HC Deb 21 October 1998 vol 317 cc1325-37
Mr. Garnier

I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 34, leave out Clause 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 40, in page 7, line 17, at end insert— '(3A) For the purposes of this section, "compelling reasons" shall be taken to exist where, and only where, a failure to proceed under this section would be likely to jeopardise national security, public health, or the liberty of an individual.'. No. 41, in page 7, line 17, at end insert— '(3B)Where the Secretary of State considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he shall, before or at the same time as laying before Parliament a remedial order or draft remedial order, lay before Parliament a written statement of those reasons.'. No. 39, in schedule 2, page 18, line 36, leave out Schedule 2.

Mr. Garnier

We had an interesting discussion about clause 10 in Committee last June. It is appropriate to revisit some of the arguments that were deployed on that occasion while discussing these amendments. We are returning to this debate on clause 10, which gives the Government the power to amend the law by using a fast-track procedure, because we remain convinced that it is wrong in principle. We have stated that in Committee and my noble Friends have made the point in the other place. On both occasions, the Government have not provided us with any compelling answers.

Bluntly, the clause is designed to increase the power of Ministers, to diminish the role of Parliament, and to weaken our democracy. At this point, I imagine that the Home Secretary wishes to leap to his feet to say that I am being unfair, that this is merely a fallback procedure, and that clause 10(2) makes it clear that it can be used only if a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for doing so.

I shall explore that proviso in a minute, but first I must emphasise that this basic provision, designed to bypass our normal parliamentary procedures, is just one more facet of the Government's attack on our constitution, aimed at increasing the power of the Executive and diminishing the power of the people, through their elected representatives in Parliament, to hold the Government to account.

We are witnessing this centralising grip in every aspect of the Government's so-called modernisation—that grossly over-used word—of our constitution. We see it in their insistence on list systems for elections to the European Parliament: power is taken from the people and given to the party. We see it in the Prime Minister's proposals for proportional representation, as evidenced by the Jenkins commission, which is rigged in its composition and rigged in its terms of reference. We see it in the Prime Minister's half-baked proposals for the so-called reform of the other place, which abolish the rights of hereditary peers because they are undemocratic and based on the patronage of the past, only to substitute them with a system of patronage and nepotism in which all the power is placed in the hands of—surprise, surprise—the present and much-revered Prime Minister.

Those systems are wrong, and—to give him his due—the Home Secretary knows that they are wrong. It is precisely because he knows that they are wrong in relation to the Bill that he has introduced what is now clause 10(2), which provides that the fast-track system may be used only if Ministers consider that there are compelling reasons to do so. It is further fair to the Home Secretary to say that it is reported that he has strong objections to abolishing our tried and tested system for electing Members of Parliament and replacing it with a system of proportional representation. He, at least, is said to understand that that is wrong for a host of reasons, but particularly because it diminishes the power of the people to choose not only their elected representatives but the complexion of their Government.

We start from the position where even the Government recognise that their proposals for the fast-track procedure—for the diminution of Parliament—are wrong in principle, yet they persist with them. I question whether they understand why they are wrong in principle. I am not sure that they do.

The European convention on human rights is not a system for making laws: it is not a substitute for Parliament. It is a broad framework within which all our laws should be framed and with which our laws must comply. The courts will tell us, after due argument, whether some aspect of our law is incompatible, but it is not for the courts to redesign those laws. They are not equipped to do so. It would be wholly undemocratic if they were to attempt to do so. That is the role of Parliament. What possible justification is there for the Government to diminish the role of Parliament? What are the compelling reasons which are to entitle Ministers to override the rights of the people and of our electorates to be represented in these matters by their chosen representatives? We are not told.

The Government have proposed no definition. I can find nothing in the previous pronouncements of the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor or of any Ministers, here or in the other place, to pin down the circumstances in which these compelling reasons will be considered by Ministers to exist. It is not that there will be too many of these changes and that it would clutter up Parliament. We are told repeatedly by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary that we expect changes to primary legislation to be rare. I said in Committee in June that there have been only 13 such changes in the 32 years since 1966, when we first granted the right of individual petition to citizens to take their cases to Strasbourg.

