§ `After section 39 of the Contributions and Benefits Act there shall be inserted—
§ "39D.—Where the surviving spouse after 26 weeks is eligible for Income Support and below pension age, she or he will be entitled to a premium to be paid with Income Support at a level which 828 Will maintain the income received from the Bereavement Allowance while she or he remains eligible for Income Support or until that surviving spouse reaches pension age"'… [Mr. Rendel.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 41, Nose 360.
831§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That further consideration be now adjourned.—[Mr. Bradley.]
§ Mr. Quentin DaviesThis is a debatable motion and we do not intend to let the Government get away with this without giving a thorough explanation to the House. The Government are evidently on the run. They have lost the support of their Members. We were debating the bereavement proposals a moment ago and it is obvious that they do not want to face the House with the even more unacceptable proposals for means-testing incapacity benefit.
The Government came forward arrogantly with a set of proposals, mostly badly thought through and some pernicious, particularly those intended to wind down the national insurance system. They ran into much more resistance than they expected. They have been exposed already in several fields for not having done their homework properly. They were about to be exposed again. The next group of amendments related to re-rating the state retirement pension for pensioners who earned their entitlement by paying national insurance contributions, often through a lifetime, only to face a lottery if they live abroad. Depending on where they live, they may be entitled to continue to have their pensions uprated. If they live in the Philippines they will get full uprating, but in Canada they will not. The Government did not want to go into that and saw a possible trap or source of embarrassment. Defending that set of anomalies would not have been easy. The Government are already feeling pretty bruised—especially the hon. Members for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for York (Mr. Bayley).
What was coming up after that? We all know that it was to be stakeholder pensions, which represent a colossal Government shambles. It is an issue on which the Government are in full retreat. They got a bloody nose last week when we had the pensions debate, and they do not want another one. They are running away from that. As they have the effrontery to suggest that we should interrupt our proceedings just as we are about to embark on the important matter of stakeholder pensions, I shall remind them of some of the issues that were exposed during the Opposition day debate on pensions.
The Labour party put an interesting sounding promise in its election manifesto to have a stakeholder pension. It all sounded splendid and Labour candidates appeared to be goodies before the electorate. The usual public relations merchants were roped in to package the scheme to give the impression that it was something for nothing and that everything would be very good if people voted for a Labour Government. However, Labour did not have the faintest idea what to do with the scheme when it was elected. We then had 18 months during which the Government were asked regularly what they were doing about the stakeholder proposals that they had promised to introduce, and answer came there none.
The Government became more and more embarrassed. A Secretary of State and a Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who has been 832 playing a distinguished part in our proceedings—had to be got rid of. Another Secretary of State and another pensions Minister were brought in. After a few months that Minister had to be got rid of as well because nothing was happening. The Secretary of State—no doubt so as not to lose face entirely, and shivering in his shoes because he was in line to get the sack as well unless he did something—thought that he should do something extremely quickly.
The Green Paper on stakeholder pensions was originally promised for last summer. It was then formally promised for the autumn. In December, the Government were under great pressure. So they lifted the Australian superannuation system, which was based on compulsion. It was a funded scheme administered by trustees. Everything is set out in the Green Paper, with which we have become extremely familiar. However, at the last minute the Prime Minister vetoed the compulsion element, knowing perfectly well, and correctly, that we would say that the scheme amounted to an unjustified additional new Labour tax. It would have been exactly that, and extremely damaging, particularly for the self-employed who found that cash flow was being sucked out of their businesses. They would have ended up a great deal less well off in their retirement. Many more businesses would have gone to the wall, with corresponding damage to the economy. The Government were right to veto the element of compulsion.
The trouble was that the Government in their great hurry did not think things through. They did not realise that the rest of the structure, as invented by the Australians—the Government are rarely original in their thinking—was premised on the assumption of compulsion. When compulsion was removed, the rest of the edifice fell down. It was the equivalent of launching a new model of motor car and taking the wheels off at the moment of the launch.
The result was a spectacular collapse. Very amusing it was for Opposition Members but it was a bad day's work for pension saving, and we much regret it on that basis.
§ Mr. BurnsDoes my hon. Friend agree that the Government, by trying to pull up the stumps now, are revealing yet another stage in the catalogue of confusion and disaster attendant on drawing up the Bill?
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been a discreditable story. Incompetence has been the hallmark of the Government's handling of the pensions issue, including the stakeholder scheme. However, on top of incompetence there is something far worse.
