§ Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway)I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 68, line 32, at end insert
'and actions brought by or on behalf of children under 18, patients within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, persons with disabilities within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and persons in receipt of Income Support, save that services shall not be funded if the Commission is satisfied in any individual case that a conditional fee agreement is available.'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 99, in page 68, line 32, at end insert
'save where compelling reasons exist'.
Mr. Marshall?AndrewsThe purpose of the amendment is to retain legal aid in its present form for actions for damages for personal injury for the classes of people referred to in the amendment.
Legal aid was an essential part—to use the topical vernacular, it was one of the key or core parts—of the welfare state. It was thought at the time that the poor should have the benefit in actions brought by them of access to the best available legal advice and assistance, and that they should have available to them all the rights of the courts. That was regarded at the time as being as important as access to health and to welfare.
8 pm
If the Bill is to become an Act in its unadorned and unamended form, the classes of people to whom I have referred will have no recourse to legal aid for personal injury cases. In all cases, legal aid for actions for personal injury will cease to exist. No matter how weak or disabled the plaintiff; no matter how serious the injury; no matter how powerful the wrongdoer; no matter how culpable or deliberate the wrong, there will be no legal aid for those people.
This is a reforming Bill with which, in many respects, I agree. Whatever happens to the amendment—I sincerely hope that it will be agreed to even if the Government do not accept it, which I sincerely hope they will—I will support the Bill. There are many aspects of it that I have no difficulty whatever in supporting. I say straight away that the provision of legal aid has become, in certain circumstances, less than perfect. There have been examples in which it has been abused, and there are ways in which it is far too expensive, some of which the Bill redresses.
There is one aspect of the legal aid system to which that does not apply—the element that funds personal injury cases. Do not take that from me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—under any circumstances. I wish to give hon. Members the full benefit of an opinion expressed in 1996:
Supporters of legal aid must never seek to emphasise that this is a highly successful public social service. In civil cases which reached judgment in 1995–1996, there were judgments in favour of the assisted person in 81 per cent. of the cases. The proportion of cases where there was either a settlement or a judgment in favour was 91 per cent.The sage goes on:Personal injury litigation as a category was conspicuously successful. Obviously, the greater the success rate, the closer the legal aid system can approach self-funding. These success figures tell against any argument that legal aid is generally granted too readily. It must be remembered that there are a small number of very high-cost cases which account for a large proportion of expenditure.That ringing endorsement of the legal aid system, and personal injury legal aid in particular—that luminous prose, with whose every word I agree—fell from the mouth of the Lord Chancellor himself in 1996.We do not have the Lord Chancellor here, more's the pity. That is something on which I have a certain view that I have expressed from time to time. He is in another 1002 place. We do have my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary here, and I join in the paeans of praise and congratulations to him. What a joy it is to see him on the Front Bench. However, it is not the same. If we are to penetrate what has happened since 1996, we have look through a prism darkly to find out why the Lord Chancellor—the font of the legislation—should have done such a conspicuous volte face.
It cannot be anything to do with the statistics for this part of the legal aid system, as they speak for themselves. Legal aid in personal injury cases funded 75,000 cases last year; those that were funded recovered £502 million in damages. The cost of that was £224 million. However, 86 per cent. of that was recouped as costs. The cost to the Exchequer of this noble public service was £34 million.
If one takes into account the VAT that the lawyers paid back into the Exchequer, the net cost of this public service after VAT was recouped—described in the way I have just outlined by the Lord Chancellor—was £1,481,936. If one then takes into account the money clawed back by the Exchequer from damages that had been paid out in welfare payments to those who were successful plaintiffs in these cases, there is a net profit to the Exchequer of £68 million.
The one argument that does not stand up—I expect I am wasting my breath, as I doubt whether the Parliamentary Secretary will advance it—is that the reform will bring a penny piece back into legal aid which can be reallocated or retargeted to other areas.
Why are we faced with this Bill? Why is this protection to be taken from the particularly vulnerable categories of people who are referred to in the amendment? What has occurred has been the advent of conditional fee agreements. Conditional fee agreements were introduced in 1995 as an experiment. They are more usually, but inaccurately, referred to as no-win, no-pay agreements.
The advantage is that lawyers will bear the risk of litigation, and if someone does not win and they do not get their costs back from the other side, the litigant does not pay. No-win, no-pay litigation; something against which the legal profession had set its face for centuries, because it was felt that it was unethical—or at least unwise—that lawyers should have an interest in their clients' damages.