Even if there were to be a significant increase in the number of these cases, does that not make it all the more important that there should be full and proper parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the law? As the Home Secretary knows, I am a lawyer and I have a high respect for lawyers and judges, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who is sitting beside me. However, we are not to be ruled by judges, and the courts are not the right place for making laws. The people are not represented in the courts. The judge has to decide the issues brought to him by individual litigants. The duty of the lawyers representing their clients is not to the public at large, and it is not even to the programme of a party tested before the electorate, but to the aim of winning that particular case to protect the immediate interests of that individual litigant.

The cases to be expected are not all that many, but the issues are seldom trivial. Perhaps the Minister or the Home Secretary will tell us whether triviality is one of the grounds for deciding that the reasons are compelling. Most of the cases involve great issues of real difficulty. Let me illustrate that by reference to the three cases that we all know to be outstanding and requiring legislative change at the present time. I correct myself, because only two cases are now outstanding, as Chahal no longer applies following the immigration legislation that was passed just before the recess.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has tabled a parliamentary question to the Home Secretary to ask him how many cases he knows of at the moment, but we know of two: Bowman and the recent case about the rights of parents to chastise or not to chastise their children. Both those cases involve complex issues about the liberty of the subject and the security of the state. Are they to be regarded as compelling reasons? I ask that question forensically, as our probing amendment suggests that national security and public health may be compelling reasons for a fast-track procedure, but I emphasise that this is merely a probing amendment. When we have debated it, I intend, with the leave of the House, to withdraw it, for the very consideration of those issues shows how inappropriate it would be in many cases.

Is Parliament not to have a full opportunity to discuss the nature of the necessary court procedures? Is it not to have a full opportunity to discuss, amend and test the Government's proposals in relation to national security, or is the whole thing to be rammed through in a simple three-hour debate and one vote at the behest of the Government of the day? I have observed the number of people in the Chamber this evening, and in the Committee during our debates in June. I do not expect all Members of Parliament to be present for every debate, but it is instructive that all parties are pretty thinly represented this evening. Matters on which we are deciding now and which will be dealt with by remedial orders at the behest of Ministers deserve greater attention, and I fear that they will not get the House's attention in the three-hour debates that clause 10 foreshadows.

The case raised by Bowman is illustrative. We were disappointed, frankly, that the present Attorney-General, for whatever reason, did not go to Strasbourg to argue the case himself. He is an elected Member of Parliament and understands, as probably nobody else in that court building does, the care with which our electoral law has been framed. Now, if we are not careful, a coach and horses is to be driven through that system.

My right hon. and learned Friend touched earlier on the case involving the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and Mrs. Phylis Bowman. They oppose, as is their democratic right, our present abortion laws, and delivered 25,000 leaflets to every household in the constituency of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) personally attacking her for her pro-abortion views on the subject, which differed strongly from their own.

It was the personal attack on the hon. Lady that fell foul of our election law. The society was perfectly entitled to deliver leaflets expressing its views on the issue, and inviting each voter to take that issue heavily into account in deciding how to vote. What happened, however—and what will happen if others are permitted to do likewise—was that our system of a balance of arms, or equality of spending, which governs most people's view of what is a fair system, was deeply undercut. As I have said, we do not know the Government's view. Perhaps they propose to consult—but will they say that, whatever their own conclusion, this is a suitable case to ram through via the fast-track procedure and a debate lasting a mere three hours?

6.30 pm

Then there is the question of the extent to which parents may or may not punish their children. Our present law permits what is described as reasonable chastisement. In one case, a British jury held that the caning administered was not unreasonable. It must be said—with respect to the court—that that may have been a surprising decision. In any event, in recent years the court has on the whole been careful to give a proper margin of appreciation, as the phrase goes—to give proper discretion—to individual member states on domestic matters such as this.

Now the British Government must decide what to do about a delicate and difficult issue, which should be subject to full debate, with a proper opportunity for amendment and reflection on the part of both Houses. It is not suitable for such a measure to be pushed through by means of an unamendable order after a three-hour debate. I am sure that the Minister will accept that, even if he accepts nothing else that is said by the Opposition. Our first request to the Government, and to the Home Secretary, is simply for them to drop clause 10 and to accept our amendment, which would remove it and schedule 2.

