STAGES OF BILLS

HC Deb 19 May 1998 vol 312 cc745-56

4.5 pm

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 16, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 17 and insert— '.—(1) Each Bill considered by the Parliament shall comprise the following stages—

1. (a) a general debate and vote on the principles of the Bill;
2. (b) a committee stage for members of the Parliament to consider and vote on the detail of the bill and for interested bodies to make representations to the Parliament;
3. (c) a further stage for interested bodies to make representations to the Parliament;
4. (d) a report stage to consider any amendments subsequent to the committee stage in subsection (1)(b) and the further stage for representations in subsection (1)(c);
5. (e) a final debate and vote on the Bill at which the Parliament can either pass or reject it.

(2) A period of not less than three calendar months shall separate the stages of the Bill mentioned in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(d) unless otherwise provided for by a resolution supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.'. As we near the end of this long road, we must feel rather like those in history who embarked on long marches. I hope that we can deal today with those matters that have not been covered since we began this process on 12 January. Amendment No. 7 is designed to fill what we believe is a serious gap in the provisions of the legislation. I suspect that the Minister will say that the procedures of the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that Parliament and for the committee that is advising him. I simply remind him that the Bill—rather unusually at this stage—requires the Standing Orders to contain certain provisions. We think that that is right: the House should have an overview of the general way in which the Scottish Parliament will operate.

Clause 34, which I am seeking to amend, already includes provisions governing the stages through which legislation must pass in the Scottish Parliament. My amendment is before the House because we believe that those provisions are inadequate in very specific and important ways. The amendment seeks to address the fact that the Scottish Parliament is unicameral.

When the Bill leaves the House today, it will go to another place where the noble lords will examine our work closely and, for all I know, may ask the House to think again about certain measures that have been passed. That is right, because that is the proper role of a scrutinising Chamber. The ability to require the main House of Parliament to reconsider legislation that may be inadequate, badly drafted or fundamentally wrong is an important safeguard within our constitution.

That facility does not exist for the Scottish Parliament. According to the Bill, legislation will pass through the stages set out in clause 34. Subsection (1)(a) essentially provides for a Second Reading debate, subsection (1)(b) provides for a Committee stage and subsection (1)(c) provides for a Third Reading.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument quite closely. He seems to be cutting across the purpose of the consultative group that is examining those aspects, which includes Conservative representatives and the Minister of State as chairman. Why is the right hon. Gentleman cutting across his own party in Scotland, which is attempting to agree those matters, by trying to be so prescriptive in this place?

Mr. Ancram

The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening when I said that I expected that to be the answer given to me by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman should look at clause 34, which already does precisely that. I merely think that it does it inadequately, so it is important that we point out the inadequacy.

Report stages, let alone a second chamber, are missing from the Bill. Report is a useful stage for legislation. Hon. Members should look at the amendment papers for last Tuesday and for today: the vast majority of amendments are Government amendments to areas that they failed to get right when the Bill was drafted or failed to adjust sufficiently in Committee. They have an enormous amount of revising work to do on their own Bill on Report.

When the Bill reaches the House of Lords, even more Government amendments may be tabled. I make no complaint about that, because a procedure that takes a Bill through Parliament in such a way that faults can be cured before it reaches the statute book and becomes law is an important protection of the quality of legislation.

If such omissions occur during those three stages when a Bill goes through the Scottish Parliament, however, there will be no way to correct them, other than by amending the original primary legislation through further primary legislation. That cannot be satisfactory, from anyone's point of view. The only people who might find pleasure in such a situation are in my old profession, the law, which lives on the mistakes made by Governments and omissions in legislation. That is the basis on which they can earn a good living, but we must try to ensure that such a situation does not arise.

In my view, there is no case for a second chamber in the Scottish context. We would all agree that, if anything, there is too much politics and that there will be all sorts of layers of politicians in Scotland. To create yet another layer would not meet with the approval of the Scottish people, whatever form it might take and whatever its context and powers. We considered whether, in terms of the Scottish Grand Committee, which is exclusive to Scottish MPs, there might be a role for Scottish Members of Parliament elected to this place by the Scottish electorate, but we decided that that might be difficult and cumbersome. The amendment is simple: it would add two further stages to the three in the Bill.

