HC Deb 22 June 1999 vol 333 cc1067-80

Amendment made: No. 119, line 4, leave out from 'appeals' to 'court' in line 8 and insert ', courts, judges and'.—[Mr. Cranston.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

11.21 pm
Mr. Vaz

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill has been before Parliament since December and has made good progress. We have already paid tribute during its course to the various people who have contributed to it both here and in another place, but I add my personal thanks to the excellent officials of my Department.

As the Lord Chancellor has said, the Bill aims to improve access to justice. We are determined to build structures and to provide services that go further towards meeting people's needs than legal services do at present. That is the purpose of the community legal service. That is why we are introducing contracting for legal services with quality assured suppliers, extending the use of conditional fees and rights of audience, and reforming the magistrates courts system.

Many clever, dedicated, hard working people do their best to meet the needs of legal services. However, the existing system does not meet the needs of ordinary people, those with little money or run-of-the-mill cases. We want to re-orient legal services to make them more customer focused and to base them on a real assessment of need. To that end, the Bill sets up the community legal service, which will have the dual tasks of considering the need for civil and family legal services and putting in place the services required to meet those needs, as far as available resources will allow.

We are creating a criminal defence service to replace criminal legal aid. Publicly funded criminal defence services will continue to be available in all cases where the interests of justice require it. We are making success fees, conditional fee arrangements and insurance premiums recoverable in costs. We intend to extend the use of no win, no fee agreements. No hon. Member has successfully demonstrated that they are not the best possible way to extend access to justice in many cases. They will open up the law to many people to whom legal aid is currently not available.

We are reforming rights of audience by giving full rights to all lawyers who are suitably qualified and we are setting up a system to encourage the regulation of the legal professions to change with the times. We have put in place this very evening a means to encourage professional legal bodies, and in particular the Law Society, to handle complaints from customers much better. We hope never to use them but we would have failed in our duty if we had not acted. We are ensuring that civil appeals will be held at the right level and dealt with in a way proportionate to their weight and complexity.

Lastly, we are changing the organisation and management of magistrates courts, the better to serve the public and help our plans for better co-ordination in the civil justice system. I think that hon. Members will see that this is an impressive agenda for change. The creation of a community legal service is the most innovative part of the Bill and I believe that it will prove to be the most far-reaching proposal. The legal aid system was set up in a different world where recourse to law was far less frequent. The system has since grown substantially in real terms.

A Government bent on modernising and improving the whole range of public services must also look to see whether legal aid is being used in the right way. The striking feature of our legal aid system is that it is not based on an objective assessment of what is needed. Nor do we know whether the outcome of the expenditure is the best that could be achieved. Of course, many worthwhile cases are supported and will continue to be supported, but other cases are supported in which there must be doubt as to whether pursuing them represents good use of public money. I, for one, would not wish to see taxpayers' money spent on funding legal services where alternatives are available.

Our reforms will enable resources to be concentrated on the greatest need and will maximise the benefit from the money that is spent on legal aid. The use of contracts of civil, legal and family legal services will pay great dividends. For the first time, we will have quality assured suppliers for all those who use legal services. At the moment, those who use publicly funded legal services, indeed all who use legal services, have little way of finding out which suppliers have provided good service and which provide a less good service. Those who use publicly funded services should get the best possible service.

The Access to Justice Bill will enable us to improve legal services in the interests of those who use them. Those who oppose the Bill are lending their support to inflexible services, which do not best meet the needs of those whom they are meant to serve, and to those elements who wish to keep everything as it was. We want, and I believe that we have with the Bill, a modern system of justice for the new millennium. I commend it to the House.

11.26 pm
Mr. Garnier

I join the Minister in congratulating all who have taken part in our debates on keeping their temperature moderate. We had an amusing and sometimes constructive time in Committee and we have had a sometimes enjoyable, sometimes illuminating, but always good-tempered time this evening.

