- '.—(1) Any concordat relating to—
- (a) the procedures to be followed when issues relating to devolved matters are to be discussed at meetings of the Council of Ministers or made the subject of discussions with or representations to the European Commission, or
- (b) the implementation of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4 of this Act and any other financial dealings between the Treasury and Ministers of the Crown and the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive
- (i) approved by the Parliament;
- (ii) approved by a resolution passed by the House of Commons;
- (iii) signed by a member of the Scottish Executive, and
- (iv) signed by a Minister of the Crown.
- (2) In this section "concordat" means any agreement between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Executive regarding the consultation arrangements and common United Kingdom guidelines in respect of:—
- (a) any reserved matter under Schedule 5,
- (b) any devolved matter under section 29(4),
- (c) any transfer of ministerial functions under section 49,
- (d) any functions exercisable by agreement under section 51,
- (e) any shared power under section 52,
- (f) any cross—border public body under sections 83, 84 and 85, and
- (g) any agency arrangements under section 87.'. —[Mr. Ancram.]
§ Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is not the first time we have addressed this issue. We had a lengthy general debate on concordats on 31 March, and I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments made then. The new clause—which I hope to introduce briefly—has been tabled in all seriousness, in an attempt to meet some of the points made during that debate.
As the House knows, my concern about concordats is that they are designed, either intentionally or unintentionally, to avoid the legislative process. Like executive agreements in America, they are designed to avoid scrutiny; the scrutiny of this House. It is evident from the paper on concordats—which the Government most helpfully put in the Library—that they will not come before this House. They will be made public; there is no question of their being confidential unless there are reasons for confidentiality. However, they are informal agreements which will not be legally enforceable, and they will not be subject to the scrutiny of this House or of the Scottish Parliament. I mention the Scottish Parliament because, when I made the point during the last debate—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) is standing and holding a conversation. He and others must listen to the debate.
§ Mr. Ancram
I realise that I do not come from the middle east, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) will listen to the case that I am making.
I was accused of skewing the earlier debate on concordats when I said that concordats should come before this House and this Parliament. I was asked why they should not come before the Scottish Parliament. That was a valid point.
It was also said that many of the concordats would relate to relatively unimportant issues, such as organisational matters concerning the relationships between Departments. However, the concordats will be of great importance in a number of areas, most obviously in the representation of Scotland at the Council of Ministers—indeed, although we are debating concordats in relation to the Scotland Bill, the same case could be made in relation to the devolution proposals for Wales.
188 When we debated the White Paper assurance that Ministers from the Scottish Executive could represent the interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom in the Council of Ministers, we were told that that would be organised by concordat—it did not need to be specified in the Bill. Indeed, I was given to understand that some of the concordats were being drafted—although obviously they cannot become effective until the Scottish Parliament and Executive are established. I questioned the wisdom of leaving a matter as crucial as Scotland's voice in Europe to informal arrangements, especially as the concordats will not be legally enforceable and as, according to the paper that was placed in the Library, they will usually be signed by officials.
On Europe, and on resource and taxation matters covered by parts III and IV, agreements that are reached by what in law we might call back-letters but what in the Bill are called concordats—they are not specified, but are in the background—should be scrutinised by both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments. Both Parliaments will have a strong interest in such matters, so I see no reason why they should not be able to scrutinise and approve the concordats—unless, that is, the UK and Scottish Administrations do not want them to be able to do so.
I make no major point about this, but I have been concerned throughout our deliberations at the fact that many of the agreements will be signed by officials, not by Ministers. The affairs of the past few days have suggested that it is always better for Ministers to be aware of what their officials are discussing and agreeing. It is important that Ministers are involved in issues of such grave importance as the resourcing of Scotland after devolution, and Scotland's voice at the Council of Ministers.
The new clause would ensure that any concordats relating to devolved matters that are raised at the Council of Ministers—or to matters that are raised under parts III of IV of the Bill—would not come into effect until the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons had approved them, and that they would have to be signed by a member of the Scottish Executive and a Minister of the Crown. I tabled the proposal with some anticipation and optimism. When I moved an equivalent but much more broadly based amendment, the Liberal Democrats made it clear that they would have found it acceptable—in relation to Wales, at least—if I had also specified the Welsh assembly, and I think that I was told the same in relation to the Scottish Parliament. I have genuinely tried to make the new clause constructive and important.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
The right hon. Gentleman may be about to clarify this, but I want to ensure that I fully understand what he is saying. The list of consultation arrangements that could be defined as concordats under subsection (2) seems to cover more than matters discussed at the Council of Ministers or Treasury and tax-varying powers. Would the new clause apply to all concordats, or only to those relating to the Council of Ministers and taxation?
