REGULATIONS CONCERNING CHARGES SCHEMES

HC Deb 10 February 1999 vol 325 cc413-26

Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 3, leave out from end of line 19 to end of line 10 on page 4 and insert— '143A.—(1) In making a charges scheme under section 143 above, a relevant undertaker shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the matters listed in subsection (2) below. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may issue guidance relating to the following—

1. (a) the factors to be taken into account in relation to the fixing, calculating and imposing of charges;
2. (b) the making available to consumers of alternative bases of charging; and
3. (c) the taking into account of the problems faced by the aged, ill and disabled.

(3) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any guidance given by him under subsection (2) above to be published in such a manner as he considers appropriate.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in page 3, leave out lines 41 to 47 and insert— '(a) prescribe in relation to any premises charged by reference to the volume of water supplied the classes of person for whom special provision is to be made by reference either to the financial circumstances of the consumer and the number of the consumer's dependent children or any person who has their home in such premises and who has a medical condition which requires the consumption of a volume of water in excess of a normal household level;'.

Mrs. Spelman

In Committee, more of the Government's thinking on the regulation of the water industry came to light. We were disquieted by the Government giving themselves enhanced powers. The force of the amendments is directed at what we see as a retrograde step in restoring more centralised control to a previously deregulated industry.

I stress that the amendments are in no way intended to lessen a proper degree of protection for vulnerable groups in society. The Government have said that special protection should be available for customers with a metered supply who, regrettably, suffer from certain medical conditions that require a high consumption of water—some of which are quite common, such as incontinence—and for large families on low incomes who, as any mother knows well, have a water consumption just short of that of a small Chinese laundry.

In an ideal world, the benefits system or the health service would be sufficiently sophisticated to deal with the essential needs of such people, but that seems unlikely at present. The Office of Water Services' national customer council believes that the majority of customers would not be opposed to a modest cross-subsidy within water companies' charging schemes to assist the most vulnerable groups of customers.

Amendment No. 29 merely restricts the Secretary of State's powers to those for whom special provision must be made in company's charges schemes. It represents simply a finesse of the Government's intentions, as a constructive Opposition might well be expected to produce.

However, amendment No. 26 reflects our serious concern about the enhancement of the Secretary of State's powers to make regulations as he or she sees fit. We take issue with the rather glib view that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), expressed in Committee that The Government have a legitimate interest in a wide range of charging issues. It must, therefore, be correct for democratically elected politicians to be able to play a role in decision making on the distribution of charges where distribution can have important social and environmental implications. Surely that depends a great deal on what playing a role means. Those enhanced powers are a potential area of conflict with the industry's regulator.

The avoidance of conflict would seem to be possible only if the power and influence of the regulator is diminished in relation to the influence of the state. In case the Minister thinks that I am reading too much into the clause, I quote his defence of the enhanced powers. He said that they were necessary to avoid relying on Ofwat's economic regulation powers to achieve social and environmental aims."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 January 1999; c. 68.] That, too, can be found in column 68 of Hansard.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Water Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Allen.]

Question agreed to.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed,That the amendment be made.

Mrs. Spelman

The Bill as drafted means that companies' charging schemes must comply with regulations set out by the Secretary of State. That represents a fundamental shift in the nature of United Kingdom utility regulation. Essentially, it makes the Secretary of State the regulator. The United Kingdom model of utility regulation is based on the principle of regulatory independence and is pioneering in the utilities market. That ensures that a regulator's objectives and duties, as well as those of the regulated companies, are those explicitly given by Parliament through primary legislation.

The Government's position, as stated in the Bill, appears to be at variance with their conclusion to the first stage of their own review of utility regulation, which was concluded last autumn. They stated that regulators should continue to be independent while having "regard" to the guidance that Secretaries of State could issue on social and environmental matters. Ironically, our amendment better reflects the Government's conclusion than the Bill.