A system was put into effect in 1995 with various checks and balances. Whereas I acknowledge that there are aspects of conditional fee agreements which may be beneficial to many people—particularly to middle-income England—there are aspects of conditional fee agreements which are positively dangerous to people with disabilities. And there are many other aspects of conditional fee agreements which are, as yet, untried.
If one is injured, rendered disabled or maimed by accident or design, instead of obtaining legal aid—which would be one's right if one had a prima facie case and a solicitor available to take the case—it is now necessary to trail the coat of one's damages from solicitor to solicitor until it is possible to find one who is holding the right portfolio of risk to take the case. The right portfolio of risk in any individual case will depend on the other cases that any individual solicitor has in his portfolio. That will make it necessary to move from solicitor to solicitor to find one who can take the case.
It is true that there have been about 30,000 cases under conditional fee agreements, and there is no reason to suppose that they are manifestly unsuccessful, but the 1003 only authoritative study pointed out immediately that the overwhelming preponderance were small cases. That is not surprising, because lawyers will generally take small cases in which the risk is limited.
What happens when the avalanche of the 75,000 cases currently funded under legal aid falls into the system? Whether the provision will exist to cope with the most complex and difficult of those cases is a complete imponderable. The study by the Policy Studies Institute at the end of 1997 concluded:
However, on the basis of the evidence currently available, there is serious cause for concern about whether the scheme is operating fairly and consistently. Future research will need to focus on this issue.There has been no authoritative research since then.The Bill will consign the weakest and most vulnerable in the land to a completely untried no win, no fee system, and they will have no other redress. The more badly injured one is, the more difficult it is to trail one's coat from lawyer to lawyer looking for someone to take the case; and the more difficult and legally complex one's case, with quantum and medical reports and experts, the less likely one is to find a lawyer who will undertake all the disbursements and costs.
§ Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)Would it not also be much harder in such cases to define a win?
§ Mr. Marshall-AndrewsIndeed. I will come to that point.
I am not against conditional fee agreements, because if people come to me or another lawyer and say that they are just above the legal aid framework but have been injured and cannot afford legal fees, I have never had any problem with saying, "Well, now you are destitute, but if the case is won you will be in funds and will be able in due course to pay me; if we don't win, no fee."
There is, however, an enormous problem in the fact that under the conditional fee system we are allowed to uplift—that is the euphemism for hike—fees up to 100 per cent. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that if lawyers have the facility to hike or uplift their fees, they do it. The assessment of risk on which they hike the fees is their own assessment and not subject to outside expertise or adjudication.
8.15 pm
The Policy Studies Institute considered a number of solicitors and a very large number of cases and compared the risk with the uplift. It was in no doubt about its conclusions. It said that there were more low-risk cases than high-risk cases; the weighted number of cases in which the uplift appeared too high was 257, as against 122 in which it appeared low.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have your wits about you in such circumstances and would be able to analyse with clarity whether the advice that you were getting was accurate; but the more disabled or in need of assistance the plaintiffs—be they children, mental patients or the very poor—the more inarticulate they are likely to be and the less able to analyse whether the uplift is suitable.
1004 Under conditional fee agreements, it is necessary to take out insurance against having to pay the defendant's costs. It is a wishful thought that the burden of the premium would be borne by the solicitor, but the plain fact is that, as of now, on the research available, it is being borne by the plaintiff. The more disadvantaged the plaintiff, the less likely it is that he or she will be able to afford the premium.
At present the premiums are quite small, averaging about £95, but the only analysis is of small cases; the great preponderance are simple and straightforward liability cases: normally motor accidents. What will happen when the brain-damaged child in an occupier's liability case finds a proper solicitor who is not charging over the top for the uplift and is then asked for the insurance premium? In a case in which the damages—for lifelong disability—are likely to be £1.5 million or £2 million and the costs on either side in six figures, the premium will almost certainly be prohibitive.
The Government's answer to what appears to be a self-evident case for excluding disadvantaged groups from the prohibition on personal injury cases is the hardship fund. A fund is to be created from which it will be possible, in exceptional circumstances, for solicitors to apply for assistance. No criteria have been properly set out on whether the fund will be available in any given case.