The first stage would be a period of reflection and consideration. When Committee consideration—the stage described in clause 34(1)(b)—had been completed, legislators could reflect on the nature of the legislation for three calendar months. More important, those concerned with the legislation's effect and those with an interest in its working properly would have a chance to make representations and suggestions to the Scottish Parliament which could be taken into account before the Bill completed all its stages. The second stage would be Report. Following the period of reflection and the making of representations, the Parliament would have the chance to table or to consider amendments reflecting such representations and, indeed, to press for some reconsideration by the Administration.

The amendment would not tie the hands of the Scottish Parliament; we are making more sense of something that is deficient. Although the Minister's record in acceding to amendments has not been good, we have tabled the amendment in the hope that he will realise the sense of it and accept it. It is in the interests of everyone in Scotland that the Parliament produces quality law.

Perhaps I should declare an interest. Although I have not practised since 1979, I am a Scottish advocate who admires the Scottish legal system and who often boasts about the quality of Scottish law. It would be sad if devolution resulted in less considered laws being passed, because that would lead to a diminution in the quality of Scots law. For that reason and to give a greater say to bodies in Scotland that might have an interest in the legislation, I commend the amendment.

4.15 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

The process would not be difficult and cumbersome, as the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would have it. It would be politically impossible, and we must rule out straight away any idea that the Scottish Grand Committee or anything like it could possibly be a revising body, because that would lead to all sorts of political difficulties and frictions. It is not clever either to suggest a body that is equivalent to the House of Lords. I do not know what it would be called—possibly the House of Thanes. That is out. However, there is a real problem and it would be much more satisfactory to have some kind of revising mechanism.

I have a question for the Government. We read about a new body called the council of the isles. I do not know what substance there is in that or the form that such a body would take. Is it envisaged anywhere, as has been suggested in some sections of the press, that that council could take the place in the legislative process of the House of Lords? The answer may be no, but I should like to have an answer.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

The amendment's motives are no doubt well intentioned. They are to try to ensure that the laws that are passed by the Scottish Parliament are understandable and effective. Like the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I declare an interest as I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates. However, I am not sure that legislation is necessarily the greatest jewel in the crown of Scots law. I am sure that there are many ways in which we could improve our law making. We could try to frame our legislation in language that is much more readily understood by lay people. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will address that.

My objection to the amendment is that it is far too prescriptive. I acknowledge that provisions in clause 34 have to be included in Standing Orders, but the amendment goes too far and would tie the Parliament's hands and, in the meantime, those of the consultative steering group. That group could do much imaginative work about how legislation should be treated, not least by pre-legislative Committees, which are completely missing from the Bill.

All of us who were involved in the constitutional convention and in discussions in the constitutional steering group, most recently yesterday, agree that there should be proper, widespread consultation before Bills are laid before the Scottish Parliament. That would go a long way towards giving the reassurances that were sought by the right hon. Member for Devizes. Legislation should address the needs that have prompted it. I fear that some of the time scales could be unrealistic, although there is a let-out clause for a two-thirds vote.

I hope that the Scottish Parliament will not be hidebound by a requirement to pass all its legislation in one year. There should be provision for rollover into the following year if that makes sense. That, in itself, would provide further opportunities for consultation. The consultative steering group and the Parliament should not be tied by the type of structures that are employed in this Parliament. They may work well here, but we are starting with a clean sheet and we should be allowed to engage in some lateral thinking to see how things could be done differently and, I hope, better. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)

The difficulty that has been faced throughout this legislation is that there is a desire to give Scotland the maximum devolved government within the ambit of the Bill, but it is a devolved Parliament, and the buck will stop back in this place, which is one of the problems that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has touched on frequently during our debates. Therefore, the difficulty that we face is the extent to which we should try to go into the procedure of the Parliament to ensure that it works properly.

The amendment is a good one because it does not stray so far into procedure. That is not a matter which can be left solely to the Scottish Parliament. It is essential, if we have a unicameral Parliament in Scotland, that there should be procedure for proper scrutiny, so that, if complaints arise, we can at least say, "There is a perfectly clear system for dealing with this in Edinburgh. Don't come bleating to us about it. The system is there and the scrutiny has properly taken place."