I digress slightly to pick up an important point that was made when we were debating an amendment tabled by the Welsh National party, which relates to the question of which Secretary of State we are discussing. We learned a new piece of information about the Secretary of State's role in regulating the industry when reference was made to prescribing regulations during our discussion of new clause 1. We learned, to the surprise of Conservative Members, that the Secretary of State in question was the Secretary of State for Wales.

That is a major constitutional point, and we did not get an answer to the question from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who asked whether that transfer of power would be governed by a concordat. I am reliably informed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that the Minister's clarification was inaccurate in that this Bill post-dates the transfer of functions under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and is not covered by it. The Minister may wish to revisit that issue in his reply.

Clause 5, if unamended, would fly in the face of the Government's declared regulatory principles and it represents a backward step in utility regulation. It will make companies' charging schemes comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Such regulations will impose on companies and regulators objectives other than those determined by Parliament. That is yet another example of the Government taking back central control and showing their disregard for Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale)

Not surprisingly, I begin by saying that the Government are against the amendments, which we believe would restrict the protection of vulnerable consumers provided by the Bill. We have made it clear that we intend to specify in regulations vulnerable groups of people with high essential water use that should—as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) pointed out—be given protection when they face the prospect of a measured water bill. We have also made clear which groups we intend to protect: large families with low incomes and those with medical conditions requiring high water use.

We have good reason not to agree with the amendments. Amendment No. 26 would replace the Secretary of State's regulation-making power under clause 5 with a power to give guidance to water companies on the contents of charges schemes. We do not believe that that would lead to a better system of regulation. Indeed, it would not be better for customers because we would not be able to assure vulnerable customers that they would be protected from hardship.

Of course, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, we could give the water companies guidance about the sort of assistance that they should provide. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) warned, the companies would then decide how, and how far, to implement such guidance. That could well lead to a patchwork of different entitlements and systems of protection throughout the country. For instance, companies might choose to offer no assistance to those groups at all. Such an outcome would clearly not be acceptable. Nor do we believe that it would be better for the water companies. We have made it clear that we believe that, where the Government involve themselves in charging matters to achieve particular aims, they must operate as transparently as possible.

As drafted, clause 5 would provide the industry with a clear framework of essential requirements in which to work. The proposed amendment could lead to precisely the opposite, as companies seek to interpret the non-binding guidance and set out plans in the light of their interpretations. Therefore, the Government continue to believe strongly that the Secretary of State should have regulation-making powers in relation to charging schemes and we ask hon. Members not to press that amendment.

Amendment No. 29 would restrict the use that might be made of the Secretary of State's powers to assist vulnerable groups so that protection could be narrowly focused only on those groups and that situation, which the Government have already announced that we intend to protect. Household income, the number of dependent children and a medical condition requiring higher-than-average water use are crucial factors that identify those people who might be particularly vulnerable to a charge based on the volume of water used. The amendment would prevent any other target group being protected on other grounds. We would be unable to offer further protection to the elderly, the sick or the disabled if that turned out to be necessary. On the face of it, that is inconsistent with the raft of amendments tabled by the Opposition to protect a wide variety of groups from water disconnection.

Furthermore, it is unduly restrictive to say that the factors listed in the amendment are the only criteria on which it would be proper to identify those in need of help.

The regulations, on which we will consult fully with the regulator, companies, customer representatives and other interested groups, will provide for the details of the scheme to protect vulnerable customers. Clause 5(3)(a) provides the overall framework within which the regulations will be prepared. The framework must provide sufficient flexibility for Ministers to respond promptly if it appears that charging arrangements are causing severe hardship to new groups of consumers.

In contrast, the amendment would limit special provision to those people who are paying on a measured basis. That would prevent the Government from providing any protection if, for example, some future unmeasured basis of charging by the water companies turned out to cause severe hardship to some classes of consumer. Under present charging arrangements, for instance, we do not propose to provide protection to customers paying unmeasured bills, but, in that and other areas, it is important to provide flexibility to respond through regulation if hardship occurs.

