§ Lords amendment in lieu of Government amendment No. 42A: No. 42D, in page 66, line 4, leave out ("two") and insert ("seven")
§ The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling)
I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendment No. 42A to the words restored to the Bill and disagrees with the Lords in their amendment No. 42D in lieu.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 43E and motion to disagree, and 43F and motion to disagree.
§ Mr. Darling
There are two issues before us tonight in what will be, of necessity, a fairly short debate. The first is the Lords amendments on incapacity benefit, and the second is the issue of the whole Bill.
First, in relation to incapacity benefit amendments passed by the Lords, we discussed almost the same amendments at great length last week—after a lengthy debate previously, both in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House.
I said at the end of Commons Report last May that I would listen to detailed amendments. I did do so, and last week, in response to what had been said in the Lords, I made two substantial changes to the original proposals on the pension threshold and the contribution conditions, which were accepted by the House. I made it clear then, I made it clear outside the House at the weekend and I make it clear tonight that the Government do not propose any more changes; there are no more changes to come.
The House of Lords has a clear duty to revise legislation proposed by the Government and passed by this House, but the time has come for the Lords to accept that the will of the elected Chamber must take precedence.
I accept that, both in the other place and in this place, there are many hon. Members who are entitled to put a counter-view—to advance their arguments—and they have done so with vigour. However, the time does come when the House needs to take a considered view on the whole Bill, because that is what we are now talking about, and I hope that it will now do so.
I notice that in the other place Government support was up, and many people who previously could not support the Government felt able to do so. I hope that hon. Members will take account of that and can now support the Government.
The Lords amendments would have a significant financial effect. That means that there is an issue of privilege. There is a convention that the role of the Lords 935 in financial matters is to agree, not initiate or amend. I trust that the House will note that.
The Bill will help millions of people who will be denied help unless it passes into law. I take this opportunity to set out clearly what we are doing for disabled people because it bears repetition. We are investing more in helping disabled children by increasing benefits. There will be an extra £37 a week for severely disabled three and four-year-olds, and there will be up to £26 more for people disabled at birth or from an early age. Both those measures are in the Bill, and neither would be here but for this Government.
There is a new disability income guarantee—up to £5 more a week for single disabled people and £8 for couples. There will be £140 million to help carers with desperately needed respite care. In addition, £195 million will be invested in the new deal for disabled people. The disabled person's tax credit will be worth at least £155 a week for a single person. We are spending more to extend the linking rules, for people on incapacity benefit, from eight weeks to a year so that they can try out work without losing benefit entitlement.
In the longer term, we are spending £7 billion more to give new pension rights to carers and disabled people with broken work records—help that was never ever there in the past and would never ever be there under a Tory Government. My hon. Friends must remember that when they consider who wants to try to support some of them tonight.
We have driven forward the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and we have established the Disability Rights Commission—something that the Tories blocked when they were in government.
All those measures are a mark of a Government committed to fairness and opportunity for disabled people. As I said last week, in the two short years that we have been in government we have done more to help disabled people than the Conservatives did in 18 years, and people need to remember that when they vote against us tonight. We have more to do, but we have made a start.
I am also told—we got a flavour of this earlier from the Conservatives—that it will not matter if the Bill falls and they get their way. This Bill will benefit millions of people. It increases opportunity: it provides the opportunity of stakeholder pensions for 5 million people who, at the moment, are denied the opportunity to save for their retirement; it sets up the new ONE service, bringing together the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency—something that is long overdue—giving every claimant the opportunity to make the most of their potential with the help of a personal adviser; and it replaces the all-work test with a personal capability assessment, which focuses on what a person can do, not only on what he cannot.
The Bill promotes fairness. For the first time, it extends bereavement allowances to fathers who lose their wife and are left to bring up children on their own—something that the Conservative party never did anything about. It doubles the lump sum—up to £2,000—received by people who lose their husband or wife. It enables pension sharing 936 on divorce, helping about 50,000 people, mostly women, every year—something that the Conservative party never did.