It is completely contrary to the principle of such welfare provision that the exception is made only if one can demonstrate to an official that there is exceptional hardship. The amendment is thus entirely reasonable. It preserves legal aid for such cases at nil cost to the Exchequer, as we have already demonstrated. To show the total reasonableness of our approach, it retains legal aid but provides that, even in such cases, legal aid will not be available if the determining officer is satisfied that a suitable conditional fee agreement is available.
The effect will be that, faced with those disadvantaged groups, a solicitor will apply for legal aid as of right. The determining officer will be able to ask that solicitor why a conditional fee agreement is not available and the solicitor will say, "Because of the immense complexity of the matters involved."
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. May I gently remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he should address the Chair?
§ Mr. Marshall-AndrewsOf course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The determining officer will then be able to say, "We will provide money from the hardship fund." Thus the right is preserved, and will be removed only if there is a genuine alternative available. That would retain a perfect system.
§ Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath)I speak in support of amendment No. 99, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, and also supported by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for their kind congratulations. I am especially pleased that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair when I speak for the first time as an official Opposition spokesman, given our mutual links with the town of Bedford and our interest in sport, which may be relevant to one of the cases that I wish to cite on this very serious matter.
1005 I also pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). On Second Reading, the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke immediately after me and we found much common ground on that occasion, as on this. Both of us have spent much time representing people in court on the same circuit. In his longer and more distinguished legal career, he has frequently taken up causes such as that which he supports tonight. Although amendment No. 99 is in slightly different terms to amendment No. 95, I know that he will acknowledge that it is to much the same effect. Both of us seek to persuade the Government that it is crucial to protect the rights and the needs of the disadvantaged—those in greatest need.
In the past in a debate in a previous Parliament, I was the first hon. Member to use the acronym MINELA—or middle income, not eligible for legal aid. MINELAs are a hard-pressed group. Unfortunately, the Government will create many more MINELAs because many more people will not be eligible for legal aid.
It is a pleasure to me to talk about those with a compelling reason to need legal aid. I pay tribute to many voluntary organisations that have worked with the Law Society and the Bar Council, on whose general management committee I had the honour to serve for several years, in seeking to advance the case of those who will be in need of legal aid in the future, as many people have been in the past. It has been a good campaign, supported by a variety of voluntary groups. The Law Society, in its briefing for the Report stage, mentions support from the Child Poverty Action Group, the Law Centres Federation, Mencap—for whom I was working along with many other hon. Members at an event this afternoon within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, or RADAR, the Royal National Institute for Blind People, the Advice Services Alliance, the Consumers Association, Justice, the Legal Action Group, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Refuge, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Institute of Legal Executives. That is a powerful coalition supporting the arguments that the hon. and learned Member for Medway and myself are putting tonight to try to persuade the Government, even at the last minute, that there are good reasons to keep legal aid available for those in greatest need where compelling reasons exist.
I recommend the excellent publication The Lawyer to all hon. Members, even if they are not lawyers, because it has highlighted the problems with the Bill sensibly and clearly. It has described cases from the past that show why legal aid should continue to be available in the future. I said that one of those cases involved sport, and it is well known to all hon. Members, being the case of Ben Smoldon, who was just 17 when he tragically broke his neck during a rugby match in 1991. In the case of Smoldon v. Whitworth and Nolan, the principles that affect the control of rugby matches—a game well loved by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and me—were set out. That case, of a 17-year-old injured in a rugby match through no fault of his own, was tragic and there was no doubt that legal aid was vital. Ben Smoldon's solicitor, Mr. Lee of Evill and Coleman said
The Legal Aid Board always supported the case even though it knew there was a chance we wouldn't be successful. The prospects of a win were just not high enough for us to take this on a no win, no fee basis.1006 I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Medway will agree that that is the kind of case in which legal aid is vital.The next example suggested by The Lawyer is the case of Justice for the Longcare Survivors v. Buckinghamshire County Council. As that case is still pending, I shall not go into any details, but it concerns allegations of child abuse. It is another example of a case in which legal aid for those bringing cases in the civil courts will be vital. Another example is the case of Daniel Burnett suing by his "next friend" in James Potter v. Steven John Duckworth, in which a 17-year-old cyclist was left with severe head injuries after being hit by a car in November 1993. He succeeded in that case in proving the liability of the driver despite completely conflicting statements by witnesses. Daniel Burnett's mother said:
My son's life has been ruined through no fault of his own. I just can't imagine what we would have done if we hadn't been able to bring this case.Legal aid was vital in enabling them to do so.Another case cited was that of Dipesh Parmar v. E Castle. The Lawyer says:
Six-year-old Dipesh Parmar was left confined to a wheelchair and in need of permanent artificial ventilation after a lorry attempted a right turn into the path of the vehicle that he was travelling in.His solicitor said:Had the family not been entitled to legal aid they would not have been able to fund the medical reports, which would have made the case very difficult.That is another case that is an example of the compelling reasons for legal aid to continue to exist.Another example is the case of June Hancock v. JW Roberts Ltd. The Lawyer says:
In 1996 a dying woman successfully won damages of £65,000 for the effects of asbestos dust in an area where she had played as a child around 60 years earlier.Her solicitor worked for the Sheffield firm of Irwin Mitchell, which specialises in personal injury matters, among other things. He said:It was a very, very difficult case, the like of which I doubt I will ever see again. Lots of firms refused to take it, even on a legal aid basis … My fear is that such ground-breaking cases will not be brought forward in the future, because without legal aid support lawyers will not be ableto take them on.The cases that I have cited are very powerful. I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise that a powerful coalition of voluntary organisations supports the proposals contained in the amendments.