The Minister can be forgiven for much that is in the Bill because he has only recently been able to get his fingers on it. During the Committee stage, when the Bill was amended by the Government and, I am happy to say, at least twice by the Opposition—or at least our suggestions were incorporated in Government amendments that have been made this evening—the Minister played a rather silent role by virtue of his then post as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General. So he cannot be accused of playing a willingly silent role. He was unable for the same reason to speak on Second Reading.

Mr. Vaz

I did speak on Second Reading.

Mr. Garnier

The Minister is right. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) complained that this radical Government were allowing this radical Member to speak to a Bill that belonged to his master's Department. Perhaps the Government could not find a single Back Bencher prepared to speak in favour of the Bill. The Minister was the first member of the parliamentary Labour party to speak in favour of the Bill. Every other Back-Bench contributor spoke sceptically or with qualified support for the Bill.

Mr. Dismore


Mr. Garnier

Here we go: the man with the spring in his back. I am glad to see that he is still on form and the spring is still working.

Mr. Dismore

The hon. and learned Gentleman has made that joke before and it was not particularly funny then. I simply point out to him that several Labour Members spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading and many more wished to speak, but there simply was not time for them all to be called.

Mr. Garnier

If the hon. Gentleman remembers, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was the first Back Bencher to speak. It may have been—

Mr. Vaz

I was very senior.

Mr. Garnier

Oh, and very senior too. Top Minister speaks—I am very happy to hear it. I do not think that we need spend too much time on this little history of the Access to Justice Bill. I shall return to one or two of the points that I intended to make.

During the two years since the Government came into office, I have been impressed by the fact that they were full of high intentions—there have been hugely powerful speeches and much rhetoric. However, they have little understanding of what they are doing.

I suggest that all the Government's reforms—both those introduced in the Bill and those introduced outside by the Lord Chancellor and his Department—can simply be described as economically illiterate, politically inept and intellectually confused. Nothing that we have heard during the Bill's passage through the House or during today's debates has persuaded me that my descriptions are inaccurate. Those views were merely reinforced as I watched the Government stumble from day to day. Indeed, there was yet another piece of chaotic business management this afternoon, as a rebellion emerged among Labour Back Benchers that could not be quashed by the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall?Andrews) persuaded many of his fellow Back Benchers—I think there were 49, including himself—to sign his early-day motion criticising the removal of personal injury cases from legal aid. A considerable number of those Labour Members joined the hon. and learned Gentleman in the Division Lobby this evening. The Government can claim no credit for producing a Bill that is either popular or right; they have managed to do precisely the opposite.

In his remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department appeared to be attempting to sell anything—it could have been a vacuum cleaner, dog food or some other goods that one could find in a supermarket—but if one thought that he was describing the contents of the Access to Justice Bill, one would justifiably have been confused. As I have said before, the Bill is a Christmas tree or a coat hanger; it contains a huge number of additional powers that the parliamentary Labour party is lamely giving the Lord Chancellor.

There will be a huge number of executive powers to make law through secondary legislation. I realise that the Government find it boring when I make such remarks, but the job of the Opposition is to point out to the public that the sniggerers on the Government's Front and Back Benches are doing a huge disservice to the public whom they were elected to serve.

The Bill is called the Access to Justice Bill and, as I have said on several occasions, if I were a frivolous person, I should find that hugely amusing, because it is not an access to justice Bill but a denial of access to justice Bill. When one reads read Parts I, II and III even a casual glance shows that, once those clauses, and the amendments to those clauses and the new clauses that have been discussed today, become law—we are fortunate that a House of Lords still exists and is prepared to reconsider the Bill when it leaves this place—some of them will be deleterious to the interests of justice, damaging to the interests of our constituents, and leading increasingly to a denial of access to justice.