The Home Secretary does not need these powers. He has shown us no "compelling reasons" why he should have them, either in terms of business management or in terms of advantage to the citizen—although I suspect that business management may underlie the Government's proposals.

Schedule 2 also demonstrates the Government's growing disregard of Parliament. First, there is its Henry VIII quality. Paragraph 1(1) states: A remedial order may … contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate". Paragraph 1(2) states that those powers include power to amend or repeal primary legislation"— including both primary and subordinate legislation— other than that which contains the incompatible provision". Consequential or transitional provisions might be reasonable, but how do the Government propose to justify incidental and supplemental provisions?

What is more, the whole procedure becomes increasingly unparliamentary. To allow for the normal and proper requirements of primary legislation, the schedule provides for draft orders to be laid and for representations to be summarised. As I said in Committee, the power to edit is a power that editors are loth to give up. The power to summarise is a power that sub-editors are loth to give up. I am afraid that, when the power to summarise representations is given to the relevant Minister, my alarm bells start ringing in clarion.

Changes as a result of representations are to be explained, but what is the excuse for going outside normal parliamentary procedures? Not only do our normal procedures hold the Government to account; they are faster and more flexible than the procedures that are being proposed. The aim is plainly to bypass Parliament and enhance the power of the Executive—and all this is in the name of modernisation.

During our last debate, I crudely commented that clause 10 constituted not so much a Henry VIII clause as a Henry XVI clause. Despite the crudity of my analogy, I do not resile from it. Our request is this: we ask the Government to drop both clause 10 and schedule 2. They will be perfectly able to proceed with primary legislation when faced with a declaration of incompatibility.

We all await with interest the Government's answers to our questions. What are these "compelling reasons" for overriding the rights of the people in Parliament? Where and how will the fast-track procedure benefit the citizen? Is the truth that behind this unjustified measure lies not the good sense of the Home Secretary, but the requirements of his Whips—the business managers—the jackboot of the new Government enforcer and the disregard of Parliament for which the Prime Minister's reputation is increasing daily?

The clause, and the schedule, will return to haunt this Government and this Prime Minister. They will—I trust—be one of the factors that will wipe the smile from the Prime Minister's face in the coming weeks and months. Clause 10 is a dangerous clause, and schedule 2 is a dangerous schedule. I invite the House to agree with us that the Government ought to consider the issue rather more maturely.

Mr. Mike O'Brien

I suspect that the Prime Minister's smile will be reinforced when the Bill is passed, and we ensure that human rights are enhanced and ordinary citizens are given access to their rights. That is what the Bill is really about.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) commented on the number of hon. Members present. I, too, regret the lack of attenders, but I noted earlier that the number of those present was roughly proportionate to party membership in the House, although it occurred to me that our proposals did not seem to have caused a large number of Opposition Members to rush into the Chamber and express their outrage. Perhaps that is because we cantered through many of the arguments in Committee—although I noted then that not many hon. Members were expressing such outrage.

Mr. Garnier

I am not going to express outrage. I simply wish to remind the Minister gently that mine was not a party political point but a parliamentary point—a House of Commons point. The fact that I was able to make it, although my party is largely unrepresented this evening, reinforces my good will.

Mr. O'Brien

In a sense, I accept that good will. I agree that it would have been better for far more hon. Members to attend our debates, given the importance of the subject. Mine is a different point, however. My point is that, if Opposition Members had been enormously concerned—if they had felt that our proposals matched the hyperbole that the hon. and learned Gentleman employed at the beginning of his speech—I suspect that far more of them would have been present, complaining about what the Government are doing. That has not happened, because the Government have proceeded thoughtfully and constructively throughout consideration of the Bill, in an attempt to ensure that we take on board the points made by Opposition Members—as well as our hon. Friends—and construct a lasting provision that will genuinely enhance human rights in this country.

Let me deal with the details. Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 would add two new subsections to clause 10. At present, clause 10(2) provides that, if a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under clause 10, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility. Amendment No. 40 would limit "compelling reasons" to cases in which a failure to proceed would be likely to jeopardise national security, public health or the liberty of the individual. Amendment No. 41 would require the Secretary of State—before or at the same time as laying before Parliament a remedial order or draft remedial order—to lay before Parliament a written statement of those reasons.