§ Mr. Ancram
The latter. Subsection (2) simply defines what the concordats would need to contain to trigger the 189 provision. The same interest would not apply for issues raised before the Council of Ministers that did not relate to devolved matters. I have tried to ensure that the new clause would actively work in the interests not only of Scotland but of the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons. It would ensure that no major decisions were taken without being scrutinised by those who were elected to scrutinise them.
§ Mr. Dalyell
Given the scarcity of time, may I put my contribution in the form of five questions? First, how will the concordats be enforced? Secondly, will they be justiciable in courts? Thirdly, how will they be litigated on—indeed, will it be possible to litigate on them? Fourthly, how will concordats on matters such as investment problems, which are only too real—these questions are not hypothetical—be sorted out? Fifthly, will not the whole process depend on amiability and amicability? One would like to assume that there will be amiability and amicability, but, alas, that is not always the case. Finally, I should like—before you bong me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to express regret that new clause 4, which deals with expenditure on reserved matters, was not discussed.
§ Mr. John Swinney (North Tayside)
I find myself in the altogether surprising position of having some sympathy with the new clause—no doubt the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will be equally surprised. Throughout consideration of the Bill, Scottish National party Members have expressed unease about concordats. In being asked to endorse the Bill, we are being asked to take at face value other documents—no one seems to be sure of their status—but are being offered no process through which to scrutinise them. I have seen drafts of concordats on inward investment and on agriculture and fisheries matters—such concordats are being developed in the corridors of power.
Following our previous discussions about concordats, I tabled a number of parliamentary questions to various Departments. I discovered that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry have all discussed the need for concordats on matters that they would deal with in relation to Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. We have seen what purport to be draft copies of the concordats on inward investment and on agriculture, but what status will documents from any of the other Departments have?
The memo on the agriculture concordat states:From the MAFF perspective, the concordat is a chance to emphasise their lead UK role and to keep tabs on action by the Scottish Executive. From our perspective"—that is, the perspective of the Scottish Office—it is a chance to keep open the access to the European policy process and to decisions which have to be made at UK level while limiting MAFF interference in Scottish Executive business.That memo, from a civil servant to a Minister, strikes at the nub of the question of how influential the Scottish Parliament will be in European deliberations. How far will Scottish Parliament lobbying and intervention on 190 agriculture—which is fundamental to my constituency—be compromised by the constraints applied by the concordats?
We are being asked to approve certain arrangements in relation to Scottish representation in Europe that I do not find especially satisfactory and against which my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has argued, and now some doubts are being introduced about those arrangements and the nature of the concordats.
§ Mr. Ancram
The hon. Gentleman was talking about the constraints of the concordats. What worries me about the concordats is that there are no constraints, in that they are not enforceable. Important rights between the Parliaments could be agreed by a concordat that turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on. That is why I want them to come before the House and the Scottish Parliament for approval.
§ Mr. Swinney
I may say something of more comfort to the right hon. Gentleman later on about the status of the documents and the process of enforceability.
I seek specific assurances on when the concordats are to come into force and what their status will be. A memo to Ministers from a Scottish Office civil servant on the timing of implementation says:it is clear that concordats will not come fully into operation until the devolved administration is up and running. However, we"—presumably, the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—see considerable advantage in getting the groundwork established well before then and, indeed, operating a period of shadow-running … We are therefore aiming with MAFF to get the concordat in more or less final form in order to allow a decent period of shadow-running.I find that rather bewildering. Here we are, 12 months before the elections to the Scottish Parliament—we have absolutely no idea who will form its Administration—and issues about the development of the concordat are running apace.
The memo contradicts parliamentary answers that I have received, which I find disturbing. The Secretary of State for Defence replied to a written answer:In most cases, these discussions are in their early stages in the light of the fact that such agreements cannot be finalised until the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are established. Parliament will be kept informed of progress on these matters."— [Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 245–46.]A civil servant argues that we can have shadow running with an imaginary Administration, because there is so much doubt about who will be in the driving seat, but Ministers say that the concordats will have no status until the Scottish Executive has signed up to them.