Mr. John Swinney (North Tayside)

I do not feel that the hon. Gentleman has learnt many of the lessons of the referendum. People in Scotland voted for a particular type of Parliament, as set out in the White Paper, and that Parliament should be allowed to take its decisions. If the Conservatives had reflected more on the feeling in Scotland and the demand in the referendum for a Parliament of the nature that is being established, the problems that he says the Parliament is incapable of addressing of its own free will would not arise. It seems a rather supremacist attitude.

Mr. Grieve

I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point that I am making. What is more extraordinary, he has misunderstood his party's position in the referendum. It backed a devolved Parliament. It did not back a sovereign Parliament. As Ministers have said on countless occasions, the Parliament is devolved and residual responsibilities will remain here. I believe that they will remain here in practice. When complaints arise, they will still be ventilated in this place, although how we are ever going to deal with them, I do not know. It is certainly not a supremacist attitude.

Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to me, as I am a bit slow on the uptake, where it says in the Bill that the way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business is a reserved matter for Westminster?

Mr. Grieve

The way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business is not a reserved matter. If badly drafted legislation goes through the Scottish Parliament, and there are complaints about it which are brought back to this place, that will be a matter for us. It is bound to be a matter for us; that is one of the central difficulties of this whole legislation.

Mr. Salmond

Can the hon. Gentleman, as a relatively new Member, think of any badly drafted legislation that has gone through this place—pioneered by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), in the case of the poll tax legislation—and through exactly the processes that he is trying to impose on the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Grieve

I cannot think of any in the past 12 months. I can certainly think of stacks of badly drafted statutory instruments that have gone through the House. I have to look at them once a week. There is much bad legislation being passed. That is not a reason why we should not try to set up systems for Edinburgh that are workable. The matter is of particular importance because it is going to be a unicameral assembly.

Mr. Wallace

The hon. Gentleman said that if legislation that is passed in Edinburgh is bad and does not work, it will have to be tidied up or brought back to the House. By what mechanism does he see that happening?

Mr. Grieve

I did not say that. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened, he would have realised that that was not what I said. I said that if bad legislation is passed, the fact that sovereignty is remaining with this Parliament will, by implication, lead to problems that arise in Scotland being brought back to this Chamber. They will be raised in the House by Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies. The matter simply will not go away, and I wish to minimise any adverse consequences. The best way of doing that, if it is necessary to do so, is for hon. Members to be satisfied, when we devolve power to Edinburgh, that the scrutiny system is such that we are wholly happy with it—which is the purpose of clause 34 and amendment No. 7.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish)

I shall attempt to be helpful. In devolved matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Parliament will be in a position to make good or bad legislation. In my judgment, it will be good legislation. There will be an opportunity to interface with Westminster only when there is an issue of vires or of, for example, Scots law impinging on reserved matters. Otherwise, hon. Members will have no locus in the Scottish Parliament's deliberations on legislation in devolved matters.

Mr. Grieve

I am grateful to the Minister for teaching me, as a new hon. Member, to suck eggs. However, we have been discussing the point dealt with in the amendment throughout the passage of the Bill. I appreciate what the Minister is saying—that that is how the system should work. Nevertheless, if there is a problem in Edinburgh with badly drafted legislation, or with a range of other issues, I do not share his confidence that, in practice, those matters will not resurface in this place.

As I wish for such consequences to be minimised, and as I think that amendment No. 7 is innocuous in establishing a procedure that the House could broadly agree with, I commend it to the House. The amendment is not straying too far down the road of fettering procedure, but simply acknowledges the fact that the Edinburgh Parliament will have competence on a range of devolved issues and that it will be unicameral. Therefore, it is desirable that, from the outset, there should be a clear set of guidelines on the consideration of legislation, so that that issue should not thereafter be a contentious one, either within the Edinburgh Parliament, or between the Edinburgh Parliament and this place. That is the purpose of amendment No. 7, which is why the Minister should pay attention to it.

Mr. Salmond

I can describe the speech by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) only as an "us and them" speech, about what us in this place should prescribe for them in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps, after the advice of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I should be speaking as a thane of Buchan.