When Labour Members walk into the Division Lobby tonight, some of them may never have read the Bill and some may not have had the advantage of hearing the Minister trying to explain what the Government are about. At their advice surgeries, those Members will learn shortly—although not necessarily next Saturday, or even this year, but next year and the year after—when the number of solicitors providing legal aid has been reduced from approximately 11,000 to 3,000, that solicitors are not available in their towns, cities and villages to assist their most vulnerable constituents.

Labour Members do not need to accept all the blame for that, but in the remaining minutes of the debate, I urge them to think carefully about what they are about to do. They may think that the Bill causes difficulties for lawyers. So what? Any Bill that causes difficulties for lawyers is to be applauded. This, however, is a Bill that will destroy access to part of the welfare state. If the Labour party was elected to do that, it could have fooled me. Many of those who voted in May 1997 for the glorious new regime of this Prime Minister can also justly claim to have been fooled—and judging from the grunts and the groans that I hear emanating from the Treasury Bench, I suspect that many Ministers have been fooled also.

I can demonstrate the damaging effect of the Bill by considering only a few of its aspects. While we support the creation of the community legal service in clause 4, the Opposition are concerned about the Government's total inability to realise the mistake that they are making in failing to investigate and assess what is necessary to make that service work properly. The least able and the most vulnerable in our society must have some chance to fend for themselves by bringing actions in law with the assistance of the state.

The hon. and learned Member for Medway pointed out that personal injury cases funded by the state make the Government a profit. This self-righteous Government are destroying the ability of litigants in certain categories of personal injury cases to access state funds. The Government think that they are doing a good thing but the opposite is true. Personal injury cases cost the Government nothing, yet this Treasury-driven Bill is designed to save the Government money.

In clause 12, the Government have decided to introduce a criminal defence service that will allegedly be a mirror image of the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS had teething troubles and goodness only knows what will happen with the criminal defence service. That will create a situation that used to exist only in communist China and Soviet Russia, where the state prosecutes and defends people.

If Government Members think that is a matter for levity, they should heed the words of Sidney Kentridge, a member of the South African Bar and a distinguished member of the Bar of this country. In a recent lecture, he pointed out that in apartheid South Africa the only thing that stood between the oppressive state regime and the independence and freedom of citizens was the independent Bar and the criminal defendant's knowledge that the lawyer representing him was free from the influence of the state.

This charming new Labour Government are trying to persuade their followers that a criminal defence service, comprising state-employed lawyers, will not be influenced by the need to kow-tow to its employer or by the fact that the next promotion depends on pleasing the Government. The Government cannot pretend that that will not have a damaging effect upon the service's ability to act fiercely and freely as an advocate on behalf of its clients.

On part II of the Bill and the dangers associated with the conditional fee arrangements, the Government claim that conditional fee arrangements are the complete answer to the destruction of legal aid. The Conservative party does not oppose the introduction of conditional fee arrangements—indeed, we introduced them ourselves. However, we are concerned about the gay abandon with which the Government have abolished legal aid and replaced it with conditional fee agreements. They know—or they should know—that the use of conditional fee arrangements, without proper insurance and a mature insurance market to support them, will simply not work.

It is no good saying that legal aid helped the poor, and those with discretionary income could make their own decisions, but middle England was unable to get to the courts. It is no good the Government saying that they have corrected that problem if, in so doing, they have created another by taking away from the poor, the vulnerable, the elderly, the injured and the disabled the ability to get hold of a conditional fee agreement.

In the circumstances that the Bill will create, conditional fee agreements will not be available for all to use. It is unthinkable that the people who now use legal aid will run up and down the high streets of England and Wales market-testing conditional fee agreements or checking the portfolio of risk of one firm of solicitors against another. That is naive and unreal.

Having outlined some of our concerns, may I make it clear that we agree with parts of the Bill? Parts IV, V, VI and VII are largely uncontroversial. Although they have not received the scrutiny that some of the more controversial parts of the Bill have been given, they have been considered, and I hope that they will be further considered in the other place when the Bill returns to it.

