for an assurance in the few moments that remain.

We welcome what the Minister said about the amendments on which he accepts our arguments, but we continue to press him on the others. We ask him if he cannot find some way of meeting the case that the Opposition have made. He has gone a certain way towards that, but he has not gone far enough, and we will divide the Committee unless we are satisfied with the assurances that he gives us now.

Mr. Dalyell

As the guillotine is coming down and this is our only opportunity, may I ask about the difficulties that might arise between the two Parliaments? Let us suppose that a future EC directive addressed matters that fell within the competence of a Scottish Parliament. That directive might be implemented by an Act of that Scottish Parliament, or an Act of a Scottish Executive, or a United Kingdom Minister under section 2℄

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss clauses that we have not yet reached. I call the Minister.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Let me just register the fact that this is a travesty of parliamentary scrutiny.

The Second Deputy Chairman

The Committee is discussing the Bill under the programme that has been agreed.

Mr. McLeish

I am not sure that I can give the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) much more reassurance, but let me say something about amendment No.279.

I think that there is an impression that, once the Parliament is there, we will organise ourselves into marauding groups that will want to nip down to Liverpool℄to cross the border, do a bit of pillaging, do a bit of legislating and return to the Parliament. That may figure prominently in some of the fantasies of Opposition Members, but the reality will be slightly different.

In every instance, we have said that this will be about agreement and consensus. If we are transferring functions in the three-tier framework that I have described, it will all be about agreement in both Houses. It will be about affirmative resolutions. It will be about seeking agreement and, of course, about accountability. Any decision by both Houses in Westminster to transfer functions to the Scottish Executive will be made on the basis of agreement in this House, and all hon. Members will participate in that. I therefore argue that agreement can be reached.

There will be good will, but we have built in affirmative resolution procedures. There is an Order in Council to deal with the matter. Things have to be done by agreement. That is the important consideration behind much of the Bill.

Mr. Heald

The Minister has moved but, sadly, not enough.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 364.