The Conservative party is in a state of political schizophrenia. Although there is no cure for schizophrenia, and it is very difficult to diagnose, I have been able to diagnose it in the Conservative party. When I speak to Conservatives in Scotland—in, for example, the Minister's consultative committee—they are enthusiastic, or say that they are, about developing new processes for the new Scottish Parliament, to try to do rather better and to pass less bad legislation than this place has done in the past 20 years or so. However, Conservative Members here seem to have absolutely no awareness of the arguments that have been accepted, and in some cases promulgated, by the Conservative party in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram

rose—

Mr. Salmond

I give way to the man who piloted through the poll tax.

Mr. Ancram

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He likes polishing that cherry from time to time, but it is getting fairly rotten and will not last much longer. Earlier, I told him that he was not listening to what was said. He is also not reading what is on the amendment paper. He keeps saying that we are proposing the procedures of this place for the Scottish Parliament. If he can tell me where in our procedures there is mention of a three-month period between Committee stage and Report stage, during which interested parties—such as trades unions and businesses— can make representations on legislation, I should be interested to hear it. Such a period is a new idea, which I believe is worthy of consideration for the Scottish Parliament. I am surprised that, whenever any proposal is made by the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) seems to become blind and deaf, but, unfortunately, not dumb.

Mr. Salmond

Definitely not dumb; and I am not foolish enough to believe that the poll tax will disappear from the public memory in Scotland as quickly as the right hon. Gentleman hopes. He has missed the point entirely. The point is not whether his ideas in amendment No. 7 are good or bad. The point is that it is not properly the province of this place to dictate any ideas on procedure to the new Scottish Parliament. A steering group, on which the Conservative party is represented, is debating such things.

Mr. Ancram

The provisions are in the Bill.

Mr. Salmond

The provisions are in the Bill in outline form—precisely because the Minister of State is keenly awaiting ideas from the steering group that he has established. The last thing that he needs is to be pre-empted by these foolish and rather ill-thought-through amendments tabled by the Conservative party in this place.

The Minister is anxious to get to his feet, so I shall provide just one example to illustrate my point—not that of the poll tax, but of electricity privatisation. In 1988, I served on the Select Committee—which had a Tory majority—that appealed to Lord Parkinson, the then Secretary of State for Energy, and to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, to delay legislation on electricity privatisation to allow an investigative committee to consider the issue. Both Secretaries of State declined that invitation, and, as a result, what the Committee described as "spatchcock legislation" was passed.

The Minister of State has described a framework, and we should support him. We should allow his consultative group to do its work, and not attempt to wreck it with such foolish amendments.

4.30 pm

Mr. McLeish

I shall respond first to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked about the council of the isles as a revising chamber. I am not aware of any proposal that the council of the isles should act as a revising chamber instead of the House of Lords.

Although I acknowledge the unicameral nature of the Scottish Parliament and therefore see some of the sense behind the issues proposed by the Opposition Front-Bench team, the Government believe that amendment No. 7 intrudes too far into the legislative processes of the Scottish Parliament. That point has been echoed in the debate.

The amendment would impose requirements that could prove burdensome and unnecessary. It would require all Bills, no matter what their content, to be subject to at least three months of public consultation in the middle of their passage through the Scottish Parliament, unless two thirds of the Parliament voted to provide otherwise. By introducing further stages of detailed scrutiny, it could cause an unacceptable delay in the passage of Bills.

Ultimately, it is for the Parliament to decide on its procedures, including arrangements for the scrutiny of legislation. None the less, the Bill requires the Standing Orders of the Parliament to make provision for three stages of parliamentary scrutiny. These are, first, a general debate on a Bill, with an opportunity for Members to vote on its general principles; secondly, consideration of, and opportunity to vote on, the details of the Bill; and, thirdly, a final stage at which the Bill may be passed or rejected. Those are the minimum stages which must be prescribed in the Bill. Further details should be left for the Scottish Parliament to decide.

The White Paper explains that the Government expect Committees to play an important part in carrying out parliamentary business, and the Scottish Parliament will have power to establish such Committees as it considers appropriate. Ultimately, it will be for the Parliament to decide precisely what role Committees should perform, but we envisage that they could be involved in considering proposals for legislation before the formal legislative process has begun, including, in appropriate circumstances, taking evidence before a Bill is prepared. Their task will be to scrutinise and amend all proposals before the Parliament. Such a role will mean that the Scottish Executive's legislative and other proposals will be appropriately scrutinised before they are enacted.