My overriding complaint about the Bill is that it seeks to do the wrong thing in the wrong way. It seeks to persuade the gullible hon. Members who will support it that it creates no problems for which they need feel in the least bit responsible. Let me warn them that over the next two years the Bill will turn their majorities to dust. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends and others of good will in the House to join us in voting against Third Reading.

11.42 pm
Mr. Dismore

I should to declare an interest as a solicitor who has practised in the field of personal injury law for 20 years or more.

I welcome the extension of conditional fees and the proposals for the recovery of the success fee and insurance premium. Unlike most of those who have criticised the extension of success fees and related matters, I have practical experience, and I am sure that the provisions will be successful. I also welcome the assurances given today by my hon. Friend the Minister on the fallback position—the protections that will remain for personal injury victims in the legal aid scheme for cases that are expensive to investigate or are in the public interest. I look forward to seeing that protection even more fleshed out in the funding code that is in the Bill.

I welcome the debate that we had in Committee on Queen's counsel, and I claim a mini-triumph—I see from the Government amendment for which I have been lobbying that QCs are to pay the full cost of administering the QC system through the more generous application fees that they will have to pay. I acknowledge the Government's response to the concerns that I expressed in Committee about the way in which QCs are remunerated, and the assurance that the Government are prepared to consider further steps to end the fat-cattery, perhaps turning the dangerously obese lawyers into those who are merely seriously overweight. We have already discussed proportionality, double manning and the rate for the job.

I welcome one of the new clauses introduced tonight, which there was no time to debate and which my hon. Friend generously called the Hendon clause. That is the one that relates to the telescoping of the inquest and inquiry procedure, following major disasters. For too long we have put the relatives of victims through far too much distress, duplication of hearings, delay and expense by making them relive the same experiences over and over again.

Mr. Vaz

My hon. Friend knows that QCs throughout the country quiver when they hear his name. He also knows that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has made a number of improvements to the silk system and will always try to find ways to improve it further.

Mr. Dismore

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. No doubt we can continue our dialogue in an attempt to sort out the issue of remuneration, even if I cannot quite convince my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that QCs should be abolished altogether.

The new clause on inquiries is important. It means that we can now look after victims' relatives and victims themselves far more effectively. This is the first stage in that regard and I look forward to further reforms in due course.

11.45 pm
Mr. Burnett

I congratulate and thank all those who have taken part in the debates on the Bill leading up to tonight, and especially officials of the House.

I have highlighted tonight and at earlier stages of the Bill Liberal Democrats' grave misgivings with parts of it. The abolition of legal aid for personal injury cases except criminal negligence is a grave mistake and the Government will have much time to rue the day that they railroaded the provision through the House. It saves no money and it prejudices the poor and vulnerable.

I hope that the Minister will find some time to read the paper so ably and clearly written by Matthias Kelly, secretary of the Personal Injuries Bar Association, entitled "The cost of legal aid in personal injury litigation in England and Wales". It demonstrates clearly and unambiguously that the provision will not save money. Rightly, many conscientious Labour Members have opposed the measure.

Another regrettable feature of the Bill is the power, often unfettered, which it gives the Lord Chancellor to set up the criminal defence service. That is another example of the inherent conflict of interest which also characterises conditional fee agreements.

We have to ask whether quality legal services and access to justice will be available throughout the country when the Bill is enacted, which no doubt it will be. We shall have to wait and see, but I have my doubts. The Bill is deeply flawed and we shall vote against it.

11.47 pm
Mr. Grieve

I, too, preface my remarks by saying that the Bill's passage through its various stages has been an education, during which a number of changes have been made to it. Moreover, the presenter of the Bill has changed from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), with his academic cynicism and discourse, to the present Minister who, with his courteous emollience, has brought it finally to its close before the House.