Division No. 161] [8.29 pm
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Amess, David Horam, John
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James Hunter, Andrew
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Jenkin, Bernard
Baldry, Tony Johnson Smith,
Beggs, Roy Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Beresford, Sir Paul Key, Robert
Blunt, Crispin Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Body, Sir Richard Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Brady, Graham Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brazier, Julian Lansley, Andrew
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Leigh, Edward
Browning, Mrs Angela Letwin, Oliver
Burns, Simon Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Butterfill, John Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Cash, William Loughton, Tim
Chapman, Sir Sydney Luff, Peter
(Chipping Barnet) Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Chope, Christopher McIntosh, Miss Anne
Clappison, James MacKay, Andrew
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington) Maclean, Rt Hon David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh) Madel, Sir David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth Maples, John
(Rushcliffe) Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Collins, Tim Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Colvin, Michael May, Mrs Theresa
Cormack, Sir Patrick Moss, Malcolm
Cran, James Nicholls, Patrick
Curry, Rt Hon David Norman, Archie
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Ottaway, Richard
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Page, Richard
Duncan, Alan Paice, James
Duncan Smith, Iain Paisley, Rev Ian
Evans, Nigel Paterson, Owen
Faber, David Prior, David
Fabricant, Michael Randall, John
Fallon, Michael Redwood, Rt Hon John
Flight, Howard Robathan, Andrew
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Fox, Dr Liam Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Fraser, Christopher Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Gale, Roger Ruffley, David
Garnier, Edward St Aubyn, Nick
Gibb, Nick Sayeed, Jonathan
Gill, Christopher Shepherd, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair Soames, Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Gray, James Spring, Richard
Green, Damian Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Greenway, John Streeter, Gary
Grieve, Dominic Swayne, Desmond
Gummer, Rt Hon John Syms, Robert
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hammond, Philip Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hawkins, Nick Thompson, William
Hayes, John Townend, John
Tredinnick, David Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Trend, Michael Willetts, David
Tyrie, Andrew Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Viggers, Peter Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Walter, Robert Woodward, Shaun
Yeo, Tim
Wardle, Charles Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Waterson, Nigel
Wells, Bowen Tellers for the Ayes:
Whitney, Sir Raymond Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Stephen Day.
Whittingdale, John
Abbott, Ms Diane Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ainger, Nick Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Clelland, David
Allan, Richard Clwyd, Ann
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Coaker, Vernon
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Coffey, Ms Ann
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Cohen, Harry
Ashton, Joe Coleman, Iain
Atkins, Charlotte Colman, Tony
Austin, John Connarty, Michael
Baker, Norman Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Barnes, Harry Cooper, Yvette
Barron, Kevin Corbyn, Jeremy
Battle, John Corston, Ms Jean
Bayley, Hugh Cotter, Brian
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Crausby, David
Begg, Miss Anne Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Beith, Rt Hon A J Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Cummings, John
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Bennett, Andrew F (Perth)
Benton, Joe Dalyell, Tam
Bermingharn, Gerald Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Berry, Roger Darvill, Keith
Best, Harold Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Betts, Clive Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Blears, Ms Hazel Davidson, Ian
Blizzard, Bob Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Boateng, Paul Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Borrow, David Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Bradshaw, Ben Dawson, Hilton
Brake, Tom Dean, Mrs Janet
Brand, Dr Peter Denham, John
Breed, Colin Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Brinton, Mrs Helen Dismore, Andrew
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) Dobbin, Jim
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Donohoe, Brian H
Buck, Ms Karen Doran, Frank
Burden, Richard Dowd, Jim
Burgon, Colin Drew, David
Burnett, John Drown, Ms Julia
Burstow, Paul Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Butler, Mrs Christine Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Byers, Stephen Edwards, Huw
Caborn, Richard Efford, Clive
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Ellman, Mrs Louise
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Ennis, Jeff
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) Etherington, Bill
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Campbell-Savours, Dale Fearn, Ronnie
Canavan, Dennis Field, Rt Hon Frank
Casale, Roger Fitzpatrick, Jim
Caton, Martin Fitzsimons, Lorna
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Flynn, Paul
Chaytor, David Follett, Barbara
Chidgey, David Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Chisholm, Malcolm Foster, Don (Bath)
Clapham, Michael Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Clark, Dr Lynda Galbraith, Sam
(Edinburgh Pentlands) Galloway, George
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry Laxton, Bob
George, Andrew (St Ives) Lepper, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S) Leslie, Christopher
Gerrard, Neil Levitt, Tom
Gibson, Dr Ian Linton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger Livingstone, Ken
Goggins, Paul Livsey, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin Llwyd, Elfyn
Gordon, Mrs Eileen Lock, David
Gorrie, Donald Love, Andrew
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) McAllion, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) McAvoy, Thomas
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) McCabe, Steve
Grocott, Bruce McCafferty, Ms Chris
Grogan, John McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Gunnell, John McDonagh, Siobhain
Hain, Peter Macdonald, Calum
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) McFall, John
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) McGuire, Mrs Anne
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) McIsaac, Shona
Hanson, David McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet Mackinlay, Andrew
Harris, Dr Evan McLeish, Henry
Harvey, Nick Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Heal, Mrs Sylvia McNamara, Kevin
Healey, John McNulty, Tony
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) MacShane, Denis
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) Mactaggart, Fiona
Hepburn, Stephen McWilliam, John
Heppell, John Mahon, Mrs Alice
Hesford, Stephen Mallaber, Judy
Hill, Keith Mandelson, Peter
Hinchliffe, David Marek, Dr John
Hoey, Kate Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Home Robertson, John Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hoon, Geoffrey Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hope, Phil Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hopkins, Kelvin Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Howarth, Alan (Newport E) Martlew, Eric
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Howells, Dr Kim Meale, Alan
Hoyle, Lindsay Michael, Alun
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Hurst, Alan Milburn, Alan
Hutton, John Miller, Andrew
Iddon, Dr Brian Mitchell, Austin
Ingram, Adam Moffatt, Laura
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) Moore, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) Moran, Ms Margaret
Jamieson, David Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Jenkins, Brian Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
(Welwyn Hatfield) Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Mudie, George
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Jones, Ms Jenny Naysmith, Dr Doug
(Wolverh'ton SW) Norris, Dan
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) Oaten, Mark
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) O'Hara, Eddie
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Olner, Bill
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Öpik, Lembit
Keeble, Ms Sally Organ, Mrs Diana
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) Osborne, Ms Sandra
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) Palmer, Dr Nick
Kelly, Ms Ruth Pearson, Ian
Kemp, Fraser Pendry, Tom
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) Pickthall, Colin
Kilfoyle, Peter Pike, Peter L
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) Plaskitt, James
Kingham, Ms Tess Pollard, Kerry
Kirkwood, Archy Pond, Chris
Kumar, Dr Ashok Pound, Stephen
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Powell, Sir Raymond
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Stuart, Ms Gisela
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Sutcliffe, Gerry
Prescott, Rt Hon John Swinney, John
Primarolo, Dawn Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Prosser, Gwyn (Dewsbury)
Purchase, Ken Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Quin, Ms Joyce Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Rammell, Bill Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Rapson, Syd Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Rendel, David Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Robertson, Rt Hon George Timms, Stephen
(Hamilton S) Tipping, Paddy
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) Todd, Mark
Rooker, Jeff Tonge, Dr Jenny
Rooney, Terry Touhig, Don
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Trickett, Jon
Rowlands, Ted Truswell, Paul
Roy, Frank Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Ruane, Chris Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Russell, Bob (Colchester) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Ryan, Ms Joan Tyler, Paul
Salmond, Alex Vaz, Keith
Salter, Martin Wallace, James
Sanders, Adrian Walley, Ms Joan
Savidge, Malcolm Wareing, Robert N
Sawford, Phil Watts, David
Sheerman, Barry Webb, Steve
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Welsh, Andrew
Short, Rt Hon Clare White, Brian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) Whitehead, Dr Alan
Skinner, Dennis Wicks, Malcolm
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon) (Swansea W)
Smith, Miss Geraldine Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale) Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) 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 Wood, Mike
Southworth, Ms Helen Woolas, Phil
Squire, Ms Rachel Wray, James
Steinberg, Gerry Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stevenson, George Wyatt, Derek
Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Stinchcombe, Paul Tellers for the Noes:
Straw, Rt Hon Jack Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Greg Pope.
Stringer, Graham

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [9 February] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 49 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to