The all-party consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament, which has been alluded to, agreed at its first meeting that arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny should be introduced. The exact form that that might take will be considered carefully in the coming months. With cross-party agreement on the principle of pre-legislative scrutiny, amendment No. 7 becomes redundant. Pre-legislative scrutiny involving interested parties will result in the emergence of a greater consensus on legislation before it is introduced. Therefore, the need for a period of public consultation in the middle of the progress of a Bill through Parliament, as proposed, will not be necessary.

It is useful to stress the work that is being done by the consultative steering group, which involves representatives of all parties, who are all making an excellent contribution. They are aware of the unicameral nature of the Scottish Parliament. They are keen to achieve consensus on legislation. Indeed, they are keen to improve radically on the Westminster model, which is important.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)

Can the Minister name any genuine Parliament in the world that does not have a true revising chamber?

Mr. McLeish

I can furnish the hon. Gentleman with details on that question. We are not talking about the nature of a unicameral Parliament per se. We are talking about the right of the Scottish Parliament to decide on its legislative scrutiny and process.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

It is inadequate.

Mr. McLeish

We hear from a sedentary position that that is inadequate. The model that the Scottish Parliament will adopt will be a huge improvement on the Westminster model. It will involve people and experts, it will aim for consensus and it will ensure that we have the best possible legislation. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Ancram

The Minister has answered my point in his own way. He said that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament. If ever legislation has had pre-legislative scrutiny, it is this Bill. There was a detailed White Paper last summer, a referendum campaign during which the proposals were discussed at length, and a three-month period before the Bill was produced, yet amendment after amendment has been tabled by the Government on Report. If this were a Bill in the Scottish Parliament, it would be too late and there would have to be further legislation. The amendment is much needed, and I ask my hon. Friends to support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 303.

Division No. 279]	[4.34 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Hunter, Andrew
Amess, David	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Jenkin, Bernard
Arbuthnot, James	Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bercow, John
Beresford, Sir Paul	Key, Robert
Blunt, Crispin	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Body, Sir Richard	Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Boswell, Tim	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Brady, Graham	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brazier, Julian	Lansley, Andrew
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Leigh, Edward
Browning, Mrs Angela	Letwin, Oliver
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Lidington, David
Burns, Simon	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Butterfill, John	Loughton, Tim
Clappison, James	Luff, Peter
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Cormack, Sir Patrick	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cran, James	MacKay, Andrew
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Day, Stephen	Malins, Humfrey
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Maples, John
Duncan Smith, Iain	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	May, Mrs Theresa
Evans, Nigel	Moss, Malcolm
Fabricant, Michael	Nicholls, Patrick
Fallon, Michael	Norman, Archie
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Ottaway, Richard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Page, Richard
Fox, Dr Liam	Paice, James
Gale, Roger	Paterson, Owen
Garnier, Edward	Randall, John
Gibb, Nick	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Robathan, Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Gray, James	Ruffley, David
Green, Damian	St Aubyn, Nick
Greenway, John	Sayeed, Jonathan
Grieve, Dominic	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Shepherd, Richard
Hammond, Philip	Soames, Nicholas
Hawkins, Nick	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Spicer, Sir Michael
Horam, John	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Steen, Anthony