If ever there has been a missed opportunity, it is this Bill. There are aspects of it that I can welcome, just as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) did, but there are also aspects where we have grievously failed to address some of the principal issues which concern the difficulties over access to justice.

Bearing in mind conditional fee agreements, which we have debated again this evening, and the problems of legal aid, especially for the most disadvantaged, it is extraordinary that the whole area of contingency legal aid, despite having been touched on in Committee, and despite the fact that there has been a hint at times that it may be considered in future, and that it might provide a real alternative for ensuring that all could obtain access to justice on the same principles as those that existed in terms of accessibility under the old legal aid system, even though there might be some financial forfeit, has never been properly considered. Instead, we have gone down a road which, while it may bring certain advantages to some, will undoubtedly be a massive disadvantage to the most vulnerable within our society. I deeply regret that. If anything makes this legislation flawed, it is that.

I reserve my gravest reservations for the principle of the criminal defence service. We have moved progressively towards a situation where the provision and the services of the justice system are, in a curious way, being nationalised.

It is extraordinary that, although the Labour party has apparently embraced the idea that privatised services may be of some benefit, we are moving towards a continental criminal justice system—which, taken to its ultimate expression, existed in the old communist countries. The lawyer was simply the state functionary who was sent off to represent one element or other—whether as a prosecutor or a defender—and was always regarded as a lowly cog in the machine.

I simply do not see where the advantages lie in establishing the criminal defence service and it was made clear in Committee that there might be circumstances in which individual choice in respect of getting a lawyer from outside the CDS would be restricted. That fills me with foreboding. That measure has been introduced by the Government who had the courage to incorporate the European convention on human rights into our law, which strikes me as shocking. One can conclude only that the Government have absolutely no regard for civil liberties or the rights of accused people in respect of the criminal justice system. That seems to have been emphasised by the suggestion that there is worse to come with the denial of the right to trial by jury for certain categories of offence. I deeply regret that.

Those are the principal reasons why I cannot lend support to the Bill, even though parts of it have much to commend them. The Government will come to regret the way in which they were driven down this road, whether by financial considerations or simply by lack of any regard for established systems. Although those systems may be imperfect, they have nevertheless delivered justice of good quality.

I have always acknowledged, however, that there have been problems over expense. As I said on Second Reading, we have started to throw the baby out with the bath water and I am afraid that we will regret having passed the Bill.

11.52 pm
Mr. Hawkins

I shall speak briefly before the Minister concludes the debate. On behalf of the official Opposition, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) described the Bill as being either a Christmas tree or a coat hanger. I prefer to call it an attempt by the Government at a portmanteau Bill.

There was much debate in Committee about the combination of Henry VIII clauses, which we deeply regret and opposed, and the fact that the Lord Chancellor has often been compared with Henry VIII's ultimately most unsuccessful Lord Chancellor, Cardinal Wolsey. The Bill attempts to combine the worst features of Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey, which is a feat in itself. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough rightly said that some of the Bill fits in with what George Orwell called newspeak, in which words mean exactly the opposite of what the Government claim.

On Second Reading, I referred at length from the Back Benches to the criticisms of the Bill made by Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, the distinguished Labour lawyer, in the other place. None of her concerns about the Government's proposals for a criminal defence system adopting the worst excesses of the United States public defender system have been addressed at any stage.

When the Solicitor-General wound up the debate on Second Reading, he said, rather desperately: On the whole, my hon. Friends welcome the Bill."—[Official Report, 14 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 321.] He said that even though almost every Labour Back Bencher who had spoken had attacked him and the then Minister.

As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, we welcome some aspects of the Bill—in particular, in respect of the inquest point referred to by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), which we did not have time to debate at length—but there are still a lot of bad things in it. As my hon. and learned Friend said, this is a denial of access to justice Bill in so many regards. I invite the 20 Labour Members who voted with us on the personal injury matter to join us, and hon. Members from both sides of the House, in the Lobby to vote against the Bill's Third Reading.