However, like my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I can offer some reassurance about the use of those powers to identify groups for special concessions. The Government are conscious of the fact that every concession enabling a vulnerable customer to pay a lower water charge than he or she would otherwise face can be funded only from the generality of charges paid by all other customers of that company. For that reason, we are determined not to adopt a scatter-gun approach to help for vulnerable groups. With a highly targeted approach, we can ensure that the impact of water charges can be softened to a worthwhile extent where it is most needed without imposing noticeable burdens on other water customers.

I hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will agree that the amendment is unduly restrictive and withdraw it.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on what I think was her first outing at the Dispatch Box—the first of many, I am certain. It was disappointing that the Minister was unable to accord her a similar courtesy across the Floor. It appears that the Under-Secretary is better at reading from the bit of paper in front of him than he is at making a more informed or amusing speech.

I resent the Minister for the Environment implying that I was being flippant or having a knock about when I discussed the previous group of amendments. I was not. I was making serious points, albeit light-heartedly. One of the points that I made was that Labour is determined to ensure that every aspect of our lives is written down in the small print of legislation. The new schedule was unnecessary, and one could argue that clause 5 is equally unnecessary and interferes with our way of life.

Clause 5 is a classic Henry VIII clause. It gives the Secretary of State powers that currently he does not have. It says, "You, Mr. Secretary of State, are the clever guy. You're the one who will decide which vulnerable category will be exempt from metering. You will decide our futures—not Ofwat, not the water companies, but the Secretary of State." That is why we have tabled these two amendments.

The amendments would allow the Secretary of State to provide guidance to which the water companies must have regard. Under the Bill, companies charging schemes must comply with the regulations set out by the Secretary of State, which is a fundamental shift in the nature of United Kingdom utility regulation. [Interruption.]

Hon. Members may say that I am reading my speech. That is quite right, but I hope that I am reading it with more passion, interest, authority and belief than the Under-Secretary. There is no question about it; there is a lot of passion in my speech.

At the moment, Ofwat is able to use its discretion and to decide what to do, and the water companies can also decide what to do. The clause dictates that the Government will lay down the categories of vulnerable people who will be exempt, and the water companies will be required to live up to that regulation. It makes the Secretary of State the regulator. Ian Byatt, the regulator, has gone to great lengths to say that he believes the clause fundamentally unbalances the entire UK utility regulation.

The UK model is based on the principle of regulatory independence. The whole notion behind utility regulation is that the regulators are independent. Their objectives and duties, as well as those of the companies, are given by Parliament through primary legislation. Parliament gives the regulator his rights; this clause takes rights back from the regulator not to Parliament, but to the Executive. It is a classic Henry VIII approach. The system of regulation that we set up in the original privatisation Bills is appreciated by all parties because it provides a balance between the Executive and the regulator.

Clause 5 flies in the face of the Government's declared regulatory principles. It makes companies charging schemes comply with regulations issued by the Secretary of State. That regulation imposes objectives on companies and regulators other than those determined by Parliament. It ignores the duties and the role explicitly given by Parliament to regulators. That is the first point I want to make about clause 5 in justification of our two amendments.

The second point is more meaty and concerns the vulnerable groups that clause 5 tries to protect. The Government are asking the water companies to provide a social service through differential tariffs. They are saying that these vulnerable groups will not pay, so there will be differential tariffs, which means that people who are not vulnerable will pay more. That is the clear implication of clause 5, and that is precisely why we are trying to amend it.

That is not to say that Conservative Members are being less than caring about those vulnerable groups. All we are saying is that the water pricing mechanism is not necessarily the way in which to help them. If the Government are searching for a way to help vulnerable groups, it may be useful to mention the notion of variations in income support. It is a curious fact that water bills vary hugely across England, largely because of the length of the pipework taking water into a person's home. In London, they are low: £180 in the Thames Water area. In the south-west, where distances are much greater, the bills are £300 or £400 depending on the state of the market. Irrespective of the difference in water bills across the regions, however, the income support element is exactly the same.

