- '.—(1) There shall be a Constitutional Court in the United Kingdom.
- (2) Questions on the vires or legislative competence of any Bill or provision of a Bill under this Act shall be referred to the Constitutional Court for a decision.
- (3) The Constitutional Court shall consist of fourteen members, six elected by the House of Commons, six elected by the Scottish Parliament, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate.
- (4) No member of the Constitutional Court shall sit and act as a member of the court in proceedings under this Act unless he—
- (a) holds or has held high judicial office;
- (b) has been a member of the Scottish or English bar for a period of ten years;
- (c) has been a registered solicitor in Scotland or England for a period of fifteen years;
- (d) is or has been a professor of law or legal studies in the United Kingdom for a period of ten years.
- (5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—
- (a) confer on the Constitutional Court in relation to proceedings under this Act such powers as Her Majesty considers necessary or expedient; and
- (b) make rules for regulating the procedure in relation to proceedings under this Act before the Constitutional Court.
- (6) In this section "proceedings under this Act" means proceedings on a question referred to the Constitutional Court under section 32 or proceedings under Schedule 6.'. —[Salmond.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 75, in clause 31, page 15, line 29, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 97, in page 15, line 31, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 98, in page 15, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert—'"Constitutional Court" means the body established under section (Constitutional Court).'.No. 99, in clause 32, page 15, line 41, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 100, in clause 34, page 16, line 45, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 78, in schedule 6, page 79, line 40, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 79, in page 79, line 43, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 81, in page 80, line 3, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 82, in page 80, line 10, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 83, in page 80, line 11, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 101, in page 81, line 5, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 87, in page 81, line 9, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 88, in page 81, line 10, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 90, in page 81, line 40, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 102, in page 82, line 4, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 91, in page 82, line 5, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 93, in page 82, line 10, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 103, in page 82, line 16, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
205 No. 95, in page 82, line 19, leave out 'Judicial Committee' and insert 'Constitutional Court'.
No. 76, in clause 94, page 42, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
No. 117, in page 42, line 33, at end insert—'(d) provide such resources to the Judicial Committee as Her Majesty considers necessary or expedient.'.No. 122, in schedule 7, page 88, line 1, after 'counsel', insert 'or a solicitor'.
No. 123, in page 88, line 7, after 'counsel', insert 'or a solicitor'.
§ Mr. Salmond
That is quite a mouthful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. New clause 18 allows us to debate briefly a matter to which we did not do justice in Committee. I welcome the opportunity to explore that in a little more detail now.
We are considering what will happen in the event of a dispute between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments and resolving what may or may not be vires or extra vires in terms of what the Scottish Parliament wants to do. New clause 18 proposes replacing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which has authority in the Bill as the body that adjudicates on disputes and vires matters for the Parliament, and creating a constitutional court comprising 14 members: six elected by the Scottish Parliament and six elected by Westminster with a Lord Advocate and a Lord Chancellor. The members of the court will be senior judges or advocates of 10 years' standing, solicitors of 15 years' standing or professors of law or legal studies in the United Kingdom of 10 years' standing.
According to subsection (4), prospective members do not have to have all four qualifications—just one of the four will suffice. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for pointing that out to me. I am not sure whether a Bill in respect of that legal advice can be expected or whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is protecting his position in case he wishes to serve on that constitutional court. Whatever the reason, I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention. We must debate this important matter.
We have chosen a model based on the German constitutional court, which has been exported recently to Spain and Mexico. We propose that, like the German model, the court's membership should be widely drawn from legal and academic experts. The key points in this discussion are the deficiencies which I see in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Hon. Members may or may not be aware that the Judicial Committee consists of more than 100 people—only two of whom are women. The average age of members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is 67. Of the judges on the committee, there are more from New Zealand—14—than from Scotland, which has nine. In addition, because of the way in which the committee is formed, there are several obvious political appointees. Eleven committee members are former Tory Ministers from the Governments of Lady Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Only four members of the Judicial Committee are current Labour Ministers, and the vast majority of members are from England.
§ Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
The hon. Gentleman's analysis of the membership of the 206 Judicial Committee is very interesting, but does he have one jot of evidence to suggest that that has influenced the decisions of that body at any time?