§ Mr. David Kidney (Stafford)I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clarify something for me. The Bill allows the Lord Chancellor, by direction, to disapply the bar on personal injury cases, and the explanatory notes state that the Lord Chancellor has in mind cases in the public interest or with high investigative costs. Amendment No. 99 states that the bar would be disapplied
save where compelling reasons exist".Is that an attempt to insert into the Bill a statutory recognition of the explanatory notes, or will the "compelling reasons" go wider than the classes of case mentioned in those notes?
§ Mr. HawkinsMy intention is that the words "compelling reasons" would go wider. The all-encompassing phrase in the amendment is intended to cover the types of cases that I offered as examples, and the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway. The amendment goes much wider than the disapplication of the bar proposed in the Bill and explained in the notes.
Finally, I shall quote from Counsel magazine, a publication covering the work of those who share my profession at the Bar. An article by David Bean QC, a distinguished employment lawyer, discusses the Bill's abolition of legal aid for personal injury actions and calls it puzzling.
Puzzling, because it is both unpopular and unnecessary. The success rate for legally aided plaintiffs is very high: the few cases which have been wrongly allowed to proceed could be reduced to a trickle by a more rigorously applied merits test and the new powers under the Civil Procedure Rules to dispose summarily of weak cases.The Government are not allowing those new powers to be used. They want the blanket removal of legal aid for personal injury. We think that that is wrong, and that "compelling reasons" should allow legal aid.
§ Mr. VazThis has been a good debate, although short. I begin by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall?Andrews) for ensuring that the House had an opportunity to discuss these matters.
I have enormous respect for my hon. and learned Friend and have admired him for many years. We are bonded through the threads of history, as we fought elections in the former Richmond and Barnes constituency in successive years. He got 8,000 votes, and I got 3,000, which makes him three times the man that I am.
My hon. and learned Friend raised some very important issues with his amendment, and I hope that I will be able to deal with them all in the short time available. I know what his views are, as I have read them in The Guardian. In an article published on 23 March, he described the Bill as "good, bad and awful". He made a passionate and eloquent case for the amendment, but I hope to convince him that the Government are as concerned as he is and that he need not worry, as all the groups that he mentioned will be protected under the Bill.
Amendment No. 95 would ensure that legal aid was available in personal injury cases for children, patients within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, persons with disabilities and people in receipt of income support, unless the commission decided that a conditional fee agreement was available in an individual case. It has been made clear on many occasions that the Government have decided to withdraw legal aid from the vast majority of personal injury cases because they are satisfied that a conditional fee agreement will be available in that majority of cases. To insist that the commission examine every case individually to ensure that such an agreement is available would create enormous administrative expense, which would lead inevitably to a reduction in the money available to fund deserving cases.
§ Mr. BurnettWho is expected to pay the insurance premiums for after-the-event cover of defendants' costs in respect of the conditional fee agreements?
§ Mr. VazAs I shall explain, the insurance premium point has been dealt with. The premium is recoverable in the event of a successful action, and practitioners should be able to bear the initial cost.
1008 There is no reason why those who lack the legal capacity to act for themselves should not be able to benefit from a conditional fee agreement. I accept that special provision may need to be made for individuals lacking legal capacity in the regulations governing the use of conditional fees. My Department will consult on draft regulations over the summer and will specifically seek views on this issue.