10.15 pm

If the Government are casting around to find useful ways in which to help vulnerable people, especially those who are least able to pay their water bills, let me repeat a suggestion that I made to the Secretary of State in Committee. He said then that he would consider it. May I suggest that the Secretary of State should have another look at regional variations in the water element of income support bills? That would be a real advance in helping those who are less able to pay their bills.

Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney)

Will my hon. Friend speculate for a moment on the principle that is at stake? It seems to me that the principle involves interference by the Government in a privatised company, and that the crucial aspect of that interference concerns the principle that is now being established. How far can that go? If we can interfere with the water companies, will there be interference in the future with other privatised companies in the fields of, for instance, energy or telecommunications? Will my hon. Friend speculate on that?

Mr. Gray

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendments; he must not deal with what is happening in other utilities.

Mr. Gray

In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not be tempted to respond to what I consider to be an extremely valid point. On Third Reading, we may have an opportunity to say more about the way in which the Bill takes away the water companies freedom to act, and moves them increasingly towards a quasi-regulated, quasi-nationalised status and away from the privatised status that they currently enjoy.

Clause 5 is a classic Henry VIII clause. It takes into the centre—into Westminster and into Whitehall—powers that are currently in the hands of the regulator and, through the regulator, in the hands of the privatised companies. The clause is centralising, regulatory and bossy, and our amendments are designed to lessen its effects.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds)

I support the amendment.

During our debates on the Bill there has been some measure of agreement on core principles, including the importance of a voluntarist approach to the spread of metering. Unfortunately, under clause 5 of the Bill we have no voluntarist consensus: the Government have eschewed the spirit of voluntarism and have introduced measures of compulsion for which there are no obvious justifications.

My support for the amendment is based on evidence provided by my regional water company, Anglian Water. It is at the forefront of innovative designs of tariffs for vulnerable groups. I think that that is accepted throughout the industry. I am thinking of two in particular. I shall not give details, but they cater for low-income large families, and take account of the fact that they should pay less than the normal meter charges. Pensioners are also able to receive discounts in exchange for not being subject to a standing charge. Innovation of that kind will be stymied by the compulsion in the clause, particularly in the way in which power to design and innovate will be transferred from the private sector to the Secretary of State. Under the clause, the Secretary of State has the power to set regulations.

Many Conservative Members feel that this is an unwelcome move towards centralisation. In the free market world that we all seek to inhabit—even Labour Members seek to do so these days—is it not more sensible for private companies to design and innovate? A regulator or Secretary of State cannot possibly know or understand the particular customer profile or needs in a particular region. Are not private companies better placed to design products and particular tariff schemes to assist vulnerable groups? Is it not also true that the capacity of the 30-odd companies in the industry to promote innovative ideas must be greater than the capacity of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do so?

It is that drag on innovation, that eschewal—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. May I ask the House to come to order? Far too many conversations are going on in the Chamber. It is unfair to the hon. Gentleman who is discussing the amendment.

Mr. Ruffley

The thrust of our argument is that innovation is better secured by the private sector. Conservative Members thought that we had persuaded the Labour party of that sector's disciplines, but it seems not when we consider the wording and effect of the clause, which is why we press the amendment.

There is the criticism that market failure may occur in the private sector. Perhaps water companies will not design innovative products to protect low-income families and vulnerable groups that we want to protect. What happens if bad water companies are not as innovative as Anglian Water? We do not have to look far to find the answer to that question.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)

Does my hon. Friend accept that, if direction goes to the Secretary of State and he starts to get involved in that matter, a number of companies, particularly in my area, where innovation goes towards assisting disabled groups—people with certain disabilities—encouraging them with their bills and developing the public service, may give up getting involved in that and wait for him to direct, so innovation will go out of the window?