The requirement for compelling reasons in clause 10(2) is itself a response to concern expressed here and in another place about the remedial order provisions. It is there to make it absolutely clear that a remedial order is not a routine response in preference to fresh primary legislation. We would not want to go further, as in amendment No. 40, and limit "compelling reasons" to the three categories mentioned. There may be other circumstances that constitute compelling reasons sufficient to justify a remedial order: for example, a decision of the higher courts in relation to basic provisions of criminal procedure affecting the way in which, perhaps, all criminal cases must be handled.

An example is a provision that might invalidate a crucial part of the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or provisions relating to the detention of suspects. Therefore, there are a number of issues where we would want to proceed with care. We also might need to respond very quickly simply to avoid the criminal justice system in such cases either collapsing or not being able to deliver justice and proper convictions.

"Compelling" is a strong word. We see no need to define it by reference to particular categories. In both the outstanding cases that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has put to me, our view is likely to be that those would not create the compelling reasons that would justify a remedial order. In any event, on those issues—electoral law and chastising children—everyone would expect primary legislation rather than a remedial order. I hope that that gives some reassurance.

I noted that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that this is, in a sense, a probing amendment. He has asked me some clear questions about how we would perceive those two cases and I hope that those are clear answers. We do not expect that those will be the sort of issues in which remedial orders would be likely.

On amendment No. 41, if Conservative Members look at schedule 2, they will find that a document must be laid before Parliament containing certain information. It must explain the incompatibility that the remedial order or draft remedial order seeks to remove, and it must state the reasons for proceeding under clause 10 and for making an order in the terms in which it is made.

Therefore, the document is bound to explain why the Government believe that there are compelling reasons for making a remedial order and what those are. The document must be laid before Parliament and will be available for the debate in each House on the motion for affirmative resolution, which will be necessary before a draft remedial order can be made, or in order for an urgent remedial order to continue in existence, so amendment No. 41 is unnecessary.

The approach in amendments Nos. 38 and 39 is more extreme. They would simply remove clause 10 and schedule 2, so that there would be no procedure at all for amending legislation by order to remove an incompatibility with the convention rights. That raises the principle whether it is right, even in tightly drawn circumstances, to amend primary legislation by order.

It would be open to the Government to take no action in response to a declaration of incompatibility—that issue has already been rehearsed during this afternoon's debates—but, where a declaration is made, a Government who are committed to promoting human rights, as we are, will want to do something about the law in question. It is possible for primary legislation to be introduced and passed quickly, but the pressures on the timetable can make it very difficult to find a slot.

The power to make a remedial order is there for cases where there is a very good reason to amend the law following a declaration of incompatibility or a finding by the Strasbourg court, but no suitable legislative vehicle is available. Where a remedial order is made or proposed, we accepted that the procedures for parliamentary scrutiny needed to be strengthened. That is why the requirement to provide a document containing all the relevant information and a statement providing a summary of any representations on an order or draft order was added to schedule 2 in Committee.

We think that we have the balance right here. Clause 10 and schedule 2 enable Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities and ensure that onerous powers are not given to the Government. Our proposals safeguard parliamentary procedures and sovereignty, ensure proper supervision of our laws and ensure that we can begin to get the ability both to enforce human rights law and to create a human rights culture. They also ensure that we can do it in the context of not having to worry that, if something is decided by the Strasbourg court or by our courts that creates an incompatibility, we do not have a mechanism to deal with it in the quick and efficient way that may be necessary.

Sir Nicholas Lyell

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, and, to some extent, I think that he has sought to meet the criticisms that we have made. The only pity is that the logical outcome of his argument is that he should accept our demand that clause 10 and schedule 2 be dropped from the Bill.

I have done my best to listen very carefully—I notice the Minister frowning at those strong words—but I want to focus on the portion of his speech where he sought to describe the sort of case where normal parliamentary procedure would be ridden over and where we would go to the remedial order procedure.

The thing about the remedial order procedure—this is the frightening thing and why it is worrying that the Chamber is not fuller—is that it creates a parallel system to Parliament that does not fully engage Parliament. Schedule 2 sets up a system whereby the Government put out their ideas, consult for 60 days, come to Parliament, say what they are going to do as a result of their consultation, and then ram their provisions straight through Parliament.