§ Mr. Salmond
The hon. Gentleman is on very dangerous ground. For example, only two out of more than 100 Judicial Committee members are women. We hope to achieve more gender equality in the Scottish Parliament than is evident in this place. It is particularly important to recognise that only two women serve on the Judicial Committee—and the hon. Gentleman would do well to appreciate that fact. It is not good enough to say that it does not matter that there is a huge gender imbalance on the Committee, an imbalance in terms of the nationalities and backgrounds of members, or that the average age of members is 67. In the normal course of events, those aspects would affect members' outlook on the various disputes that they were asked to resolve. Furthermore, I do not think that a committee that is so dramatically unrepresentative of the legal profession—never mind of society as a whole—is best placed to judge important political disputes between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.
I must be fair to the Minister, who has written to me in some detail about this matter. I shall share with the House some arguments that he has advanced.
§ Mr. Salmond
I have said that the requirements for serving on the court would be judicial office or judicial qualifications. A body that adjudicates on political disputes must be seen to be fair and balanced in terms of its background and the way in which it reflects both sides of the argument. If it is not, many people will believe that the body has predetermined notions about what judgments should be arrived at. If the House will allow me to reveal who the Minister says might hear such matters, we might make some progress in examining possible flaws in the Bill.
§ Mr. Salmond
I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more go, and then I must proceed as time is limited.
§ Mr. Browne
I have one more question before we move from the terms of the new clause and the qualifications for membership of the constitutional court. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those who have been registered as solicitors in Scotland for 15 years, and possibly never practised, and those who have been members of the Scottish or English Bars for 10 years, and possibly never practised, will be qualified to sit on the court?
§ Mr. Salmond
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that being the Leader of the House, which is one of the qualifications for being a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, is necessarily a good qualification for membership of that body? Our argument is that some legal qualifications—some background and 207 training in the law—might be a useful requirement. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council seems to be made up of people who were hangovers from the Governments of Lady Thatcher. I am not certain that that is a suitable panel to move into the new politics that we are trying to develop between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament.
In his letter to me, the Minister stated:The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will be composed of those members of the Privy Council, not over 75,"—that is important, as it rules out a substantial number of members of the Judicial Committee—who hold or have held the Office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or high judicial office in the UK. This would include past and present judges of the Court of Session who are Privy Councillors. Membership of the JCPC for devolution hearings is therefore more restricted than for other hearings. For example, the present and former Lord Presidents of the Council will not be eligible to sit, nor will Commonwealth judges.Clearly, that does not deal with my points about gender inequality or the background of the judges.
The Minister continued:The actual composition of the JCPC to hear devolution cases will be decided by the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. Normally we would expect the case to be heard by 5 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, although this may not always be possible. It is very unlikely that Scottish judges would not be represented on the panel for devolution cases. That is usually the case for Scottish civil law appeals which are referred to the House of Lords. However, members of the panel will not be chosen to represent national interests.If I can compress what the Minister told me in his letters, that means that, in key cases, Scots judges may not be involved in the decision and, if they are, they will certainly be in a minority. An understanding of Scots law does not seem to be a requirement for deciding the legitimacy of Acts of the Scottish Parliament. That, to me, is unacceptable.
Our proposal would, in contrast, produce a more balanced court, which would include a wider range of expertise and understanding of Scots and constitutional law and be democratically appointed by both Parliaments. The composition of any panel of judges would be decided by the court as a whole. It is unlikely that all 14 judges would sit in judgment in any one case. The figure is likely to be five, as in the Government's proposal, but two or three of them would have some familiarity with the Scottish legal system. I am surprised that, as a member of that fine profession, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) does not seem to think that that would be a useful requirement.
We are debating the way in which disputes between the two Parliaments can be arbitrated fairly. It is not good enough to pick an existing institution for whatever purpose, however it was formed and whatever elements it contains. The development of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been complex, like Topsy. We should examine the best practice elsewhere in Europe—the German constitutional court is an extremely useful example—and see how that can be transported to meet the requirements of fair arbitration between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.
If hon. Members are uncomfortable with the notion that the Parliaments should have equal standing in nominating members of the court, that betrays an attitude that regards the Scottish Parliament as subservient and the 208 Westminster Parliament as its master—far better to move to a balanced situation, where both Parliaments enjoy equal and mutual respect in the resolution of disputes.
§ Mr. Salmond
I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not give way again, or his hon. Friends will get crowded out.
§ Mr. Salmond
I saw the Minister nodding vigorously when I refused that intervention.
This debate, and the attitude towards such a proposal, is a touchstone in determining whether hon. Members regard the Scottish Parliament as a real Parliament, entitled to real respect, or as akin to a subservient council, which this Parliament and its institutions could dispose of as they will.