I ask the Minister to correct an uncharacteristically ungracious remark that he made earlier. He said that it was surprising to hear a Conservative spokesman using the arguments of a charity such as Shelter. That remark was not characteristic of him and I invite him to withdraw it. I encourage hon. Members of all parties who have a conscience to oppose the Bill.

11.54 pm
Mr. Vaz

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This is the right Bill at the right time. We have a radical and reforming Lord Chancellor, and the Bill will help us to modernise justice in Britain. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 151.

Division No. 217] [11.54 pm
Abbott, Ms Diane Blears, Ms Hazel
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Boateng, Paul
Ainger, Nick Borrow, David
Alexander, Douglas Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Allen, Graham Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Bradshaw, Ben
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Brinton, Mrs Helen
Atkins, Charlotte Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Austin, John Browne, Desmond
Banks, Tony Buck, Ms Karen
Barnes, Harry Burden, Richard
Barron, Kevin Burgon, Colin
Bayley, Hugh Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Beard, Nigel Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Begg, Miss Anne Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Campbell-Savours, Dale
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) Cann, Jamie
Bennett, Andrew F Casale, Roger
Benton, Joe Cawsey, Ian
Blackman, Liz Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Chaytor, David Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clapham, Michael Hepburn, Stephen
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Heppell, John
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Hesford, Stephen
Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Hill, Keith
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Hinchliffe, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Hodge, Ms Margaret
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hoey, Kate
Clelland, David Hood, Jimmy
Clwyd, Ann Hoon, Geoffrey
Coaker, Vernon Hope, Phil
Coffey, Ms Ann Hopkins, Kelvin
Cohen, Harry Howells, Dr Kim
Coleman, Iain Hoyle, Lindsay
Colman, Tony Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Connarty, Michael Humble, Mrs Joan
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Hurst, Alan
Corbett, Robin Hutton, John
Corbyn, Jeremy Iddon, Dr Brian
Corston, Ms Jean Illsley, Eric
Cousins, Jim Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Cranston, Ross Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Crausby, David Jamieson, David
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Jenkins, Brian
Cummings, John Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Dalyell, Tarn Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Darvill, Keith Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davidson, Ian Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Dawson, Hilton Keeble, Ms Sally
Denham, John Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dismore, Andrew Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dobbin, Jim Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Donohoe, Brian H Khabra, Piara S
Doran, Frank Kidney, David
Dowd, Jim Kilfoyle, Peter
Drew, David King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Kumar, Dr Ashok
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Efford, Clive Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ellman, Mrs Louise Lepper, David
Ennis, Jeff Leslie, Christopher
Fisher, Mark Levitt, Tom
Fitzsimons, Lorna Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Flint, Caroline Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Follett, Barbara Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) Linton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) Livingstone, Ken
Foulkes, George Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Galloway, George Lock, David
Gapes, Mike Love, Andrew
Gardiner, Barry McAvoy, Thomas
George, Bruce (Walsall S) McCabe, Steve
Gerrard, Neil McDonagh, Siobhain
Gibson, Dr Ian Macdonald, Calum
Gilroy, Mrs Linda McDonnell, John
Godman, Dr Norman A McIsaac, Shona
Godsiff, Roger McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Goggins, Paul McNutty, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin Mactaggart, Fiona
Gordon, Mrs Eileen McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) McWilliam, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Mahon, Mrs Alice
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Mallaber, Judy
Grogan, John Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Hanson, David Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet Martlew, Eric
Healey, John Maxton, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Meale, Alan Singh, Marsha
Merron, Gillian Skinner, Dennis
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Miller, Andrew Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mitchell, Austin Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Moonie, Dr Lewis Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Moran, Ms Margaret Snape, Peter
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Soley, Clive