6.45 pm

If we are going to have that extra parliamentary procedure, which to some extent mirrors our normal parliamentary procedures, why do we not stick with the parliamentary procedures themselves? That has not been properly explained by the Minister or the Home Secretary. This is simply put forward as some sort of reason for hastening things on. It is not good enough.

If the Government are going to wait for 60 days while they consult, the immediate urgency is removed. If in rare cases—I think that it is generally agreed that these cases would be rare—they have to use this fast-track procedure, they need to get on quickly. They are not going to be able to get on much more quickly than if they come to the House.

I have been in the House for nearly 20 years. Time and again, the Opposition have accepted sensible remedial legislation fairly rapidly by consensus. It is rare that sensible and uncontroversial amendments to the law—as a result, for example, of a respected ruling by an international body such as the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg—are made the opportunity for parliamentary hay-making and obstruction. Therefore, to create a new and parallel system that is far less effective than the proper systems of Parliament is wrong in principle.

The Minister sought to find an example where this rapid procedure is needed. I may have missed something that he said, and I hope that he will remind me if I have, but the only example that I thought I heard him mention was the need to amend codes of practice under PACE. Did the Minister mention another example?

Mr. Mike O'Brien

The other example was some basis on which suspects may be held.

Sir Nicholas Lyell

Both those examples fall by the wayside, for this reason. As I understand it, and I do not have the legislation at my fingertips, the amendment of codes of practice under PACE can be done by statutory instrument in any event, so that is not a good example to bring forward in answer to the criticism and our suggestions that clause 10 and schedule 2 be removed from the Bill. It is not an answer.

I can see that, if there were some serious criticism of our procedures in relation to the liberty of an individual, there is a need to move with speed, but the answer that the Minister has given in this debate sits ill with the answers that the Home Secretary was giving in our earlier debate about the need for Government, or a public authority, to have an appeal to Strasbourg.

There, I was seeking to set a tight timetable of about 60 days for Government, in which Government, having been criticised and condemned on the ground that our law is incompatible by our own courts—by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords—should say whether they accepted the criticism and what they proposed to do about it. I suggested that, if the Government did not accept the ruling of incompatibility, they should say so, so that the citizen concerned could take the case to Strasbourg, which would, in any event, undoubtedly take at least another year to achieve. Nevertheless, the need for speed is offered as a reason for justifying an alleged fast-track procedure.

I think that Ministers now accept in principle the Opposition's criticisms of the proposed procedure, although they did not accept them before. The Under-Secretary has rightly said—I was grateful to hear it—that there has to be a very good and compelling reason indeed for the Government, or any future Government, to attempt to use the fast-track procedure. Such occasions will therefore be rare and deal only with exceptional circumstances. The procedure will not be used regularly or apply to codes of practice—which, regardless, can be amended by statutory instrument. If there is a very good and powerful reason, affecting the liberty of the subject, I do not foresee Conservative Members, other Opposition Members or the Labour Members, as and when they come to be in opposition, standing in the way of such rapid amendment.

I do not believe that the Government have made their case for the fast-track procedure. However, I give them credit for backtracking about as far as they reasonably can, having already set out on this course. None the less, the course is wrong. The Opposition must criticise it as wrong, and make it perfectly clear that such a provision should not be enacted.

I am sorry to have to pitch in that criticism with our other criticisms of the Government trying to ride roughshod over Parliament. I hope that, by so doing, I will not be accused of hyperbole—although I may get the occasional rise of an eyebrow from a Labour Member. However, the Government are attempting to ride roughshod over Parliament. That is being demonstrated by the Jenkins commission, which is rigged in both its composition and its terms of reference. [Interruption.] Yes, it is.

I see the Secretary of State for Scotland spitting and saying "rigged?" The fact is that the Jenkins commission was given terms of reference to examine only one side of a very important picture. The three people on the commission, highly distinguished though they are, were all picked and chosen because of their known views on the subject. The Secretary of State for Scotland may wriggle and wave his hand and seek to rise to the occasion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. We are not debating the Jenkins commission.

Sir Nicholas Lyell

You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was making the point—I am entitled to make this point—that the fast-track procedure is an attempt to ride over the rights of the citizen to be represented in the proper making of legislation by their representatives in Parliament. The fast-track procedure is of a piece with other constitutional changes proposed by the Government—I have mentioned Jenkins, and I mention proposals to abolish the rights of hereditary peers in the House of Lords and to replace them simply by nominated Members.