§ Mr. Heald
Perhaps I should declare an interest, as I think that I would be technically qualified to be a member of the court proposed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Listening to his argument as it unrolled, one felt increasingly uneasy at what he was suggesting. He was proposing a court that was not a court, but a political body, with representatives fighting for each country. Such a body could be influenced by feelings of national pride.
One of our proudest boasts about British courts is that they have not been partial. Our judges have been able to consider the law and make decisions uncluttered by concerns about politics, patriotism and so on. It would be a great pity if we set up a kangaroo political court to deal with the issues under discussion. It is in the interests of all the countries in the family of the United Kingdom that we should have the sort of courts that we have enjoyed in Scotland, England and Wales—courts that are impartial and on whose judgment one can rely.
As a barrister, I practised in the courts in England and Wales for many years. I often did not like the decisions that judges made, but I never had the slightest doubt that they were doing their duty, concerned to reach a proper decision on the facts and the law.
§ Mr. Salmond
First, is the spokesman for the official Opposition unaware that some members hold office on the Judicial Committee by virtue of political office? Secondly, would he describe the German constitutional court as a kangaroo court, given the system of nomination to it, which is similar to what we propose?
§ Mr. Heald
The Lord Chancellor does not sit in court doing a political job; he does the job of a judge. To suggest that members of the court are acting in a political role is so far from the truth that it beggars belief.
Many hon. Members want to speak in the debate, so I shall be brief. The Opposition proposed that the House of Lords Appellate Committee should be the arbiter in these matters. That would deal with some of the hon. Gentleman's complaints. For example, there would be 209 fewer members of the panel, there would not be judges from New Zealand, and there would be strong representation of the excellent Scottish judges we have.
§ Mr. Dalyell
What we are discussing is an embryo, if not an actual, proto-constitutional court. If we are embarking on that road, there ought to be a statement at the Dispatch Box from the Prime Minister and no other Minister, because that is entirely new in British politics. The decisions taken by the court would, frankly, be political decisions. Do not tell me that there could be any meaningful argument without it being highly political. To set up a court to take quasi and actual political decisions requires a statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, outlining the Government's policy on these matters.
I have one question to my hon. Friend the Minister. If there is a constitutional court, what is the Government's view of what would be decided by that court? We ought to hear the scope of any such body which, as I said, will be new in British politics. In the short time available, I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that question.
§ Mr. Wallace
There is a case for a constitutional court. In the context of the many constitutional changes that are taking place, the country should have a constitutional court. However, the new clause is not some kind of touchstone, a virility symbol for the Scottish Parliament. A touchstone should be crafted somewhat better than new clause 18.
There is not just the technical point of whether one has to qualify under all four headings. For example, the Lord Advocate should not be a member of the court. His role should be to plead before the court, not to be a member of it. There is also no provision for the composition of the court in any given case, and Scottish representation might still not necessarily be achieved.
My biggest concern is that the new clause falls foul of the danger—to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred—that the system could develop like Topsy. A constitutional court will ultimately be needed because there will be questions of vires between the Welsh assembly and the House, between the Scottish Parliament and the House, and on human rights, freedom of information and Northern Ireland. If we are to go ahead, we should do so properly, not on the basis of just one dimension of the evolving constitutional argument.
That was the thinking in the Scottish Constitutional Convention when we considered whether we should opt for a constitutional court or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The view was taken that a constitutional court, while ultimately being the desirable end point, could not be achieved in the context of the Scotland Bill. Therefore, the JCPC was chosen as the best of what was there.
Is there any way of ensuring that, in any sitting of the JCPC, there is Scottish representation? It is a question not of justice being done, but of it being seen to be done. Lawyers here will no doubt accept that those who sit on the Judicial Committee will act judicially, but try to explain that if a decision went against the position taken 210 by the Scottish Parliament and the JCPC did not contain a single Scot. It would no doubt be legally right, but try to explain that to a sceptical population who would, no doubt, see some conspiracy there.
§ Dr. Godman
On the last question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I remind him that the composition of the tribunal inquiring into Bloody Sunday has been broadly accepted by the families of the men and youths who were shot on that terrible day. The judge who will chair the tribunal is an English Law Lord and the other two jurists are from elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
I think that I was the first in the House to ask the Secretary of State to give sympathetic consideration, with his ministerial colleagues, to the setting up of a constitutional court. New clause 18 states:There shall be a Constitutional Court in the United Kingdom.It goes on to talk exclusively of Scotland and England. I know that I shall be reminded that we are debating the Scotland Bill, but I believe that there will be a massive vote in support of the yes campaign in the referendum in Northern Ireland on 22 May, and the House will shortly afterwards debate a Northern Ireland Bill. What then of the new clause which states:There shall be a Constitutional Court in the United Kingdom."?Would that have to be amended to include judges from the Northern Ireland judiciary? If the clause had referred to a British constitutional court, that might be a different matter.