Can we be confident that the powers to be granted to the Scottish Parliament and Executive will in no way be eroded by a Whitehall fix that gets the concordats in place at an early stage? Will there be shadow running, or can we have a guarantee that the development of the concordats will be left until the Scottish Parliament and Executive are up and running? I cannot imagine a Scottish Executive wanting to find that the boys from Whitehall have stitched up most of the details and left it with a fait accompli. That would be an appalling start to the Scottish Parliament's work. Some clarification is essential.
191 New clause 12 gives us some structure for the scrutiny of the concordats and would oblige both parties—the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons—to sign up to any concordat. We accept that there must be partnership consent, but it is absolutely unacceptable that, before the Scottish Executive is fully operational and able to make recommendations, it should be presented with a fait accompli.
§ Mr. Wallace
Some form of concordat is undoubtedly necessary to ensure that there is smooth running and a good working relationship between Whitehall and the Scottish Parliament. The new clause highlights ways in which some aspects of the concordats could be more thoroughly rooted, rather than being mere gentlemen's and gentleladies' agreements.
The new clause picks up on amendments tabled in Committee that did not find favour with the Government. The House will recall that we tabled amendments that would have formalised what the block grant should be, and anything that gives us a chance to debate the financial arrangements is probably better than the vagueness in the Bill.
We were disappointed that the Government did not accept an amendment that would have given the Scottish Parliament rights to representation at discussions in the various European institutions and left the matter on the basis of good will. In so far as the new clause is designed to formalise such an arrangement, it is to be welcomed. Will the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) confirm that the new clause refers to general procedures and would not require the House and the Scottish Parliament to rush through a debate to give a stamp of approval every time there was to be a delegation to the Council of Ministers?
§ Mr. Ancram
The new clause refers toAny concordat relating to … the procedures to be followed when issues relating to devolved matters are raised at the Council of Ministersas well as concordats relating tothe implementation of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4".That covers the economic provisions, and it is not so much procedure as implementation that is important.
§ Mr. Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman confirms that the procedures would not impose a cumbersome duty, and that is welcome.
§ Dr. Godman
The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) warned against Members of the Scottish Parliament being stitched up by Whitehall, but is not there a danger of their being stitched up by Westminster? Surely it would be better for concordats to be agreed by representatives of the Government and of the Scottish Parliament.
§ Mr. Wallace
It is intended that both institutions should have an opportunity—Whitehall through the House, and the Scottish Executive through the Scottish Parliament—to give consent. I take some comfort from the guidance note that states: 192Concordats cannot come into operation until the devolved administrations are operational. Drafts of concordats cannot be put forward for signature until after the Elections in 1999; and agreements reached now cannot be imposed on the devolved administrations.That is an important point of principle, subject to the one caveat that, as we all know, he or she who pens the first draft usually manages to influence the way in which matters develop.
It will be incumbent on the Scottish Executive, whatever its complexion, to be strong-minded and examine all the concordats critically. I am sure that the vast majority will be acceptable, but I hope that the Executive and, ultimately, the Parliament, will have the will to insist on changes if it is felt that the best interests of Scotland are being compromised through an agreement that has already been struck.
§ Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)
I am delighted to find myself agreeing, on this occasion, with the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney).
We have had much discussion about concordats during our debates on the Bill. Let me pick up what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am sure that the Minister will accept that concordats came into being to regulate disputes and areas of possible conflict between Departments subject to single Cabinet responsibility. Officials could reach agreements, and the Ministers in charge of them could either carry the can, or smooth out disagreements at the appropriate level.
That has not always worked. I remember being involved in a case in which it was clear that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and its Scottish Office equivalent were at loggerheads. A Scottish trawler man was prosecuted in Grimsby, and it was advanced in his defence that he had been told that something authorised by the Department in Scotland had not been authorised by London. He was given an absolute discharge, having, as I recollect, proved his case. In that instance, a concordat had not operated successfully.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that concordats will be applied to a completely new situation and set of rules. We are, however, in an extraordinary position. The Government have introduced legislation which, on the one hand, emphasises such things as the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament in the areas devolved to it, and, on the other hand, when it comes down to the nitty gritty of concordats, appears blithely to assume that everything will go on as before. It is clear that it cannot.
The hon. Member for North Tayside was right to say that, when the Scottish Parliament is up and running, nothing could be better calculated to sour the relationship between it and this Parliament—which we, as Conservatives, want to operate as smoothly as possible—than concordats that appear to be behind-the-door stitch-ups by a common civil service. I have grave doubts about whether the common civil service can survive the passage of the Bill, but the underlying assumption about the operation of the concordats is that it will.