Mr. Ruffley

My hon. Friend makes the point succinctly, as usual. The pressure on the private sector to innovate will be sub-contracted upwards to the state. The private sector will feel little pressure to improve its performance, which is why we find the clause so disappointing.

I asked earlier, what happens to non-innovatory private sector water companies? It is an obvious and important question. The answer is surely to go down a voluntarist route, which is to say that performance grades should be publicly released and publicised—naming and shaming those private sector companies that are not as assiduous in assisting vulnerable groups with new innovative schemes. We do that in relation to sewer flooding and customer complaints. Why cannot we do it in relation to new tariff designs? It is on that basis that I support the amendment.

Mr. Burns

As the hour is late, I will not detain the House for long, but I should like to make some points arising out of the Minister's comments.

I can assure the House that we will not press amendment No. 29 to a vote. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, in many senses it was a probing amendment. However, amendment No. 26 has far more serious implications. We made it plain during Second Reading and said vigorously in Committee that we had serious misgivings about the way in which the Government, through clause 5, seek to give the Secretary of State draconian powers to interfere and to regulate by order in a private company.

I should like to take the Minister back to the problem over which he and his colleagues seem to be completely knotted up and at sea. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), was equally at sea when talking about the provision in the amendment, which is reflected in the Bill, relating to the Secretary of State. Throughout our discussions on clause 5 in Committee, references to the Secretary of State by the Under-Secretary and the Minister for the Environment related to the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales explained earlier today that all Secretaries of State are one and that the powers to transfer the contents of clause 5 and, in effect, amendment No. 26, would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly through the transfer of functions order. I seriously question whether he was correct in saying that. As he may have discovered by now, the transfer of functions order was laid before the House on 14 May 1998, seven months prior to the Bill being published. How, therefore, can the order be used to transfer functions from clause 5 of this Bill from the Secretary of State to the Welsh Assembly?

More than a simple transfer is needed because that order has already been made. I stand willing to be corrected, but I do not believe that those powers are included in that order. It would have helped matters if hon. Members had been given the opportunity to debate the order, but, despite demands from Labour Members, as well as my hon. Friends, it was not debated. I dispute whether an order that was published months before the Bill could now be used to transfer to the Welsh Assembly powers under clause 5 and the amendment, if it were made.

Mr. Meale

It is correct that the clause post-dates the Government of Wales Act 1998, but the Government have made clear their intention to transfer to the National Assembly for Wales most of the Secretary of State's functions relating to water and flood defence. Those existing functions will be addressed in the first Order in Council under the Act. Schedule 2, paragraph 17, provides for new functions on water and flood defence to be treated consistently. The hon. Gentleman should consult clause 14 of the Bill.

Mr. Burns

I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify the position. His point is interesting and I shall read clause 14 and the other document that he mentioned. It would be unfair of me to ask the Minister any more questions because we want to make progress.

I find it staggering that despite the fact that the Bill is on Report, coming up to its Third Reading before it leaves this House to go to the other place, and despite the Committee proceedings, this is the first time that any mention has been made of the fact that the powers in clause 5 will be transferred, by whatever means, from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, to the Welsh Assembly.

We had debates in which our speeches, which were not corrected, and those of Ministers were made on the basis that the powers in clause 5 would be used by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We had debates ad nauseam in which we said that those powers were too great to give to a Secretary of State and there should be guidance. At no time did Ministers point out that those powers did not relate only to that Secretary of State because all Secretaries of State are indivisible and are one, so the Secretary of State for Wales would have those powers and they would be transferred to the Welsh Assembly. That is new information at this late stage. I am surprised that it has never been mentioned before. I just wonder whether the fact that the powers will be transferred is new to Ministers, who became aware of it only in the earlier debate on Plaid Cymru's new clause 1.