§ Mr. Salmond
Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. If the Minister tells me that he accepts the principle of a constitutional court, I shall be amenable to accelerating the time scale this evening.
§ Dr. Godman
I am suggesting that the new clause should be withdrawn until we reach that Northern Ireland legislation concerning the setting up in Northern Ireland of an assembly which I hope will be more akin to the Scottish Parliament than to the Welsh assembly.
§ Mr. McLeish
The Government recommend that the House reject new clause 18 proposed by the Scottish National party.
Again, the issue should not be seen in the context of current parliamentary or Government circumstances at Westminster plus what we shall have at Holyrood. The nationalists try to pretend that we are moving towards some independence model. The basis of this settlement is devolution, not federalism, which is basically the model adopted, quite legitimately, by the SNP to frame some of its ideas. The measure is not about independence; it seeks to allow issues concerning vires to be resolved in the most constructive and effective way possible.
It is dangerous to suggest that we introduce politics into the court; that we introduce a kind of Scotland-England issue into the court. At the end of the day, we need to consider the legality surrounding a particular issue, not to politicise everything. That may be the nationalists' wish, but it does not lead to good or sensible government.
The Government reject new clause 18 and the consequential amendments. The new clause would create a constitutional court to replace the role currently 211 provided for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in determining questions concerning the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Before dealing in detail with the SNP's proposal for a constitutional court, I shall discuss the existing arrangements that are within the Bill's competence. The policy that the Bill reflects was summarised in chapter 4 of the White Paper. It recognised that, from time to time, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government would take different views of the Scottish Parliament's legislative powers. In most cases, we expect that they should be able to resolve such views quickly and amicably.
The Government recognised that, at times, there would be disputes and that it would be necessary to have a mechanism to resolve such disputes. The Government consider that the JCPC would be the appropriate body ultimately to resolve such issues.
The Government do not support the proposed creation of a constitutional court. It is not necessary to try to create a new structure. The JCPC already exists. It has vast experience of dealing with constitutional issues from the Commonwealth. It is ideally placed to resolve any disputes about vires.
It is wrong to suggest, as hon. Members have, that issues will not be fairly considered and will be dominated by an English bias. The JCPC is an impartial body. I have no doubt that each case will be decided on its merits after careful consideration of the facts of the case. Of course, the decision of the JCPC will be final.
§ Mr. Salmond
Will the Minister confirm that it is possible under the arrangements that he is defending for a devolution case to be judged by the JCPC with no Scottish judge on that committee?
§ Mr. McLeish
It is our intention that that will not happen. Our intention is to ensure that the JCPC considers issues on their merit. We are talking about issues of vires. We are not trying to introduce politics into every conceivable decision. The veiled threat from the nationalists this evening is: "Beware of the Scottish Parliament because, when we are members of that body, we will talk about cross-border public bodies and there will be trouble for the first person whom we invite who does not come." That has been stated.
Because the constitutional court may have English judges, there is some suggestion that we cannot resolve matters as vires, that we have to politicise everything. That is a dangerous attitude. It is not constructive and it does not augur well for the good sensible government that Scotland requires from the first day the Scottish Members of Parliament are elected.
§ Mr. Grieve
Does the Minister accept that I, as an English Member of Parliament, would not mind if five Scottish members of the JCPC determined such issues? That is completely irrelevant.
§ 7 pm
§ Mr. McLeish
The point has been made. The Government have no doubt that each case will be decided on its merits after careful consideration.
Clause 94 provides that, for this purpose, the JCPC will be composed of members who hold or have held the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or high judicial office in 212 the UK. That will include the judges of the Court of Session who are Privy Councillors. It is difficult to imagine how the members of any constitutional court could be better qualified.
The Government's approach is based on the belief that such issues should be decided as a matter of law, not of politics. Involving this House and the Scottish Parliament in the election of members of a constitutional court would inevitably politicise the process and raise questions about the independence of the court' s members—would they be genuinely free to make up their minds, or would they be beholden to the body that elected them?