§ Miss McIntoshI am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Either the Government are continuing their policy of holding the House in contempt, as we have seen on a number of occasions, or the point that I made to the Minister earlier is worrying the Government so much that they want to adjourn. They are seeking to dismantle the Beveridge system of welfare as we have known it. The Minister quoted Beveridge out of context. Which is it, in my hon. Friend's view—are the Government holding the House in contempt, or are they on the run because they are dismantling the Beveridge system?
§ 4 am
§ Mr. DaviesIt is a three-part story, which begins with incompetence. I shall return to that shortly in connection with the stakeholder pension and the other pension proposals. In addition to their incompetence, the Government have made a cowardly attack on the most vulnerable people in our society, with a view to clawing back from them a large sum of money, and claiming that that was a great success because the money could be used for some more electorally alluring purpose. That is a thoroughly discreditable course to adopt.
It is no accident that the Government are trying to interrupt proceedings just a few hours before we would have got on to the vital matter of incapacity benefit. When their proposals come into effect, they intend to claw back more than £700 million in a full year, plus another £100 million from the abolition of severe disablement allowance. That is a total of £800 million in round terms, which the Government propose to get from the most vulnerable—the disabled. They would have to cough up. The Government thought that the disabled were limited in number and would be a soft target—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot legitimately discuss on the motion everything that has yet to be discussed in the Bill. Presumably there will be opportunity for that. It is not in order to go through a catalogue of those matters on the present motion.
§ Mr. DaviesI accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope you agree that it is in order for me to draw out the Government's motives, so that we can see them exposed in Parliament, and so that the public should be under no illusion about what is happening. It is an extraordinary state of affairs when the Government decide to interrupt proceedings on a range of their own legislative proposals, in the middle of our debate.
§ Mr. Garnierrose—
§ Mr. DaviesI hope that my hon. and learned Friend will bear with me. I must first deal with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).
The third aspect of what has happened is the most discreditable of all—the arrogance with which the Government have responded to the representations from the disabled, from my right hon. and hon. Friends, and from sensitive people on the Labour Benches who are concerned about the disabled and about safeguarding the traditions of the Labour party, and the traditional adherence of the Labour party to the principle of national insurance.
The Government responded incredibly arrogantly to that. As we all know, the Secretary of State has been going round the Lobby saying, "I will get tough with them. I will see them off. We are going to defeat them—don't you worry about it." That is the principle that he has adopted in the past couple of days. We saw that this evening with the Minister's deputy, who is not an arrogant person by inclination, but who has been dealing in an extraordinary manner with interventions from senior Back Benchers on his own side. I have seen nothing like it in my time in the House.
834 It is regrettable that this mood should have come over the Government. They have an enormous majority, and we realise that that holds great temptations for them, but they have fallen for those temptations and are not listening to anybody at all. We are witnessing arrogance followed by nemesis, because the arrogance has not worked. The Government's bullying tactics and the dismissal of honest representations from Members in all parts of the House, including their own supporters, have not worked. Precisely because the Government cannot face up to the consequence of their arrogance, or to the revolt that is brewing on their own side, they are attempting to interrupt our proceedings.
§ Mr. DaviesI will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I give way first to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who caught my eye first.
§ Mr. GarnierIs not the Government's decision to cease debate made all the worse by their introduction on Report of a raft of new clauses which fundamentally and dramatically enlarge the Bill? There has been no chance to discuss those measures—that was drawn to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) when we began our debates this afternoon—and no chance for these matters to receive the proper scrutiny which they would normally have received in Committee. Those measures have been foisted on the House at this late stage, and now this arrogant Government have simply decided to rip away the opportunity for debate so that they can all go off to bed and read their nursery books.
§ Mr. DaviesI quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I had occasion to refer to exactly that point in our debate on insolvency. The Government tabled a new clause that completely contradicted the Bill that they had introduced on Second Reading and debated in Committee. The Minister of State did not want to confess that he had done a somersault or a U-turn, but he self-evidently had. Once again, the Government have been trying to run away from the consequences of their own actions.
§ Mr. CorbynWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. DaviesI will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I give way next to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
§ Mrs. BrowningThe Government tabled new clauses as late as Friday past. We have been debating the Bill since 3.30 yesterday afternoon, and most of our time has been spent on Government new clauses. The Government have dispatched their own business on Report, but, arrogantly, they will not give Members who have tabled amendments reasonable time for them to be discussed and dispatched. We have been courteous enough to discuss and debate the Government's new clauses.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I think there has been sufficient implied criticism of Madam Speaker's selection and we should move off from that.