Morley, Elliot Spellar, John
Mountford, Kali Squire, Ms Rachel
Mudie, George Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mullin, Chris Steinberg, Gerry
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Naysmith, Dr Doug Stinchcombe, Paul
Norris, Dan Stoate, Dr Howard
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Stott, Roger
Olner, Bill Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Organ, Mrs Diana Stringer, Graham
Osborne, Ms Sandra Stuart, Ms Gisela
Palmer, Dr Nick Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Pearson, Ian
Pendry, Tom Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Pickthall, Colin Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Pike, Peter L Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Plaskitt, James Timms, Stephen
Pollard, Kerry Tipping, Paddy
Pope, Greg Todd, Mark
Pound, Stephen Touhig, Don
Powell, Sir Raymond Trickett, Jon
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Purchase, Ken Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Quinn, Lawrie Vaz, Keith
Radice, Giles Walley, Ms Joan
Rammell, Bill Ward, Ms Claire
Raynsford, Nick Wareing, Robert N
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Watts, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara Whitehead, Dr Alan
Rooker, Jeff Wicks, Malcolm
Rooney, Terry Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Rowlands, Ted Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Roy, Frank Wills, Michael
Ruane, Chris Winnick, David
Ruddock, Joan Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Wise, Audrey
Salter, Martin Wood, Mike
Sarwar, Mohammad Woolas, Phil
Savidge, Malcolm Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Sawford, Phil
Sedgemore, Brian Tellers for the Ayes:
Sheerman, Barry Mrs. Anne McGuire and
Short, Rt Hon Clare Mr. Clive Betts.
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Browning, Mrs Angela
Allan, Richard Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Amess, David Burnett, John
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Burns, Simon
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Butterfill, John
Baldry, Tony Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Beggs, Roy
Bercow, John Cash, William
Beresford, Sir Paul Chope, Christopher
Blunt, Crispin Clappison, James
Body, Sir Richard Collins, Tim
Boswell, Tim Cormack, Sir Patrick
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia Cran, James
Brady, Graham Curry, Rt Hon David
Brazier, Julian Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Breed, Colin Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Duncan, Alan Norman, Archie
Duncan Smith, Iain Öpik, Lembit
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter Ottaway, Richard
Evans, Nigel Page, Richard
Faber, David Paice, James
Fabricant, Michael Paterson, Owen
Fallon, Michael Pickles, Eric
Fearn, Ronnie Prior, David
Flight, Howard Randall, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Redwood, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Rendel, David
Fox, Dr Liam Robathan, Andrew
Fraser, Christopher Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Gale, Roger Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Garnier, Edward Ross, William (E Lond'y)
George, Andrew (St Ives) Ruffley, David
Gibb, Nick Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Gill, Christopher St Aubyn, Nick
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Sanders, Adrian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Sayeed, Jonathan
Gray, James Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Green, Damian Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Greenway, John Soames, Nicholas
Grieve, Dominic Spicer, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Spring, Richard
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hammond, Philip Steen, Anthony
Harris, Dr Evan Streeter, Gary
Hawkins, Nick Swayne, Desmond
Hayes, John Syms, Robert
Heald, Oliver Tapsell, Sir Peter
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Taylor, Sir Teddy
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Tonge, Dr Jenny
Jenkin, Bernard Tredinnick, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) Trend, Michael
Key, Robert Tyler, Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Tyrie, Andrew
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Viggers, Peter
Kirkwood, Archy Walter, Robert
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Wardle, Charles
Lansley, Andrew Waterson, Nigel
Leigh, Edward Webb, Steve
Letwin, Oliver Wells, Bowen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) Whitney, Sir Raymond
Lidington, David Whittingdale, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Loughton, Tim Wilkinson, John
Luff, Peter Willetts, David
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew Willis, Phil
Maclean, Rt Hon David Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
McLoughlin, Patrick Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Madel, Sir David Woodward, Shaun
Malins, Humfrey Yeo, Tim
Mates, Michael Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
May, Mrs Theresa Tellers for the Noes:
Moore, Michael Mr. Stephen Day and
Moss, Malcolm Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.