Streeter, Gary	Wells, Bowen
Swayne, Desmond	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Syms, Robert	Whittingdale, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Taylor Ian (Esher & Walton)	Wilkinson, John
	Willetts, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Woodward, Shaun
Taylor, Sir Teddy	Yeo, Tim
Tredinnick, David	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Trend, Michael
Tyrie, Andrew	Tellers for the Ayes:
Walter, Robert	Sir David Madel and
Waterson, Nigel	Mr. Oliver Heald.
NOES
Ainger, Nick	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Alexander, Douglas	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Allan, Richard	Dafis, Cynog
Allen, Graham	Dalyell, Tam
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Armstrong, Ms Hilary	Darvill, Keith
Ashton, Joe	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Austin, John	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Baker, Norman	Davidson, Ian
Barnes, Harry	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Bayley, Hugh	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Beard, Nigel	Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Benton, Joe	Denham, John
Berry, Roger	Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Betts, Clive	Dismore, Andrew
Blackman, Liz	Dobbin, Jim
Blears, Ms Hazel	Doran, Frank
Blizzard, Bob	Dowd, Jim
Boateng, Paul	Drew, David
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Bradshaw, Ben	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Brake, Tom	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Brand, Dr Peter	Ennis, Jeff
Breed, Colin	Fearn, Ronnie
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Fitzsimons, Lorna
Browne, Desmond	Flint, Caroline
Buck, Ms Karen	Follett, Barbara
Burden, Richard	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Burgon, Colin	Foster, Don (Bath)
Burnett, John	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Burstow, Paul	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Byers, Stephen	Fyfe, Maria
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Galbraith, Sam
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Galloway, George
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)	Gardiner, Barry
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Cann, Jamie	Gerrard, Neil
Caplin, Ivor	Gibson, Dr Ian
Caton, Martin	Godsiff, Roger
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Goggins, Paul
Chaytor, David	Gorrie, Donald
Chidgey, David	Grant, Bernie
Chisholm, Malcolm	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clapham, Michael	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Hancock, Mike
Clwyd, Ann	Hanson, David
Coaker, Vernon	Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Colman, Tony	Harris, Dr Evan
Connarty, Michael	Harvey, Nick
Cooper, Yvette	Healey, John
Corbett, Robin	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Corston, Ms Jean	Hepburn, Stephen
Cotter, Brian	Heppell, John
Cranston, Ross	Hesford, Stephen
Crausby, David	Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Hill, Keith	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hinchliffe, David	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Hodge, Ms Margaret	Milburn, Alan
Home Robertson, John	Miller, Andrew
Hoon, Geoffrey	Mitchell, Austin
Hope, Phil	Moffatt, Laura
Hopkins, Kelvin	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)	Moore, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hoyle, Lindsay	Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfotd)	Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Hughes, Simon (Southward N)	Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Hurst, Alan	Mudie, George
Hutton, John	Mullin, Chris
Iddon, Dr Brian	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Illsley, Eric	Norris, Dan
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	O'Neill, Martin
Jenkins, Brian	Organ, Mrs Diana
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Osborne, Ms Sandra
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Pearson, Ian
	Pendry, Tom
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Perham, Ms Linda
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Pike, Peter L
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Plaskitt, James
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Pollard, Kerry
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Pond, Chris
Jowell, Ms Tessa	Pope, Greg
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pound, Stephen
Keetch, Paul	Powell, Sir Raymond
Kemp, Fraser	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)	Primarolo, Dawn
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Purchase, Ken
Khabra, Piara S	Quin, Ms Joyce
Kidney, David	Quinn, Lawrie
Kilfoyle, Peter	Radice, Giles
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)	Rammell, Bill
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Kingham, Ms Tess	Rendel, David
Kirkwood, Archy	Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Rogers, Allan
Lawrence, Ms Jackie	Rooker, Jeff
Leslie, Christopher	Rooney, Terry
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Roy, Frank
Linton, Martin	Ruddock, Ms Joan
Livsey, Richard	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Ryan, Ms Joan
Lock, David	Salmond, Alex
Love, Andrew	Salter, Martin
McAllion, John	Sanders, Adrian
McAvoy, Thomas	Sarwar, Mohammad
McCabe, Steve	Savidge, Malcolm
McCafferty, Ms Chris	Sawford, Phil
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)	Sedgemore, Brian
McDonagh, Siobhain	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Macdonald, Calum	Shipley, Ms Debra
McFall, John	Singh, Marsha
McGuire, Mrs Anne	Skinner, Dennis
McLeish, Henry	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
McNulty, Tony	Snape, Peter
MacShane, Denis	Soley, Clive
Mactaggart, Fiona	Spellar, John
McWilliam, John	Squire, Ms Rachel
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mandelson, Peter	Stinchcombe, Paul
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)	Stoate, Dr Howard
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Martlew, Eric	Swinney, John
Meale, Alan	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Merron, Gillian
Michael, Alun	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tipping, Paddy	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Todd, Mark	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Tonge, Dr Jenny	Willis, Phil
Touhig, Don	Wills, Michael
Trickett, Jon	Wilson, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	Winnick, David
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)	Wise, Audrey
Tyler, Paul	Wood, Mike
Wallace, James	Woolas, Phil
Ward, Ms Claire	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Welsh, Andrew	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
White, Brian
Whitehead, Dr Alan	Tellers for the Noes:
Wicks, Malcolm	Mr. David Clelland and
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd	Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.