§ Mr. DaviesI did not hear any criticism of Madam Speaker's selection at all. I heard—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! I No, I did not; I heard criticism of the way that the Government have behaved.
§ Mr. CorbynWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. DaviesI will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He need have no fear because, unlike his Front Benchers, I have no desire to stop him speaking in the House. However, I must deal with the point that has been made, because it is serious.
At stake is how the Government decide to treat not merely Parliament, but the general public. Stakeholder pensions are one of the major issues for us to debate, but the most extraordinary thing has happened. The Government rapidly produced an ill thought through Green Paper and attached to it was a consultation that would last until 31 March. The public, the experts, the industry, the academic world and so forth were all cordially invited to make their representations by that date.
The Government must have realised that their proposals were so hare-brained that the results of the consultation would profoundly embarrass them. What did they do? They cut off the consultation procedure midstream—in fact, almost before it started—and published a Bill at the beginning of February. They got the Bill through Second Reading and Committee using their majority, and then brought the Bill out of Committee because we had finished discussing the stakeholder pension provisions several weeks before the end of the consultation.
As if that were not enough, the Government then came here yesterday afternoon with proposals that contradict those that we debated in Committee on, for example, insolvency. They have thus treated the Committee with contempt.
There are only two possible explanations for the Government's behaviour. Either they were not taking seriously clauses 11 and 12 of their own Bill, and knew that they had in their back pocket their real intentions, which they would try to smuggle into the legislative process later—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we have dealt with those matters. The question is whether it is right that consideration of the Bill be adjourned at this point.
§ Mr. DaviesGiven the Government's approach to parliamentary scrutiny of their legislative proposals, which is graphically demonstrated by their behaviour in this context—as it is by many of the other examples that I have cited and will cite in the course of my remarks—we should deny the Government the right to adjourn further consideration of the Bill. Given that they have been found out, why should we allow them simply to escape the consequences of their behaviour by summarily attempting to bring our proceedings to an end?
§ Mr. CorbynI can understand how the hon. Gentleman discovered his voice—he obviously practises megaphone 836 diplomacy. Will he stop shouting? It is very disturbing to many of us up here who are trying to rest. Can he not accept that at 12 minutes past four, it is a brilliant decision of the Government to propose that the House adjourn? Why does he not just accept that, and let us go home?
§ Mr. DaviesI can see that, for the hon. Gentleman, the lure of his bed overrides all other considerations. That should not be our priority, because we have uncovered a Government who have been treating Parliament with systematic arrogance. I come back to their treatment of the insolvency provision because it is germane to the point that I am making.
There are only two possibilities. Either the Government knew that the Bill as published did not contain their real legislative proposals, and they had in their back pocket something else which they would bring out tonight, having tabled it at the last minute on Thursday in the hope that no one would notice. That is a terrible thing for a Government to do in a parliamentary democracy. Alternatively, they genuinely believed in the original proposals—clauses 11 and 12—and then changed their mind or decided that they had made a mistake. Perhaps they literally do not know what they are doing between Tuesdays and Thursdays. That is another possible explanation.
The House can choose any of those explanations; I do not know which is the least complimentary to the Government. If anybody can think of a third or fourth logically feasible possibility, I hope that they will intervene on me. Given that no one is seeking to intervene, I take that as confirmation of my description of how the Government have been conducting their affairs.
When the Government are found out in this way, should we just let them go off to bed and try and forget all about it? I do not think we should. Some profound issues need to be brought out into the open and debated.
We should not be afraid to give the Government a very hard time, because that is what Parliament should do with a Government who have been intoxicated by the arrogance of power. We have no intention of letting them off lightly. We intend to make them regret and repent their ways, and we shall be doing a good job for parliamentary democracy if we do so. We shall make it plain that, if they get things badly wrong and do not have the honesty and straightforwardness to accept that they have got them badly wrong; if they make mistakes or U-turns and come to the House and pretend that they have made no U-turns and that black is white and red is green, we shall not say, "Well, all right. We shall just stop proceedings because it is getting embarrassing for you. You can all go home to bed and try again another day when you might get away with it". We will not do that. We shall make them stand here and answer the many questions that require to be answered.
Only a few hours ago, the Secretary of State was briefing the press. He told them that the Government would defeat the Opposition and would roll them over in just a few hours. They have found that that cannot be done in a few hours, and they are feeling battered and bruised. They have even put up one or two Labour Members who do not normally intervene on such occasions to save the Government's embarrassment by suggesting that we should foreclose proceedings. The best argument that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) could put was that some of us may be feeling a little tired.