§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
Will the Secretary of State now address the amendment and the arguments advanced in the other place?
§ Mr. Darling
I am addressing the amendment, as well as viewing the Bill as a whole. I am making it particularly clear to the House that what is at stake is significant extra help for disabled people—significant extra help for millions of people, which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues blocked for year after year after year.
We have a record to be proud of, not only in the help that we are giving disabled people but in the help that we are giving on pensions, the extra bereavement help, and pension sharing on divorce—all essential welfare reform, which people have wanted for years. The Bill delivers it. I make that point because a colleague of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) talked glibly about it being all right if the Bill was lost, saying that it would not really matter. Millions of people stand to gain from the Bill, including those in the greatest need.
I repeat, because the point bears repetition, that we are giving £26 a week more to people who at the moment, get so little that they are on income support for the rest of their life—something that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and his colleagues did nothing about in the 18 years in which they had the opportunity to do so.
The Bill also gives more money to expectant mothers who until now have been denied maternity benefits. The Conservative view may be that that does not matter, but it matters to the 14,000 people who will benefit. All those measures will fall by the wayside if the Bill is delayed or blocked.
I always expected Tory opposition to these measures. The Tories are settling well into opposition—they are clearly preparing for years of it. Their opportunism sometimes beggars belief. I find it difficult to take seriously a party that claims to be concerned about disabled people's rights when it blocked the disability rights Bills in the previous Parliament. The Conservative party is committed to ending the new deal for disabled people; it is committed to ending the working families tax credit, which will mean an effective tax rise of £24 a week for some of the poorest people; and it is opposed to all the increased spending on those who need it.
Conservative Members oppose our pension reform because they want to privatise the lot. The party is determined, as we heard again this afternoon, to slash social security spending, yet at the same time it backed amendments in another place that would cost £4 billion.
The Tory Opposition are opportunist; they are opposing the Bill not because they are concerned about disabled people, but because they see a chance of opposition for its own sake.
§ Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)
Would the right hon. Gentleman say that Baroness Kennedy was an opportunist Conservative? After all, she said:What is happening to our values? Are we forgetting who we are? What does 'social justice' really mean?"—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 8 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 1196.]
§ Mr. Darling
No, but I note that Baroness Kennedy abstained after having said that. I accept, as I said earlier 937 that some of my colleagues have expressed reservations, as they are entitled to do. I have said before, and I say again—we have listened and we have moved. I believe that these reforms are fully justified: they do far more to help the severely disabled than has been done in the past, they bring the benefit system up to date and they take account of the fact that things have moved on in the past 50 years.
The Bill provides extra help for pensions, and pension sharing on divorce and bereavement benefits; it provides more help for people to get into work and more help for the severely disabled. The Bill needs to be supported. The improvements that we are making to the benefits system will help those who need it most. We want to help disabled people and to end child poverty in a generation. We want to improve conditions for disabled children facing poverty, to get their parents into work and to give everybody a real chance to get on.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have allowed the Secretary of State to go on a little, but I remind him that there is very little time and that the amendment is specifically about incapacity benefit.
§ Mr. Darling
I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, although I appreciate everything that you say, 1 am entitled to take account of what I anticipate will be said about the Bill.
The amendments on incapacity benefit that we introduced last week are, I believe, fully justified. They showed that the Government have listened and made changes. There are no more changes to come. The Bill as a whole is a major step forward; it provides far greater opportunity and fairness than ever before. On that basis, I ask the House to support us in getting the Bill on to the statute book.
§ Mr. David Willetts (Havant)
There is no point in the Secretary of State getting quite so het up, and certainly not at such length. I will try to speak briefly so that the many right hon. and hon. Members who have already participated in the debate can, I hope, speak again.