I welcome new clause 12, and hope that the Government will consider it seriously. Here, for once, is a point on which all Opposition parties appear to be united. There is considerable merit and force in the new clause. Unless the operation of the agreements is seen to be transparent—and that can happen only if they are 193 brought before the Scottish Parliament and the House for approval—there will be a fertile area for conspiracy theorists. I must say that, in some contexts, I am beginning to think that the conspiracy theorists may have a point.
The Achilles' heel of the Government's proposals is the idea—which may have been born of the notion that the same party would be in power in both Edinburgh and Westminster—that day-to-day government could be smoothly conducted through back-door agreements. That simply will not be possible, and we shall therefore have to live with the consequences of devolution. Agreements must be transparent, negotiated and argued about, and the best way in which to do that is to submit them for approval by both Houses.
I welcome the new clause, and commend it to the House. I believe that it will have to be considerably widened, as there is no room for concordats in a framework of devolved government—all decisions will have to be made and approved by both Houses—but, leaving that to one side, the new clause is a step in the right direction, and is the only step that we can take, given that our previous criticisms have been rejected.
§ Mr. McLeish
The proposals for the concordats appeared at paragraph 4.13 of the White Paper. We are talking about a good communications system between the Scottish Executive and its Departments and the United Kingdom Government. We want mutual understanding, and an appropriate exchange of information. We want advance notification, and joint working. That is simply about agreements. There is nothing sensational about having an agreement between the Parliaments on serious issues. Against that background—unfortunately, given the spirit in which the new clause was tabled—we must reject new clause 12.
The new clause develops the theme introduced in Committee by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who wanted all concordats to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and to be logged in a public register. Now he wants certain concordats—relating to Europe and finance—to be approved by the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons. I can see that that represents a more balanced approach, but we cannot agree to the new clause.
As I explained in Committee, the purpose of the proposed concordats is not to cover matters that should more properly be dealt with by legislation. There is no hidden agenda. We have published guidance for Departments explaining what concordats are intended to achieve, which is the promotion of effective communications, and joint working between the Scottish Executive and UK Departments. Among other things, the guidance makes it clear that the proposed concordats cannot come into force—and this touches on the point made by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney)—until the Scottish Executive has been established, and is in a position to agree to them.
It is right that work on drafting such agreements should begin during the run-up to devolution, but there is no question of the Scottish Executive's being presented with a fait accompli. Guidance also makes it clear that the concordats are not intended to be legally binding, or to 194 create legal duties or liabilities for either party. I can give a categorical assurance that there will be no Whitehall fix. The concordats will not come into operation until the Scottish Executive and, of course, the UK Government have approved them.
§ Mr. Dalyell
What bothers us is what will happen if there is no such understanding. Assuredly, sooner or later, there will be none, because there will be arguments about money. There will be tremendous pressure on the Scottish Executive and the Members of the Holyrood Parliament to secure more money for projects for education, health and housing, and for everything else that has been promised. I fear that talk about mutual understanding, which I agree is highly desirable, is whistling in the wind.
§ Mr. McLeish
With great respect to my hon. Friend, I share neither his pessimism nor his cynicism about what may happen when the Parliament is established. These are working agreements, and there is nothing sensational about that. We want to ensure that, in creating a new institution of government in Scotland, we have a sensible working relationship between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. Nothing could be more reasonable than the achievement of that, and our efforts must clearly be directed towards it.
§ Mr. Wallace
The Minister has indicated that the concordats would not be legally binding. How would he answer the earlier point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about whether they would be judicially reviewable—not in a case taken by the Parliament, but perhaps in a case taken by an individual who felt prejudiced by, for example, a concordat on inward investment?
§ Mr. McLeish
The hon. and learned Gentleman asks a good question. The concordats are not intended to be legally binding contracts, or to substitute for matters properly covered by the Bill. However, it is likely that they will be justiciable to an extent. For example, if the Scottish Executive did not follow the consultation procedure set out in a concordat, it could be judicially challenged on the ground that the concordat had created a legitimate expectation that the procedure would be followed.
§ Mr. Swinney
I have listened carefully to the Minister's explanation, which has led me to conclude that there is no point in the concordats. The quotation that I gave earlier cast some uncertainty over the Scottish Parliament's access to Europe, and raised the determination of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to have greater access. Those substantial issues are covered in the Bill. The concordats will, I suspect, provide a further interpretation, which gives a totally different flavour to the Minister's comments.