§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)Many of us who admire the hon. Gentleman's talents have often wondered why he was not given a Front-Bench job in the last Government. Now we realise that he would never have stopped talking. He is a courteous gentlemen, so could he give us some indication of when he proposes to sit down. We could all come back for his last 30 seconds, but in the meantime we could go off and do something more useful.
§ Mr. DaviesI do not know whether I should return the compliment by saying that we are sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not promoted to the Front Bench. Given the situation in which he finds himself now, perhaps a more significant and important role for him is the one that he can perform on the Back Benches. It is equally important that Labour Back-Bench Members keep the Government on their toes and prevent them from getting away with their recent monstrous assumptions about how they can treat the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do a good job for the Labour party, and if he wants the Labour party to have a future, I suggest that he uses his undoubted energies and talents to make it plain to the Government that such behaviour will not wash and will not be tolerated.
Labour Members, no doubt with considerable courage—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the Question whether consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
§ Mr. DaviesI do not believe that consideration should now be adjourned, because we are about to launch into a discussion of important matters.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have already ruled that we cannot discuss future matters because they will fall to be considered on a future occasion.
§ Mr. DaviesBefore we allow the Government to adjourn proceedings tonight, we must probe the reasons why they have suddenly changed their mind. It is not the first time that they have changed their mind. As 1 have said, there are several inconsistencies between the proposals that they have brought before us now and the original provisions of the Bill. What is new and has happened in the past half an hour or so is that they have changed their mind about seeking parliamentary approval for the totality of these proposals.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House is not why, it is whether.
§ Mr. DaviesI wonder whether it is possible to consider the question whether without considering the question why.
§ Sir Richard Bodyrose—
§ Mr. Garnierrose—
§ Mr. DaviesI shall give way to my most senior colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body).
§ Sir Richard BodyMy hon. Friend has been most restrained, considering the circumstances. Is there not one 838 argument that should be considered in favour of adjournment? We have no one up there in the Gallery to report the shambles.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he should realise that there can be reference to no one other than those who are present in the Chamber.
§ Sir Richard BodyIs there not a chance that our proceedings might be reported, which would enable the public to appreciate what has been going on here, how arrogant and appalling the Government are and what a mess the Bill is?
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that it is not right to refer to anyone in the Chamber other than Members of Parliament, but I think it is proper to refer to the media in general, which—rightly—focus on this place. It is not an accident that the moment that the Government have chosen to try to run away from the debate is the moment at which, probably, there is the least scrutiny from the media in general, whether by individuals who may be present above the Chamber or by others. Obviously, one of the Government's motives is the fact that they do not want the media to return in the morning and find that the Government are retiring in tatters.
§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey)Is there not a very good reason for the House not to adjourn at 4.20 am? The next clutch of new clauses, to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn the House's attention, relate to the uprating of pensions overseas. This may be a diabolical hour for us to debate the matter in the Chamber, but for those who will be affected in Canada and Australia it is prime listening time. They are all glued to their radio sets, listening to what is going on here.
This evening's debates have been won consistently by the Opposition and the Labour rebels. The fact that the Government continue to win the votes is immaterial: the debates have been won by those who have opposed the Government's proposals.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman has strayed far enough from the Question.
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend is right. Those who are listening in from Canada, Australia or anywhere else will have no illusions about who is responsible for destroying their reasonable hopes—
§ Mr. DaviesI will when I have finished my sentence, if that is permitted. Those people will have no illusions about who is responsible for destroying their reasonable hopes of receiving the benefit to which they are entitled through their own national insurance contributions in this country. Listeners in Canada, Australia or elsewhere will also appreciate that the Government are not prepared 839 to defeat and destroy their aspirations by presenting arguments. The Government are running away from the argument, which is despicable.
§ Miss McIntoshrose—
§ Mr. DaviesI will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) first.
§ Mr. BurnsIs not a compelling reason for us not to adjourn now the fact that, at 10 pm last night, the Government were able to choose whether to continue consideration of the Bill or to call it a day and come back another day? They made a definite decision to proceed—
§ Miss McIntoshUntil any hour.
§ Mr. BurnsUntil any hour, as my hon. Friend says.
What has happened between then and now? Have the Government suddenly realised that they face a defeat later this morning? Are they drawing stumps to avoid the humiliation that would be inflicted on them by a number of their hon. Friends?