The involvement of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate—members of their respective Administrations—could also politicise the process of dispute resolution. Indeed, the suggestion that the Lord Advocate should be a member of the court ignores the fact that, as Law Officer to the Scottish Executive, he would be responsible for instituting and defending proceedings for the determination of a devolution issue. Under the model in the new clause, there would be an initial conflict of interest. It is nonsensical to suggest that he could present the case for the Scottish Executive and then rule on it.
I was interested in whom else the SNP considers appropriate to hear such cases. Although there are many eminent advocates, solicitors and law professors with considerable experience in the legal system, I admit that the combined judicial experience of the Judicial Committee would be difficult to equal. It is hard to escape that conclusion in terms of competence in law and legal issues.
The Government believe that there should be a mechanism to ensure independent consideration of devolution issues. In the Judicial Committee, the Bill provides that. I urge the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Mr. Salmond
The Minister gave the game away. I asked him whether a case could be judged with no Scottish representative on the Judicial Committee. He replied that the Government intend to ensure that that does not happen. They can do that only by political direction on the composition of the body taking the case. He cannot have it both ways.
§ Mr. Salmond
The Minister says that I should grow up, but let us examine the matter. Either the composition of the Judicial Committee would be such that it would be free to judge such cases with no concern for nationality, background or political influence or the Minister, because he has realised the sensitivity of the situation, wants at least one representative from a Scottish legal background to sit in judgment of such cases. He cannot have it both ways.
I was incredibly surprised, but delighted in some ways, by the naivety of some hon. Members, who talked as if the judicial process were totally removed from politics. Many members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held political office and owe their appointment to politics. The Minister presents a political argument 213 against a constitutional court and for pure judicial principle in the existing arrangements. However, that does not sustain serious examination.
I have much more sympathy with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who said that, although a constitutional court was necessary, we should perhaps not have such a court as this and should take into account the variety of developments that are taking place. We would have accepted the principle if the Minister had said, "That's exactly what we are going to do; we are going to think about it." However, he did not say that.
The Minister has argued that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—an archaic, Topsy-like institution—can accommodate such disputes. That is not the case. Its composition does not stand up to serious examination, and in such circumstances my hon. Friends and I shall most certainly press the new clause to a vote.
§ This is not an independence new clause; it cannot be.
§ It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forth, with the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 388.216
|Division No. 272]||[7.3 pm|
|Bell, Martin (Tatton)||Salmond, Alex|
|Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)||Swinney, John|
|Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd|
|Dafis, Cynog||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||Mr. Alasdair Morgan and|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Mr. Andrew Welsh.|
|Ainger, Nick||Boswell, Tim|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Bradley, Keith (Withington)|
|Allan, Richard||Bradshaw, Ben|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Mich ael||Brady, Graham|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Brake, Tom|
|Arbuthnot, James||Brazier, Julian|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Brinton, Mrs Helen|
|Ashton, Joe||Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)|
|Atherton, Ms Candy||Browne, Desmond|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Buck, Ms Karen|
|Baldry, Tony||Burden, Richard|
|Barnes, Harry||Burgon, Colin|
|Barron, Kevin||Burns, Simon|
|Bayley, Hugh||Burstow, Paul|
|Beard, Nigel||Butler, Mrs Christine|
|Begg, Miss Anne||Butterfill, John|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Byers, Stephen|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Caborn, Richard|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)|
|Benton, Joe||Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)|
|Best, Harold||Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)|
|Betts, Clive||Campbell-Savours, Dale|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Canavan, Dennis|
|Blizzard, Bob||Caplin, Ivor|
|Blunt, Crispin||Casale, Roger|
|Boateng, Paul||Cash, William|
|Borrow, David||Cawsey, Ian|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Chaytor, David||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Godsiff, Roger|
|Clapham, Michael||Goggins, Paul|
|Clappison, James||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Gorrie, Donald|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Greenway, John|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Grieve, Dominic|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Clelland, David||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Clwyd, Ann||Grocott, Bruce|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Grogan, John|
|Cohen, Harry||Hain, Peter|
|Coleman, Iain||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Collins, Tim||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Corbett, Robin||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hammond, Philip|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Hancock, Mike|
|Cotter, Brian||Hanson, David|
|Cran, James||Hayes, John|
|Crausby, David||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)||Heald, Oliver|
|Cryer, John (Hornchurch)||Healey, John|
|Cummings, John||Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||Heppell, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hewitt, Ms Patricia|