§ Mr. McLeish
It simply does not. We are talking not about different interpretations but about working agreements in relation to Europe and MAFF. There should be no sinister undertones suggesting that what is in the Bill and what has been discussed in the House will be undermined, distorted or interpreted differently. The concordats are simply working agreements, and. on that basis, it is sensible to operate them in the areas that we have identified.
195 The new clause would introduce a formal parliamentary procedure in relation to concordats that such non-statutory agreements do not merit. Concordats will be agreements covering joint working between the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government. They will not be treaties between the two Administrations, nor will they be a means of constraining the discretion of the United Kingdom or the Scottish Parliament. I hope that, in the light of this constructive but brief debate, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will see fit to withdraw the motion.
§ 6 pm
§ Mr. Ancram
I am disappointed by that reply, which does not come to the nub of the matter. I did not table new clause 12 because I thought that it was the ideal way to deal with the matter: on finance and European representation, I sought, as did Liberal Democrat Members, to table amendments to the Bill to secure assurances and guarantees on those two important matters. The Minister told us then that, however important those matters were, everything would be all right because they would be dealt with by concordat: he did not say that we were talking about simple working arrangements sorting out sensible relationships between Departments. On enormously important issues, such as whether Scotland will have a proper voice in Europe on agriculture or fishing, we were told, "Don't worry, it's all going to be in concordats." Now we are told that the concordats are non-justiciable—
§ Mr. Ancram
Well, they are not legally enforceable. They will not come before this House or the Scottish Parliament, whose endorsement would give them weight. The Scottish public are being firmly and openly sold a pup. I tabled new clause 12 in good faith, having listened to the arguments that were advanced against my earlier amendments. I advanced it on a restricted basis—not to cover all concordats, as the Minister suggested at the end of his remarks—narrowing it to those two crucial areas. The Minister always claims to be a listening Minister and I should have thought that he would listen to the arguments advanced not only by me but by Members from other Opposition parties and accept new clause 12. His response is totally unsatisfactory and I ask my hon. Friends to support the new clause in the Lobby.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 278.198
|Division No. 271]||[6.1 pm|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)|
|Allan, Richard||Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia|
|Amess, David||Brady, Graham|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael||Brake, Tom|
|Arbuthnot, James||Brazier, Julian|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Baldry, Tony||Browning, Mrs Angela|
|Beggs, Roy||Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Burns, Simon|
|Bercow, John||Burstow, Paul|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Butterfill, John|
|Blunt, Crispin||Cable, Dr Vincent|
|Body, Sir Richard||Cash, William|
|Boswell, Tim||Chope, Christopher|
|Clappison, James||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Malins, Humfrey|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Mates, Michael|
|Collins, Tim||Maude, Rt Hon Francis|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||May, Mrs Theresa|
|Cotter, Brian||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Cran, James||Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)|
|Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)||Moss, Malcolm|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||Norman, Archie|
|Dafis, Cynog||Ottaway, Richard|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Page, Richard|
|Davies, Quentin (Grantham)||Paice, James|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)||Paterson, Owen|
|Day, Stephen||Pickles, Eric|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Prior, David|
|Duncan, Alan||Randall, John|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Rendel, David|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||Robathan, Andrew|
|Faber, David||Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)|
|Fallon, Michael||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Fearn, Ronnie||Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)|
|Flight, Howard||Ruffley, David|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Fox, Dr Liam||St Aubyn, Nick|
|Fraser, Christopher||Salmond, Alex|
|Gale, Roger||Sanders, Adrian|
|Garnier, Edward||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|Gibb, Nick||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|Gillan, Mrs Cheryl||Soames, Nicholas|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Gorrie, Donald||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Green, Damian||Spring, Richard|
|Greenway, John||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Grieve, Dominic||Steen, Anthony|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John||Streeter, Gary|
|Hague, Rt Hon William||Stunell, Andrew|
|Hammond, Philip||Swayne, Desmond|
|Hancock, Mike||Swinney, John|
|Hawkins, Nick||Syrns, Robert|
|Hayes, John||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Heathooat-Amory, Rt Hon David||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Horam, John||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Tonge, Dr Jenny|
|Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)||Tredinnick, David|
|Hunter, Andrew||Trend, Michael|
|Jack, Rt Hon Michael||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Viggers, Peter|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Wallace, James|
|Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Wardle, Charles|
|Keetch, Paul||Wells, Bowen|
|Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)||Welsh, Andrew|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Whittingdale, John|
|Laing, Mrs Eleanor||Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Wilkinson, John|
|Leigh, Edward||Willetts, David|
|Letwin, Oliver||Willis, Phil|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Lidington, David||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Woodward, Shaun|