§ Mr. DaviesIt is incontrovertible that the Government changed their mind. They have changed their mind about substance many times, and tonight they changed their mind about procedure. They found that the going was ceasing to be tolerable. They thought that they could get all the measures through as recently as 10 pm, but now they know that they cannot get them through in good order. They have lost the argument on insolvency; they have lost the argument on bereavement, on which they found that the mass of their own Back Benchers were against them. Now they simply cannot contend with us on stakeholder pensions, or, of course, on incapacity benefit.
All Labour Members are doing is postponing the evil day. They are entirely wrong if they think that we shall simply go to our beds and forget about it, and talk about something else tomorrow or next week. Nevertheless, tonight has been very revealing. Here we have a Government who, for all their arrogance, made a clear commitment at 10 pm to getting measures through the House and then found some six hours later that they could no longer live up to it.
§ Mr. Garnierrose—
§ Mrs. Browningrose—
§ Mr. Swaynerose—
§ Mr. DaviesI see that a phalanx wish to intervene. To be fair, I can think of no other way than to go from left to right.
§ Mr. GarnierI take it as a compliment that my hon. Friend has started from the left.
840 Does my hon. Friend know when the Government propose to resume the proceedings? When the Government Whip moved the motion, did he indicate when the Government would condescend to revisit the matter? If we are to adjourn now, it is essential that we should know when we can consult our constituents and when my hon. Friend can consult the experts, academics and others, so that we can revisit the matter.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will not go down that line. This Question must be dealt with first. Presumably, when it is dealt with, or as it is reached, an indication will be given of further consideration.
§ Mr. DaviesIt may be in order to anticipate. I can certainly anticipate with complete confidence that the last thing that the Government want to talk about tonight is resuming the debate, which has been disastrous for them. They will go away burying their head in their hands and hoping against hope that they never have to confront the House on those measures again, or have the shambles of their behaviour exposed again.
§ Mrs. BrowningMy hon. Friend will know that we have spent some 13 hours discussing and debating six sets of new clauses and amendments. I should now like to persuade him that it would be appropriate to adjourn.
Those of us who have participated over those 13 hours, and I came to the Chamber especially to debate the measures that dealt with pensions and disability, have made a contribution; I say that to Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the serious matters before us. However, as my hon. Friend will know, fewer Members, certainly on the Government Benches, were in the Chamber for any of the debates on various important matters—maternity allowance, work-focused interviews, the effects of insolvency on pension rights, earnings of workers and bereavement benefits—than are here for the present debate.
I believe that, in recognition of the seriousness of the matters that still remain to be dealt with, and to give credit to the people outside who will have an interest in what we have to say on the remaining issues, it is incumbent on us not to fill those debates just with Lobby fodder, which we see before us.
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend speaks with genuine feeling. She has a considerable record in the House of speaking with great knowledge and understanding, particularly on disability and incapacity issues. I can understand her concern at the frivolous way in which the Government have treated our procedures, quite apart from the cruel way in which they propose to treat recipients of the various benefits. There is a fascinating contrast between the participation of Labour Members in the substantive discussions earlier and their participation now in the procedural debate, when we find that the Government Benches have almost filled up.
It is even more fascinating that few of the Back Benchers who have been on the Government Benches during any part of our proceedings tonight have sought to defend what the Government are doing. They were clearly embarrassed. Those who were disposed to be more loyal to the Government stayed away. Those who contributed 841 to our proceedings—we have had distinguished speeches from many Labour Members— invariably spoke against the Government proposals, particularly those on bereavement benefit.
Therefore, it is clear that the Government cannot mobilise their Members to support them on the substance—on their policies. The best that they can do is mobilise some support to adjourn proceedings, appealing to matters of personal comfort. Although it is understandable that people should like to go back to their homes at this time of night, surely that should not be decisive in determining the way in which we conduct our proceedings in the House of Commons.
§ Mr. HayesI risk disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who, as my hon. Friend says, has enjoyed a distinguished career in the House, despite her rather radical feminist views—with which I do not agree, I hasten to add. I believe that it would be inappropriate to adjourn the debate. The hon. Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), other Opposition Members and I have sat throughout the long debates, listening quite carefully to what has been said, because we wanted to debate matters of on-going concern.
§ Although I accept—as the Deputy Speaker has ruled—that we are here to debate not what happened in the past, but the present, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) that the public will find it very strange indeed if, having reached this point in the debate, we should choose to end it at 4 o'clock in the morning. It would have been acceptable to end the debate before completing our consideration if we had chosen to do so last night, but, having got so far into the night, the public will expect us to see the matter through.