There is inadequate respect for Parliament, which, sadly, is shown also in this Bill. I put it down to the good sense of the Home Secretary—I am certainly prepared to concede this—that the proposal has now been heavily watered down, as we recommend. However, even something that is watered down can still be wrong in principle. We must therefore oppose the proposal. If Ministers will not accept this group of amendments, we must ask the House to divide on it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 362.

Division No. 364] [6.53 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Loughton, Tim
Bercow, John Luff, Peter
Beresford, Sir Paul Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Blunt, Crispin MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Body, Sir Richard MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Boswell, Tim Maclean, Rt Hon David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Madel, Sir David
Brady, Graham Malins, Humfrey
Brazier, Julian Maples, John
Browning, Mrs Angela Mates, Michael
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Butterfill, John May, Mrs Theresa
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) Nicholls, Patrick
Norman, Archie
Chope, Christopher Ottaway, Richard
Clappison, James Page, Richard
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington) Paice, James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh) Paterson, Owen
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Pickles, Eric
Collins, Tim Prior, David
Cormack, Sir Patrick Randall, John
Cran, James Robathan, Andrew
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Duncan, Alan Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Evans, Nigel Ruffley, David
Fabricant, Michael St Aubyn, Nick
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Sayeed, Jonathan
Fox, Dr Liam Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gale, Roger Shepherd, Richard
Garnier, Edward Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Gibb, Nick Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Spicer, Sir Michael
Gray, James Spring, Richard
Green, Damian Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Greenway, John Swayne, Desmond
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Syms, Robert
Hawkins, Nick Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Heald, Oliver Taylor, Sir Teddy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Tredinnick, David
Horam, John Tyrie, Andrew
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Walter, Robert
Hunter, Andrew Wardle, Charles
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Whittingdale, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Jenkin, Bernard Wilkinson, John
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Willetts, David
Wilshire, David
Key, Robert Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Woodward, Shaun
Lansley, Andrew Yeo, Tim
Leigh, Edward
Letwin, Oliver Tellers for the Ayes:
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.
Lidington, David
NOES
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Cranston, Ross
Alexander, Douglas Crausby, David
Allan, Richard Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Allen, Graham Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Armstrong, Ms Hilary Cummings, John
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Ashton, Joe Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Atherton, Ms Candy Dalyell, Tam
Atkins, Charlotte Darvill, Keith
Austin, John Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Baker, Norman Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ballard, Jackie Davidson, Ian
Barnes, Harry Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Barron, Kevin Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Bayley, Hugh Dawson, Hilton
Beard, Nigel Dean, Mrs Janet
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Denham, John
Begg, Miss Anne Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Beith, Rt Hon A J Dismore, Andrew
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Dobbin, Jim
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Donohoe, Brian H
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Dowd, Jim
Bennett, Andrew F Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Benton, Joe Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Bermingham, Gerald Edwards, Huw
Berry, Roger Efford, Clive
Best, Harold Ellman, Mrs Louise
Betts, Clive Ennis, Jeff
Borrow, David Etherington, Bill
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Field, Rt Hon Frank
Bradshaw, Ben Fisher, Mark
Brake, Tom Fitzpatrick, Jim
Brand, Dr Peter Fitzsimons, Lorna
Breed, Colin Flint, Caroline
Brinton, Mrs Helen Flynn, Paul
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Follett, Barbara
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Buck, Ms Karen Foster, Don (Bath)
Burden, Richard Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Burgon, Colin Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Butler, Mrs Christine Fyfe, Maria
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen Galloway, George
Cable, Dr Vincent Gapes, Mike
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) George, Andrew (St Ives)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife) Gerrard, Neil
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Gibson, Dr Ian
Campbell-Savours, Dale Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Canavan, Dennis Godman, Dr Norman A
Caplin, Ivor Godsiff, Roger
Casale, Roger Goggins, Paul
Caton, Martin Golding, Mrs Llin