We shall not make any further progress on the issue today, so I shall not press it. The other place will be able to try to get to the bottom of it. Nevertheless, the Opposition feel as strongly about the matters dealt with in amendment No. 26 as we did in the debate on Second Reading. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to oppose the Government and to support amendment No. 26.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 317.

Division No. 65]	[10.30 pm
AYES
Amess, David	Davis, Rt Hon David
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	(Haltemprice)
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Day, Stephen
Bercow, John	Duncan, Alan
Beresfond, Sir Paul	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Blunt, Crispin	Evans, Nigel
Boswell, Tim	Faber, David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Fabricant, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Fallon, Michael
Brady, Graham	Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Brazier, Julian	Fox, Dr Liam
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Fraser, Christopher
	Gale, Roger
Browning, Mrs Angela	Garnier, Edward
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Gibb, Nick
Burns, Simon	Gill, Christopher
Butterfill, John	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Cash, William	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Gray, James
(Chipping Barnet)	Green, Damian
Chope, Christopher	Greenway, John
Clappison, James	Grieve, Dominic
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth	Gummer, Rt Hon John
(Rushcliffe)	Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Hammond, Philip
Collins, Tim	Hawkins, Nick
Colvin, Michael	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Cran, James	Horam, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Hunter, Andrew	Ruffley, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	St Aubyn, Nick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Jenkin, Bernard	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Key, Robert	Spicer, Sir Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Streeter, Gary
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Swayne, Desmond
Lansley, Andrew	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Letwin, Oliver	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Lidington, David	Townend, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Tredinnick, David
(Fareham)	Trend, Michael
Loughton, Tim	Tyrie, Andrew
Luff, Peter	Viggers, Peter
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew	Walter, Robert
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Wardle, Charles
McLoughlin, Patrick	Waterson, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey	Wells, Bowen
Mates, Michael	Whitney, Sir Raymond
May, Mrs Theresa	Whittingdale, John
Moss, Malcolm	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Norman, Archie	Wilkinson, John
Ottaway, Richard	Willetts, David
Page, Richard	Wilshire, David
Paice, James	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Paterson, Owen	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Pickles, Eric	Woodward, Shaun
Prior, David	Yeo, Tim
Randall, John	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Robathan, Andrew	Tellers for the Ayes:
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Cann, Jamie
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Caplin, Ivor
Alexander, Douglas	Caton, Martin
Allan, Richard	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Allen, Graham	Chaytor, David
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Chidgey, David
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Chisholm, Malcolm
Atkins, Charlotte	Clapham, Michael
Austin, John	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Baker, Norman
Barnes, Harry	Clark, Dr Lynda
Barron, Kevin	(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Bayley, Hugh	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Beard, Nigel	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Begg, Miss Anne	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Benton, Joe	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Bermingham, Gerald	Clwyd, Ann
Berry, Roger	Coaker, Vernon
Best, Harold	Coffey, Ms Ann
Betts, Clive	Cohen, Harry
Blackman, Liz	Coleman, Iain
Blears, Ms Hazel	Colman, Tony
Blizzard, Bob	Connarty, Michael
Borrow, David	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Corbett, Robin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Corbyn, Jeremy
Bradshaw, Ben	Corston, Ms Jean
Brake, Tom	Cotter, Brian
Brinton, Mrs Helen	Cousins, Jim
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Crausby, David
Browne, Desmond	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Burden, Richard	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Burgon, Colin	Cummings, John
Caborn, Richard	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)	(Copeland)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Canavan, Dennis	Dalyell, Tam

Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Davidson, Ian	Keeble, Ms Sally
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dawson, Hilton	Keetch, Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet	Kemp, Fraser
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Dobbin, Jim	Khabra, Piara S
Donohoe, Brian H	Kidney, David
Doran, Frank	Kilfoyle, Peter
Dowd, Jim	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Drew, David	Kingham, Ms Tess
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Edwards, Huw	Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Efford, Clive	Laxton, Bob
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Leslie, Christopher
Ennis, Jeff	Levitt, Tom
Etherington, Bill	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Fearn, Ronnie	Linton, Martin
Fisher, Mark	Livingstone, Ken
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Livsey, Richard
Fitzsimons, Lorna	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Flint, Caroline	McAllion, John
Flynn, Paul	McAvoy, Thomas
Follett, Barbara	McCabe, Steve
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Gapes, Mike	McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	McDonagh, Siobhain
Gerrard, Neil	McDonnell, John
Gibson, Dr Ian	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	McIsaac, Shona
Godman, Dr Norman A	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Godsiff, Roger	Mackinlay, Andrew
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	McNulty, Tony
Gorrie, Donald	Mactaggart, Fiona
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Grocott, Bruce	Mallaber, Judy
Grogan, John	Marek, Dr John
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Harris, Dr Evan	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Martlew, Eric
Healey, John	Maxton, John
Heath, David (Somerton &	Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Frome)	Meale, Alan
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Merron, Gillian
Hepburn, Stephen	Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Heppell, John	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Hesford, Stephen	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Hinchliffe, David	Miller, Andrew
Home Robertson, John	Mitchell, Austin
Hood, Jimmy	Moffatt, Laura
Hoon, Geoffrey	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hope, Phil	Moore, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Moran, Ms Margaret
Hoyle, Lindsay	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Mountford, Kali
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Mullin, Chris
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Hurst, Alan	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hutton, John	Norris, Dan
Iddon, Dr Brian	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	O'Hara, Eddie
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Olner, Bill
Jamieson, David	O'Neill, Martin
Jenkins, Brian	Öpik, Lembit
Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Johnson, Miss Melanie	Palmer, Dr Nick
(Welwyn Hatfield)	Perham, Ms Linda
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)	Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Plaskitt, James
Jones, Ms Jenny	Pollard, Kerry
(Wolverh'ton SW)	Pond, Chris
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Pound, Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Stoate, Dr Howard
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Stott, Roger
Prosser, Gwyn	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Stringer, Graham
Quinn, Lawrie	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Radice, Giles	Stunell, Andrew
Rapson, Syd	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Raynsford, Nick	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Rendel, David	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Rooney, Terry	Tipping, Paddy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Todd, Mark
Rowlands, Ted	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Roy, Frank	Touhig, Don
Ruane, Chris	Trickett, Jon
Ruddock, Joan	Truswell, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Ryan, Ms Joan	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Salter, Martin	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Sanders, Adrian	Tyler, Paul
Savidge, Malcolm	Vaz, Keith
Sawford, Phil	Vis, Dr Rudi
Sedgemore, Brian	Wallace, James
Sheerman, Barry	Wareing, Robert N
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Watts, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Webb, Steve
Skinner, Dennis	White, Brian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine	Wicks, Malcolm
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)	Willis, Phil
Smith, John (Glamorgan)	Winnick, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)	Wise, Audrey
Soley, Clive	Wood, Mike
Southworth, Ms Helen	Woolas, Phil
Squire, Ms Rachel	Worthington, Tony
Starkey, Dr Phyllis	Wray, James
Steinberg, Gerry	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stevenson, George	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)	Tellers for the Noes:
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Mr. David Hanson and
Stinchcombe, Paul	Mr. Keith Hill.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Meale

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) implied that there had been no debate in Committee about the transfer of functions to the Welsh Assembly. That was a mistake. At column 109 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A on 14 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), outlined the whole debate. Unfortunately—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. I had anticipated that the Minister was seeking to correct his own remarks to the House. He cannot, on a point of order, seek to correct someone else's—that is a matter for debate.

Mr. Meale

With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I point out for the sake of clarity that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This is a matter for debate. I am sorry, but I misunderstood what the Minister was about.

Mr. Meale

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Minister should be, in the circumstances.