§ Mr. DaviesI absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. SwayneI should like simply to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, when the business statement is made to the House on Thursdays, it is always prefaced with the remark, "subject to the satisfactory progress of business". Many Labour Members take great pleasure in being away from this place. I should warn them that, given that the House's business will not have progressed satisfactorily today, we might meet next Thursday to proceed with it.
§ Mr. DaviesThe Government have an overwhelming majority and, ultimately, can do what they like with the House of Commons—which is what is so terrifying about the position in which we find ourselves. Nevertheless, today, the House of Commons has had a victory against an overbearing and arrogant Government. The Government were not able, as they had originally planned, to carry on through the night. They found that they just could not take the heat any longer, and that they could no longer effectively mobilise their supporters to back them. They also knew that, with the stakeholder pension, they were entering extremely difficult country, and that—with their pernicious plans to rob the incapacitated and 842 disabled of the fruits of their national insurance contributions—they were facing a revolt by Members on both sides of the House.
The best that the Government could do today was to throw in the sponge, hoping against hope that, at some point in the future, they might somehow get away with their proposals. They are a Government who are in denial about their own obvious failure to convince either side of the House of their intentions.
§ Sir Richard BodyWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. DaviesNo; I shall not give way again. I have already taken quite a few interventions.
§ Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Question put, That the Question be now put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 34.
844| Division No. 183] | [4.33 am |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Clark, Dr Lynda |
| Alexander, Douglas | (Edinburgh Pentlands) |
| Allen, Graham | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Ashton, Joe | Clelland, David |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Clwyd, Ann |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Coaker, Vernon |
| Austin, John | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Barnes, Harry | Cohen, Harry |
| Barron, Kevin | Coleman, lain |
| Battle, John | Colman, Tony |
| Bayley, Hugh | Connarty, Michael |
| Beard, Nigel | Corbett, Robin |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Corston, Ms Jean |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Cousins, Jim |
| Benton, Joe | Cox, Tom |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Crausby, David |
| Berry, Roger | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Best, Harold | Cummings, John |
| Betts, Clive | Cunningham, Jim (CoV'try S) |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire |
| Blizzard, Bob | Dalyell, Tam |
| Boateng, Paul | Darling, Rt Hon Alistair |
| Borrow, David | Darvill, Keith |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Davidson, Ian |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Dawson, Hilton |
| Browne, Desmond | Dean, Mrs Janet |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Dismore, Andrew |
| Burden, Richard | Dobbin, Jim |
| Burgon, Colin | Donohoe, Brian H |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Doran, Frank |
| Byers, Rt Hon Stephen | Dowd, Jim |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Drew, David |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Drown, Ms Julia |
| Cann, Jamie | Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) |
| Casale, Roger | Edwards, Huw |
| Caton, Martin | Efford, Clive |
| Cawsey, Ian | Ellman, Mrs Louise |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Ennis, Jeff |
| Chaytor, David | Field, Rt Hon Frank |
| Clapham, Michael | Fisher, Mark |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Laxton, Bob |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | Lepper, David |
| Flynn, Paul | Leslie, Christopher |
| Follett, Barbara | Levitt, Tom |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Foulkes, George | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| Fyfe, Maria | Linton, Martin |
| Gapes, Mike | Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) |
| Gardiner, Barry | Lock, David Love, Andrew |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | McAllion, John |
| Gerrard, Neil | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | McCabe, Steve |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Godsiff, Roger | Macdonald, Calum |
| Goggins, Paul | McDonnell, John |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | McFall, John |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | McGuire, Mrs Anne |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | McIsaac, Shona |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Grocott, Bruce Grogan, John | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | McLeish, Henry |
| Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Hanson, David | McNulty, Tony |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | MacShane, Denis |
| Healey, John | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | McWatter, Tony |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Mallaber, Judy |
| Hesford, Stephen | Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter |
| Hewitt, Ms Patricia | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Hinchliffe, David | Marsden,Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Home Robertson, John | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Martlew, Eric |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Meacher, Rt Hon Michael |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Meale, Alan |
| Howells, Dr Kim | Merron, Gillian |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley) |
| Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) | Milburn, Rt Hon Alan |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Miller, Andrew |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Mitchell, Austin |