Chaytor, David Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Chidgey, David Gorrie, Donald
Chisholm, Malcolm Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Church, Ms Judith Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Clapham, Michael Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Grocott, Bruce
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Grogan, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Gunnell, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clelland, David Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clwyd, Ann Harris, Dr Evan
Coaker, Vernon Harvey, Nick
Coffey, Ms Ann Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Cohen, Harry Healey, John
Coleman, Iain Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Colman, Tony Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Cooper, Yvette Hepburn, Stephen
Corbett, Robin Heppell, John
Corston, Ms Jean Hesford, Stephen
Cotter, Brian Hill, Keith
Cousins, Jim Hoey, Kate
Home Robertson, John Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hood, Jimmy Martlew, Eric
Hoon, Geoffrey Maxton, John
Hope, Phil Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin Meale, Alan
Howells, Dr Kim Merron, Gillian
Hoyle, Lindsay Michael, Alun
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Humble, Mrs Joan Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Hurst, Alan Milburn, Alan
Hutton, John Miller, Andrew
Iddon, Dr Brian Mitchell, Austin
Illsley, Eric Moonie, Dr Lewis
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) Moore, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) Moran, Ms Margaret
Jamieson, David Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Jenkins, Brian Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mudie, George
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) Mullin, Chris
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N) Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW) Naysmith, Dr Doug
Norris, Dan
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) Oaten, Mark
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jowell, Ms Tessa O'Hara, Eddie
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Öpik, Lembit
Keeble, Ms Sally Organ, Mrs Diana
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) Osborne, Ms Sandra
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) Pearson, Ian
Keetch, Paul Pendry, Tom
Kelly, Ms Ruth Perham, Ms Linda
Kemp, Fraser Pickthall, Colin
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye) Pike, Peter L
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) Plaskitt, James
Khabra, Piara S Pope, Greg
Kidney, David Pound, Stephen
Kilfoyle, Peter Powell, Sir Raymond
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Kingham, Ms Tess Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kirkwood, Archy Prosser, Gwyn
Kumar, Dr Ashok Purchase, Ken
Ladyman, Dr Stephen Quin, Ms Joyce
Lawrence, Ms Jackie Radice, Giles
Laxton, Bob Rammell, Bill
Lepper, David Rapson, Syd
Leslie, Christopher Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Levitt, Tom Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) Rendel, David
Lewis, Terry (Worsley) Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Linton, Martin Rogers, Allan
Livingstone, Ken Rooney, Terry
Lock, David Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Love, Andrew Rowlands, Ted
McAllion, John Roy, Frank
McCabe, Steve Ruddock, Ms Joan
McCafferty, Ms Chris Russell, Bob (Colchester)
McDonagh, Siobhain Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McDonnell, John Ryan, Ms Joan
McGuire, Mrs Anne Salter, Martin
McIsaac, Shona Sanders, Adrian
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary Savidge, Malcolm
Mackinlay, Andrew Sawford, Phil
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert Sedgemore, Brian
McNulty, Tony Shaw, Jonathan
Mactaggart, Fiona Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McWalter, Tony Shipley, Ms Debra
McWilliam, John Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice Singh, Marsha
Mallaber, Judy Skinner, Dennis
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale) Truswell, Paul
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Smith, Llew (Baenau Gwent) Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) Tyler, Paul
Soley, Clive Vaz, Keith
Southworth, Ms Helen Vis, Dr Rudi
Spellar, John Wallace, James
Starkey, Dr Phyllis Walley, Ms Joan
Steinberg, Gerry Ward, Ms Claire
Stevenson, George Wareing, Robert N
Stewart, David (Inverness E) Watts, David
Stewart, Ian (Eccles) Webb, Steve
Stinchcombe, Paul Welsh, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard White, Brian
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin Whitehead, Dr Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack Wicks, Malcolm
Stringer, Graham Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Stuart, Ms Gisela Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Stunell, Andrew Willis, Phil
Sutcliffe, Gerry Winnick, David
Swinney, John Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury) Wise, Audrey
Wood, Mike
Taylor, David (NW Leics) Woolas, Phil
Taylor, Matthew (Truro) Worthington, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter Wray, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Tipping, Paddy Wyatt, Derek
Todd, Mark
Tonge, Dr Jenny Tellers for the Noes:
Touhig, Don Mr. David Hanson and Mr. Kevin Hughes.
Trickett, Jon

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 7, line 25, leave out lines 25 and 26.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Forward to