|Darvill, Keith||Hill, Keith|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Hodge, Ms Margaret|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||Hoey, Kate|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)||Hood, Jimmy|
|Davies, Quentin (Grantham)||Hoon, Geoffrey|
|Day, Stephen||Hope, Phil|
|Dean, Mrs Janet||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Dewar, Rt Hon Donald||Horam, John|
|Dismore, Andrew||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Dobbin, Jim||Howarth, Alan (Newport E)|
|Doran, Frank||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)|
|Drew, David||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)|
|Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)||Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)||Hunter, Andrew|
|Ellman, Mrs Louise||Hurst, Alan|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Hutton, John|
|Ennis, Jeff||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Etherington, Bill||Jack, Rt Hon Michael|
|Faber, David||Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Fallon, Michael||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Fatchett, Derek||Jamieson, David|
|Fearn, Ronnie||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Field, Rt Hon Frank||Jenkins, Brian|
|Fitzpatrick, Jim||Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)|
|Fitzsimons, Lorna||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Flint, Caroline||Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)|
|Follett, Barbara||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)|
|Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)||Keeble, Ms Sally|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Keetch, Paul|
|Galbraith, Sam||Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)|
|Gale, Roger||Khabra, Piara S|
|Galloway, George||Kidney, David|
|Gapes, Mike||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Gardiner, Barry||King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)|
|George, Bruce (Walsall S)||King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Gerrard, Neil||Kingham, Ms Tess|
|Gibb, Nick||Kirkbride, Miss Julie|
|Gibson, Dr Ian||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Gillan, Mrs Cheryl||Ladyman, Dr Stephen|
|Laing, Mrs Eleanor||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Laxton, Bob||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Leslie, Christopher||Prosser, Gwyn|
|Letwin, Oliver||Purchase, Ken|
|Levitt, Tom||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)||Quinn, Lawrie|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)||Radice, Giles|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Rammell, Bill|
|Lidington, David||Randall, John|
|Linton, Martin||Rapson, Syd|
|Livingstone, Ken||Raynsford, Nick|
|Livsey, Richard||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Lock, David||Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)|
|Loughton, Tim||Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)|
|Love, Andrew||Rendel, David|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)|
|McCabe, Steve||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Rooney, Terry|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|McDonnell, John||Rowlands, Ted|
|McFall, John||Ruane, Chris|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Ruddock, Ms Joan|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Ruffley, David|
|McIsaac, Shona||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)|
|Maclean, Rt Hon David||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|McLeish, Henry||St Aubyn, Nick|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Salter, Martin|
|McNamara, Kevin||Sanders, Adrian|
|MacShane, Denis||Sawford, Phil|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|McWalter, Tony||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McWilliam, John||Shaw, Jonathan|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Sheerman, Barry|
|Malins, Humfrey||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Mallaber, Judy||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|Mandelson, Peter||Singh, Marsha|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Martlew, Eric||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Mates, Michael||Smith, John (Glamorgan)|
|Meacher, Rt Hon Michael||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Meale, Alan||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|Michael, Alun||Snape, Peter|
|Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)||Soley, Clive|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)||Spellar, John|
|Milburn, Alan||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Miller, Andrew||Spring, Richard|
|Moffatt, Laura||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Stevenson, George|
|Moran, Ms Margaret||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Mudie, George||Stott, Roger|
|Mullin, Chris||Stringer, Graham|
|Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Norris, Dan||Stunell, Andrew|
|Oaten, Mark||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)||Swayne, Desmond|
|Olner, Bill||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Organ, Mrs Diana|
|Page, Richard||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Paice, James||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Paterson, Owen||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Pearson, Ian||Timms, Stephen|
|Pendry, Tom||Tipping, Paddy|
|Perham, Ms Linda||Todd, Mark|
|Pickles, Eric||Touhig, Don|
|Pickthall, Colin||Trend, Michael|
|Pike, Peter L||Truswell, Paul|
|Pollard, Kerry||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Pope, Greg||Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)|
|Pound, Stephen||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Powell, Sir Raymond||Tyler, Paul (Swansea W)|
|Vaz, Keith||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Viggers, Peter||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Wallace, James||Winnick, David|
|Walley, Ms Joan||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Ward, Ms Claire||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|Wardle, Charles||Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)|
|Wareing, Robert N||Wood, Mike|
|Waterson, Nigel||Woolas, Phil|
|Watts, David||Wray, James|
|White, Brian||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Whitehead, Dr Alan||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Whittingdale, John||Wyatt, Derek|
|Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Wilkinson, John||Janet Anderson and|
|Williams, Rt Hon Alan||Mr. Jim Dowd.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.