| Hurst, Alan | Moffatt, Laura |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Illsley, Eric | Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) |
| Ingram, Rt Hon Adam | Mullin, Chris |
| Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) |
| Jamieson, David | Naysmith, Dr Doug |
| Jenkins, Brian | Norris, Dan |
| Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
| Johnson, Miss Melanie | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| (Welwyn Hatfield) | O'Hara, Eddie |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| Jones, Helen (Warrington N) | Osborne, Ms Sandra |
| Jones, Ms Jenny | Pearson, Ian |
| (Wolverh'ton SW) | Pendry, Tom |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | Perham, Ms Linda |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) | Pickthall, Colin |
| Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa | Pike, Peter L |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Plaskitt, James |
| Keeble, Ms Sally | Pollard, Kerry |
| Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) | Pond, Chris |
| Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) | Pope, Greg |
| Kelly, Ms Ruth | Pound, Stephen |
| Kemp, Fraser | Powell, Sir Raymond |
| Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
| Khabra, Piara S | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Kidney, David | Prosser, Gwyn |
| King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) | Purchase, Ken |
| King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) | Quinn, Lawrie |
| Kingham, Ms Tess | Radice, Giles |
| Kumar, Dr Ashok | Rammell, Bill |
| Ladyman, Dr Stephen | Raynsford, Nick |
| Lawrence, Ms Jackie | Roche, Mrs Barbara |
| Rooker, Jeff | Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) |
| Rooney, Terry | Temple—Morris, Peter |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Rowlands, Ted | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Roy, Frank | Thompson, William |
| Ruane, Chris | Timms, Stephen |
| Ruddock, Joan | Todd, Mark |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Touhig, Don |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Trickett, Jon |
| Salter, Martin | Truswell, Paul |
| Sarwar, Mohammad | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Savidge, Malcolm | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Sawford, Phil | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Shaw, Jonathan | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Short, Rt Hon Clare | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Singh, Marsha | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wareing, Robert N |
| Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) | Watts, David |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | White, Brian |
| Smith, Miss Geraldine | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| (Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Smith, John (Glamorgan) | (Swansea W) |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Soley, Clive | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Southworth, Ms Helen | Wills, Michael |
| Squire, Ms Rachel | Winnick, David |
| Starkey, Dr Phyllis | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Wise, Audrey |
| Stevenson, George | Wood, Mike |
| Stinchcombe, Paul | Woolas, Phil |
| Stoate, Dr Howard | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Stringer, Graham | Wyatt, Derek |
| Stuart, Ms Gisela | |
| Sutcliffe, Gerry | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann | Mr. Mike Hall and |
| (Dewsbury) | Mr. Keith Hill. |
| NOES | |
| Allan, Richard | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Beggs, Roy | Moore, Michael |
| Body, Sir Richard | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Brady, Graham | Öpik, Lembit |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Pickles, Eric |
| Burns, Simon | Rendel, David |
| Colvin, Michael | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Davies, Quentin (Grantham) | Sanders, Adrian |
| Duncan Smith, lain | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Stunell, Andrew |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Swayne, Desmond |
| Gale, Roger | Swinney, John |
| Garnier, Edward | Syms, Robert |
| Gray, James | Tyler, Paul |
| Hayes, John | Webb, Steve |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) | |
| Hunter, Andrew | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Mrs. Eleanor Laing and |
| McIntosh, Miss Anne | Mr. Tim Collins. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
4.45 am§ Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The closure was taken when only one Opposition Member had been called to speak, on a matter that was debatable and could have been discussed for a considerable time. That is worrying to those of us who are concerned about the manner in which the procedures of the House are being manipulated. My point of order very specifically for the Chair—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)Order. I will deal with that point of order straight away. When closures are accepted is entirely a matter for the Chair, and that decision has been taken.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerNo, I have dealt with the point of order.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have dealt with the point of order. Closures are entirely a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament and must know that.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. GaleOn an entirely different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Madam Speaker is the United Kingdom president of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is a matter that she takes very seriously indeed. Last year, I and others visited Canada with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and we were lobbied very hard by overseas pensioners who are very concerned about their pension rights. The—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman is reopening a debate that we had earlier. I will not hear his point of order any further.
§ Question put accordingly, That further consideration be now adjourned:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 21.