It is important that a litigation friend acting on behalf of a child or patient should fully understand the conditional fee agreement and any potential liability that he or she is accepting on the child's or patient's behalf. It is sometimes suggested that children and patients are unsuitable—for reasons of age or disability—for conditional fee agreements, because gathering the evidence required to establish whether there is a viable case is lengthy and costly. That may be so, but, as the Lord Chancellor and my predecessor have repeatedly pointed out, help will still be available where the initial investigation is exceptionally expensive. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) cited the cases of Ben Smoldon and others. Under the directions already announced, that case, and most of the others quoted from The Lawyer, would clearly be eligible for legal aid.
It is asserted that it can be very hard to win cases because a court might not accept evidence from the people to whom I have referred. I acknowledge that that may be true, but I do not accept that we should commit public funds to support a case in which a solicitor knows that an individual—for whatever reason—has a very small chance of success. I would go further: everyone involved should think carefully before placing a vulnerable person in the position of taking forward litigation if they know from the outset that the chances of success are slim.
§ Mr. GrieveThe Minister said that the cases cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) would have been eligible for the help that he is describing. He may say that with the benefit of hindsight, but he has also suggested that the help will not be available under the criteria that he will apply. He will deprive the litigant of the assistance required in precisely those cases in which it is most difficult to assess whether they will succeed at trial.
§ Mr. VazI am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister. He was not listening to me. I said that most of the cases cited by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath would be covered. I also said that a case would be covered if there was a high investigative cost or if the wider public interest applied.
The amendment would offer similar protection to all individuals who have a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Some of those individuals will be patients under the Mental Health Acts, and I have already dealt with their position. For the rest, it is frankly insulting to assume that simply because a person has a disability, he or she is in some way less capable of running his or her own affairs and reaching an agreement with a solicitor than a person without such a disability would be. The amendment would extend legal aid to all people with disabilities, regardless of their means. That is not the position now, and I do not accept that it should be the position.
Finally, the amendment would give legal aid in personal injury cases to individuals on income support. It is alleged that many people on income support would 1009 be unable to afford even the modest insurance fees charged to support a personal injury case. That may well be so, but as the Lord Chancellor and others have pointed out, we do not expect such individuals to bear the cost of premiums. Insurance premiums and disbursements are generally low in personal injury cases, and we expect solicitors' firms to bear the costs as normal business overheads. Such cases are profitable for solicitors, allowing them to recover a percentage uplift in addition to their usual fee. There is no reason why they, like any other business, should not bear overheads before a profit can be realised.
I shall tell the House just how inexpensive the majority of cases are. In 1996–97, some 83,852 personal injury cases were funded by legal aid. Of those, 11,868 were clinical negligence cases, which will remain within the scope of the law. Of the remaining 71,984 cases, 89 per cent. cost £6,000 or less, 84 per cent. cost £5,000 or less, and 81 per cent. cost £4,000 or less. Those figures are total costs for the cases—all disbursement costs, including counsel's fees. With all costs included, the vast majority cost less than £4,000. The average amount of disbursements paid out by solicitors in cases costing £4,000 or less was only £304.
It is clear from the costs that those cases did not require exceptionally large amounts of work or expenditure by the solicitors. Nor were the costs of investigation particularly high. I do not accept that there is any reason why those on income support should be unable to benefit from conditional fee agreements.
§ Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak)In such cases, where conditional fee agreements were available, people would not be eligible for legal aid under my hon. Friend's amendment. Is that not the case?
§ Mr. VazConditional fee agreements have worked in the cases that I have mentioned, and they will work. Since I took on this job, I have visited several legal aid firms. I have not come across a legal adviser who has not said that the schemes work. It is wrong to commit taxpayers' money for cases that have no chance of success. That is why we cannot accept the amendment.