|Livsey, Richard||Yeo, Tim|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Loughton, Tim||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Luff, Peter||Sir David Madel and|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Mr. Oliver Heald.|
|Ainger, Nick||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Ennis, Jeff|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Etherington, Bill|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Field, Rt Hon Frank|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Fisher, Mark|
|Ashton, Joe||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Atherton, Ms Candy||Fitzsimons, Lorna|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Flint, Caroline|
|Barnes, Harry||Flynn, Paul|
|Barron, Kevin||Follett, Barbara|
|Bayley, Hugh||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Beard, Nigel||Galbraith, Sam|
|Begg, Miss Anne||Galloway, George|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Gapes, Mike|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Gardiner, Barry|
|Benton, Joe||George, Bruce (Walsall S)|
|Best, Harold||Gerrard, Neil|
|Betts, Clive||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Blizzard, Bob||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Boateng, Paul||Godsiff, Roger|
|Borrow, David||Goggins, Paul|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Browne, Desmond||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Grocott, Bruce|
|Burden, Richard||Grogan, John|
|Burgon, Colin||Hain, Peter|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Byers, Stephen||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Hanson, David|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Healey, John|
|Canavan, Dennis||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Caplin, Ivor||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Casale, Roger||Heppell, John|
|Cawsey, Ian||Hewitt, Ms Patricia|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Hill, Keith|
|Chaytor, David||Hodge, Ms Margaret|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Hoey, Kate|
|Clapham, Michael||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Hope, Phil|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Howarth, Alan (Newport E)|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Clelland, David||Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)|
|Clwyd, Ann||Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Hurst, Alan|
|Cohen, Harry||Hutton, John|
|Coleman, Iain||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Corbett, Robin||Jamieson, David|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Jenkins, Brian|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)|
|Crausby, David||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)||Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)|
|Cryer, John (Hornchurch)|
|Cummings, John||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Keeble, Ms Sally|
|Darvill, Keith||Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)|
|Davidson, Ian||Khabra, Piara S|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Kidney, David|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Dean, Mrs Janet||King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)|
|Dismore, Andrew||King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)|
|Dobbin, Jim||Kingham, Ms Tess|
|Doran, Frank||Ladyman, Dr Stephen|
|Dowd, Jim||Laxton, Bob|
|Drew, David||Leslie, Christopher|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Levitt, Tom|
|Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)||Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)|
|Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)||Lewis, Terry (Worsley)|
|Linton, Martin||Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)|
|Livingstone, Ken||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|Lock, David||Salter, Martin|
|Love, Andrew||Sawford, Phil|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McCabe, Steve||Shaw, Jonathan|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Sheerman, Barry|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|McDonnell, John||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|McFall, John||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Singh, Marsha|
|McIsaac, Shona||Skinner, Dennis|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McLeish, Henry||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Smith, John (Glamorgan)|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|McWalter, Tony||Snape, Peter|
|McWilliam, John||Soley, Clive|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Mallaber, Judy||Stevenson, George|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Martlew, Eric||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Meacher, Rt Hon Michael||Straw, Rt Hon Jack|
|Meale, Alan||Stringer, Graham|
|Michael, Alun||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Milburn, Alan||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Moran, Ms Margaret||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Mullin, Chris||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)||Timms, Stephen|
|Norris, Dan||Tipping, Paddy|
|O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)||Todd, Mark|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)||Touhig, Don|
|Olner, Bill||Truswell, Paul|
|Organ, Mrs Diana||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Pearson, Ian||Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)|
|Pendry, Tom||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Perham, Ms Linda||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Pickthall, Colin||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Pike, Peter L||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Pollard, Kerry||Wareing, Robert N|
|Pope, Greg||Watts, David|
|Pound, Stephen||White, Brian|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Prosser, Gwyn||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Quinn, Lawrie||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Radice, Giles||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Rammell, Bill||Winnick, David|
|Rapson, Syd||Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)|
|Raynsford, Nick||Wood, Mike|
|Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)||Woolas, Phil|
|Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)||Wray, James|
|Roche, Mrs Barbara||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Rooker, Jeff||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Rooney, Terry||Wyatt, Derek|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Rowlands, Ted||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Ruane, Chris||Ms Bridget Prentice and|
|Ruddock, Ms Joan||Mr. Kevin Hughes.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.