847| Division No. 184] | [4.47 am |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Brinton, Mrs Helen |
| Ainger, Nick | Brown, Russell (Dumfries) |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Browne, Desmond |
| Allen, Graham | Buck, Ms Karen |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Burden, Richard |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Burgon, Colin |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Butler, Mrs Christine |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Cann, Jamie |
| Austin, John | Casale, Roger |
| Barnes, Harry | Caton, Martin |
| Barron, Kevin | Cawsey, Ian |
| Battle, John | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Chaytor, David |
| Beard, Nigel | Clapham, Michael |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Clark, Dr Lynda |
| Benton, Joe | (Edinburgh Pentlands) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
| Berry, Roger | Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) |
| Best, Harold | Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) |
| Betts, Clive | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Clelland, David |
| Blizzard, Bob | Clwyd, Ann |
| Boateng, Paul | Coaker, Vernon |
| Borrow, David | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Cohen, Harry |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Coleman, lain |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Colman. Tony |
| Connarty, Michael | Hurst, Alan |
| Corbett, Robin | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Illsley, Eric |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Ingram, Rt Hon Adam |
| Cousins, Jim | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Cox, Tom | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Crausby, David | Jamieson, David |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Jenkins, Brian |
| Cunningham, Jim (Covtry S) | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire | Johnson, Miss Melanie |
| Dalyell, Tam | (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Darvill, Keith | Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Davidson, Ian | Jones, Ms Jenny |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | (Wolverh'ton SW) |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Dawson, Hilton | Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa |
| Dismore, Andrew | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Dobbin, Jim | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Doran, Frank | Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth) |
| Dowd, Jim | Kelly, Ms Ruth |
| Drew, David | Kemp, Fraser |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Khabra, Piara S |
| Edwards, Huw | Kidney, David |
| Efford, Clive | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Ennis, Jeff | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Fisher, Mark | Lawrence, Ms Jackie |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Laxton, Bob |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | Lepper, David |
| Flynn, Paul | Leslie, Christopher |
| Follett, Barbara | Levitt, Tom |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Foulkes, George | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| Fyfe, Maria | Linton, Martin |
| Gapes, Mike | Lock, David |
| Gardiner, Barry | Love, Andrew |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | McAllion, John |
| Gerrard, Neil | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | McCabe, Steve |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | McCafferty, Ms Chris |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Godsiff, Roger | Macdonald, Calum |
| Goggins, Paul | McDonnell, John |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | McFall, John |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | McGuire, Mrs Anne |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Mclsaac, Shona |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Grocott, Bruce | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Grogan, John | McLeish, Henry |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | McNulty, Tony |
| Hanson, David | MacShane, Denis |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Healey, John | McWalter, Tony |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Mallaber, Judy |
| Heppell, John | Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter |
| Hesford, Stephen | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Hewitt, Ms Patricia | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Hinchliffe, David | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Home Robertson, John | Marshall—Andrews, Robert |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Martlew, Eric |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Meacher, Rt Hon Michael |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Meale, Alan |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | Merron, Gillian |
| Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) | Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley) |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Miller, Andrew |
| Humble. Mrs Joan | Mitchell, Austin |
| Moffatt, Laura | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Soley, Clive |
| Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Norris, Dan | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Steinberg, Gerry |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Stevenson, George |
| O'Hara, Eddie | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Olner, Bill | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| O'Neill, Martin | Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | Stringer, Graham |
| Osborne, Ms Sandra | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Pearson, Ian | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Pendry, Tom | Swinney, John |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann |
| Pickthall, Colin | (Dewsbury) |
| Pike, Peter L | Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S) |
| Plaskitt, James | Temple—Morris, Peter |
| Pollard, Kerry | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Pond, Chris | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Pope, Greg | Timms, Stephen |
| Pound, Stephen | Todd, Mark |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Touhig, Don |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Trickett, Jon |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Truswell, Paul |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Turner, Dennis (Wolerh'ton SE) |
| Purchase, Ken | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Radice, Giles | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Rammell, Bill | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Raynsford, Nick | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Rooker, Jeff | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Rooney, Terry | Wareing, Robert N |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Watts, David |
| Rowlands, Ted | White, Brian |
| Roy, Frank | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Ruane, Chris | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Ruddock, Joan | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | (Swansea W) |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Salter, Martin | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Sarwar, Mohammad | Wills, Michael |
| Savidge, Malcolm | Winnick, David |
| Sawford, Phil | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Wise, Audrey |
| Shaw, Jonathan | Wood, Mike |
| Short, Rt Hon Clare | Woolas, Phil |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Worthington, Tony |
| Singh, Marsha | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) | Wyatt, Derek |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | |
| Smith, Miss Geraldine | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| (Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Mr. Mike Hall and |
| Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | Mr. Keith Hill. |
| NOES | |
| Allan, Richard | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Body, Sir Richard | Öpik, Lembit |
| Brady, Graham | Rendel, David |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Sanders, Adrian |
| Gray, James | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Hayes, John | Stunell, Andrew |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) | Syms, Robert |
| Hunter, Andrew | Webb, Steve |
| Lait, Mrs Jacqui | Tellers for the Noes: |
| McIntosh, Miss Anne | Mr. Desmond Swayne and |
| Moore, Michael | Mr. Roger Gale. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill to be further considered tomorrow.