On amendment No. 99, to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath spoke, my predecessor said in Committee that we might have sympathy with such an amendment if it were intended to do no more than signpost the fact that the Lord Chancellor had direction making powers to make exceptions to the exclusions in schedule 2, and that he could be expected to use them. Unfortunately, the amendment would not achieve that. It leaves unclear who is to define what constitutes a compelling reason. It could be the Lord Chancellor, the commission or even the applicant. As drafted, therefore, it is a recipe for confusion with all the scope that that would create for wasteful satellite litigation. In so far as it would allow the Lord Chancellor to define "compelling reasons", it is no more than a signal of our clear intentions and, as such, strictly unnecessary. The Lord Chancellor has frequently said that he will use his powers under clause 6(8) to authorise the commission to fund cases where the initial investigative costs or overall costs are exceptionally high and in cases that raise matters of wider concern.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway mentioned hardship cases. We will consult on the funding code in the autumn. People will have the opportunity to 1010 comment on what he described as hardship cases. The commission already has power under clause 6(8)(b) to approach the Lord Chancellor to request him to authorise funding in an individual case, although he intends, quite rightly, to use that power only very exceptionally.
I stood at the last general election on the same manifesto as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway. There is a belief that if people are cut, they bleed but that Ministers do not, even if they are stabbed in the back. We believe as firmly as he does in the need to protect all the people that he mentioned. The proposal will not prevent anyone who is going to get legal aid from receiving legal aid. We believe that our arrangements, with our approach to the funding code, which allows consultation and means that the funding code will have to come back to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure, will give people an opportunity to put forward their cases. I would not stand here at the Dispatch Box to ensure that any of those people would not get legal aid in such cases.
§ Mr. Marshall-AndrewsIn the one minute remaining, may I say that I listened with great respect to my hon. Friend in the hope of being persuaded. I regret to say that I am not. On the core issue, the principle is still the same. The right to legal aid is being removed from the weakest in the land and in its place is being put only the possibility that they may, in individual cases, receive money from the hardship fund. I could not go into the Lobby with him on that basis and I will in due course press the amendment to a vote.
§ Mr. Garnierrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
§ Question accordingly put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 291.
1013| Division No. 216] | [8.44 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Clappison, James |
| Allan, Richard | Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh) |
| Amess, David | Cohen, Harry |
| Ancram, Rt Hon Michael | Collins, Tim |
| Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Baldry, Tony | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Cormack, Sir Patrick |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | Cran, James |
| Bercow, John | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Curry, Rt Hon David |
| Blunt, Crispin | Dafis, Cynog |
| Body, Sir Richard | Dalyell, Tam |
| Boswell, Tim | Davey, Edward (Kingston) |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | Davies, Quentin (Grantham) |
| Brady, Graham | Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) |
| Brazier, Julian | Day, Stephen |
| Breed, Colin | Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Duncan, Alan |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Duncan Smith, Iain |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Burnett, John | Evans, Nigel |
| Burns, Simon | Faber, David |
| Burstow, Paul | Fabricant, Michael |
| Butterfill, John | Fallon, Michael |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Fearn, Ronnie |
| Fisher, Mark | |
| Chope, Christopher | Flight, Howard |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Moore, Michael |
| Fox, Dr Liam | Moss, Malcolm |
| Fraser, Christopher | Norman, Archie |
| Gale, Roger | ÖOpik, Lembit |
| Garnier, Edward | Ottaway, Richard |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Page, Richard |
| Gibb, Nick | Paice, James |
| Gill, Christopher | Paterson, Owen |
| Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | Pickles, Eric |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Prior, David |
| Gray, James | Randall, John |
| Green, Damian | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Greenway, John | Robathan, Andrew |
| Grieve, Dominic | Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie | Ross, William (E Lond'y) |
| Hammond, Philip | Ruffley, David |
| Harris, Dr Evan | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Hawkins, Nick | St Aubyn, Nick |
| Hayes, John | Sanders, Adrian |
| Heald, Oliver | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian |
| Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas | Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk) |
| Horam, John | Skinner, Dennis |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Hunter, Andrew | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Hurst, Alan | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Jack, Rt Hon Michael | Spring, Richard |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | Streeter, Gary |
| Key, Robert | Swayne, Desmond |
| King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) | Syms, Robert |
| Kirkbride, Miss Julie | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) |
| Laing, Mrs Eleanor | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Lansley, Andrew | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
| Leigh, Edward | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Letwin, Oliver | Trend, Michael |
| Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) | Tyler, Paul |
| Lidington, David | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Livingstone, Ken | Viggers, Peter |
| Livsey, Richard | Walter, Robert |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) | Wardle, Charles |
| Loughton, Tim | Waterson, Nigel |
| Luff, Peter | Webb, Steve |
| McDonnell, John | Wells, Bowen |
| MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew | Whitney, Sir Raymond |
| Maclean, Rt Hon David | Whittingdale, John |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Willetts, David |
| Madel, Sir David | Willis, Phil |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Major, Rt Hon John | Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) |
| Malins, Humfrey | Wise, Audrey |
| Maples, John | Woodward, Shaun |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Yeo, Tim |
| Marshall-Andrews, Robert | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Mates, Michael | |
| Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) | Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) | Mr. Alan Simpson. |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Barron, Kevin |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Bayley, Hugh |
| Ainger, Nick | Beard, Nigel |
| Alexander, Douglas | Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret |
| Allen, Graham | Begg, Miss Anne |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Benton, Joe |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Betts, Clive |
| Ashton, Joe | Blackman, Liz |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Blears, Ms Hazel |
| Austin, John | Boateng, Paul |
| Banks, Tony | Borrow, David |
| Barnes, Harry | Bradley, Keith (Withington) |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Browne, Desmond | Grocott, Bruce |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Grogan, John |
| Burden, Richard | Gunnell, John |
| Burgon, Colin | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Caborn, Rt Hon Richard | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Healey, John |
| Campbelt-Savours, Dale | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Cann, Jamie | Hepburn, Stephen |
| Casale, Roger | Heppell, John |
| Cawsey, Ian | Hesford, Stephen |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Hewitt, Ms Patricia |
| Chaytor, David | Hill, Keith |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Hinchliffe, David |
| Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) | Hodge, Ms Margaret |
| Hood, Jimmy | |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Hope, Phil |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Hoyle, Lindsay |
| Clelland, David | Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) |
| Clwyd, Ann | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Coaker, Vernon | Hutton, John |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Coleman, Iain | Illsley, Eric |
| Colman, Tony | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Connarty, Michael | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Corbett, Robin | Jamieson, David |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Jenkins, Brian |
| Cousins, Jim | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Cranston, Ross | Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Crausby, David | |
| Cummings, John | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Darvill, Keith | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Davidson, Ian | Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa |
| Dawson, Hilton | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Denham, John | Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) |
| Dismore, Andrew | Kemp, Fraser |
| Dobbin, Jim | Khabra, Piara S |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Kidney, David |
| Doran, Frank | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Dowd, Jim | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Drew, David | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Lawrence, Ms Jackie |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Lepper, David |
| Edwards, Huw | Leslie, Christopher |
| Efford, Clive | Levitt, Tom |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Ennis, Jeff | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| Flint, Caroline | Linton, Martin |
| Follett, Barbara | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Lock, David |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Love, Andrew |
| Foulkes, George | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Galloway, George | McCabe, Steve |
| Gapes, Mike | McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield) |
| Gardiner, Barry | |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Gerrard, Neil | Macdonald, Calum |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | McGuire, Mrs Anne |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | McIsaac, Shona |
| Godsiff, Roger | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Goggins, Paul | McNulty, Tony |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| McWalter, Tony | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| McWilliam, John | Savidge, Malcolm |
| Mallaber, Judy | Sawford, Phil |
| Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) | Sheerman, Barry |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Short, Rt Hon Clare |
| Martlew, Eric | Singh, Marsha |
| Maxton, John | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Meacher, Rt Hon Michael | Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) |
| Meale, Alan | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| Merron, Gillian | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Milburn, Rt Hon Alan | Snape, Peter |
| Miller, Andrew | Soley, Clive |
| Mitchell, Austin | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Morley, Elliot | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Mountford, Kali | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Mudie, George | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Stott, Roger |
| Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) | Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Norris, Dan | Stringer, Graham |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Olner, Bill | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | |
| Osborne, Ms Sandra | Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S) |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Pearson, Ian | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Pendry, Tom | Timms, Stephen |
| Pickthall, Colin | Tipping, Paddy |
| Pike, Peter L | Todd, Mark |
| Plaskitt, James | Touhig, Don |
| Pollard, Kerry | Trickett, Jon |
| Pope, Greg | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Pound, Stephen | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Vaz, Keith |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Purchase, Ken | Wareing, Robert N |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Watts, David |
| Radice, Giles | White, Brian |
| Rammell, Bill | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Raynsford, Nick | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) | |
| Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Wills, Michael |
| Rooker, Jeff | Winnick, David |
| Rooney, Terry | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Woolas, Phil |
| Rowlands, Ted | Worthington, Tony |
| Roy, Frank | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Ruane, Chris | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Ruddock, Joan | |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Mr. David Hanson and |
| Salter, Martin | Jane Kennedy. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.