This debate is not about a Third Reading of a Bill; it is about a very specific set of amendments on which the House has not previously had an opportunity to vote. Some Labour Members may not have felt able to vote on the previous amendment to remove the means test entirely, but may believe that this amendment provides an opportunity to consider a compromise. Lord Ashley proposes having a means test that starts at a rather high level that rests on the Government's arguments about the minimum levels of income on which disabled people are expected to live.
6. 45 pm
The Secretary of State referred to the Government's increased support in the House of Lords. Before we get carried away, I remind him that the Contents—that is, those who voted for the amendment and therefore opposed the Government—were 260, and the Not Contents were 127. That hardly counts as a massive surge of support for the Government. Of course, the vote would have been lost on a vote of life peers alone—it had nothing to do with hereditary peers.
938 The fact is that the Bill is a muddle. While it professes to encourage people to save, this provision will penalise people for saving. While it claims to reinforce the contributory principle, this provision attacks the contributory principle. I am afraid that although the Secretary of State may well be proud of parts of the Bill, I very much doubt that he is proud of the measure that he is trying to push through the House tonight. There is no argument for penalising disabled people simply because they have had the prudence to take out an occupational pension. There is no reason why they should face a marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rate of 73 per cent. There is no argument for the weakening of the national insurance contributory principle, which is contained in these proposals.
The only reason the House is still wrestling with the amendment at this late stage is because of the Secretary of State's catalogue of misjudgments. There was no reason for us to have got into these arguments; it was perfectly obvious from the beginning that compromise was necessary on this issue. The Secretary of State was more preoccupied with his macho image than with good social security policy. That is why we shall be opposing the motion.
§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)
My right hon. Friend said in moving the motion that there were two issues before the House—the amendment and the Bill. There is also a third issue—the relationship of the House of Commons to the House of Lords. After three considerations of the Bill, anybody who votes against the Government tonight is voting for the House to Lords to prevail over the House of Commons. That is what this is about.
The Bill has come back to the House of Commons twice, and all hon. Members have had the right to vote on it. But this is the end of a parliamentary Session, and we had better be clear that the Labour party believes that the House of Commons shall have primacy over the House of Lords. Anybody who votes to scupper this measure will be voting for the House of Lords to prevail over the House of Commons. I go further: anybody who votes for this amendment will be voting on the same side as two dukes, 28 earls, 22 viscounts and Andrew Lloyd-Webber. Not only will they be voting for the last hurrah of the hereditaries, but they are asserting, if the House of Lords is allowed to have primacy over the House of Commons, that a reformed House of Lords, which is sure to be more democratic than the current one, will have an even greater claim to primacy over the House of Commons.
§ Audrey Wise (Preston)
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is possible that we will vote on the merits of the case?
§ Mr. Kaufman
My hon. Friend may do that, but she has been elected to reform the House of Lords—[Interruption.] Oh yes, the wording of the motion is that this House insists. Anybody voting against the Government on this motion will be voting for the supremacy of the House of Lords. A reformed House of Lords will say that if the House of Commons was ready to cave in to the hereditaries, we, who are much more democratic, can have our way. My hon. Friend, who has an honourable and consistent record of voting against Labour Governments throughout her years in the House 939 of Commons, should accept that an elected Government should have their way over the Lords. Vote for democracy.
§ Mr. Webb
If I followed the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) correctly, he said that if the House voted in favour of the Ashley amendment—the less severe means test—we would, although that would be the will of the House, be being subservient to the House of Lords. We would not; we would be expressing the will of the House of Commons.
The two key issues before us are the threshold and the rate at which the means test tapers in. The Secretary of State has given no concession whatever on the taper. It was 50 per cent. on the day that he drafted the Bill, and it is 50 per cent. now. This is our first chance to vote in favour of a 23 per cent. taper.
§ Mr. Webb
There are only eight minutes left for other speeches so I shall not.
The second issue is the threshold. The amendment ties the threshold to the disability income guarantee, which has the huge advantage that it is indexed every year. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State were evasive last week on indexation. The sum of £85 has been specified in the Bill, but it could quickly be eroded. Linking the sum to the disability income guarantee would ensure indexation, providing safety for the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats will oppose the Government.
§ Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood)
I support the Lords amendment tabled by Lord Ashley, principally because the Government's proposals would leave 310,000 disabled people who are unable to work without incapacity benefit or with reduced benefit. The vast majority of those people are already on low incomes. They do not slip on to incapacity benefit. They are judged unfit for work following a medical test set out by the Government of the day.
Like many others, I have long argued for a compromise that would protect disabled people who are unable to work and on the lowest incomes. A threshold fixed at the disability income guarantee of £128 would be fairer. A taper not of 50 per cent. but at the rate of the standard rate of income tax—23 per cent.—would be fairer.
Finally, I am not opposed to welfare reform. I am a strong supporter of it, and have been for a long time. I can even offer documentary evidence to prove that. Let me end with the words of Baroness Kennedy, who said yesterday in the other place:I believe in welfare reform, but I also believe in welfare. "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 1196.]
§ Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)
The Secretary of State urged us to take a counter-view where appropriate. The Opposition have struck a chord with the country at large, which is why I support the Ashley amendment. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation study highlights determined accusations that the Secretary of 940 State and the Government in general are guilty of age discrimination, particularly for people aged between 45 and the early 60s. Those people will be incrementally damaged by the Secretary of State's disagreement with the Lords amendment. They have poorer prospects than others, and their prospects of finding alternative employment reduce as their ages rise. The Secretary of State has specifically targeted that category of people, and I must disagree with him. I shall vote for the Lords amendment.
§ Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead)
What is this debate all about? Incapacity benefit, people tell me. But incapacity benefit is basically ensconced in a Bill that tries to provide work for those who can and help for those who cannot. I have not found a single Member on the Labour Benches, and none too many on the Opposition Benches either, who disagrees with that principle.
The initial problem with the Bill was that a group of people fell into the middle—it was not clear whether they could work or needed our help. Trying to determine into which category people fall has been difficult. I did not support the Bill the last time it came before us because I did not believe that the Secretary of State and his Ministers had properly worked through that difficulty. However, over six months, case after case in the middle band has been produced—some people have rheumatoid arthritis, or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The Bill has been adjusted to meet many difficult conditions.
One difficult case remains—that of people who have taken early retirement and who have an occupational pension. Each of us has constituents in that category. For example, a teacher, after years of teaching, may be unable to bear going into a classroom to face the kids; or an air traffic controller may see a screen no longer filled with different planes, but with a jumble. Those people may retire from their jobs.
The Conservatives reacted to such people by saying that if they could do their own jobs, they could take incapacity benefit for the short term. The Tories had a problem with employing those people ever again and were damn well never going to give them any help, so people were left to rot. The Labour Government say that such people may no longer be able to teach, but they can still do something. We will help them to find those jobs and to get benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), whom I greatly respect, has referred to that idea as invalidity benefit. It is not so. The benefit is given to people who are told that they can do no work at all. If that is true, the people involved are invalids, and a whole host of things will be done to help, support and protect—
§ It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order.
§ Question put, That this House insists on its amendment No. 42A to the words restored to the Bill and disagrees with the Lords in their amendment No. 42D in lieu:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 234.944
|Division No. 312||6. 57 pm|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Denham, John|
|Ainger, Nick||Dismore, Andrew|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Dobson, Rt Hon Frank|
|Alexander, Douglas||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Allen, Graham||Doran, Frank|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Dowd, Jim|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Drew, David|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Ashton, Joe||Edwards, Huw|
|Atherton, Ms Candy||Efford, Clive|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Barron, Kevin||Fisher, Mark|
|Bayley, Hugh||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Beard, Nigel||Fitzsimons, Lorna|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Flint, Caroline|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Follett, Barbara|
|Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Benton, Joe||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Foster, Michael J (Worcester)|
|Best, Harold||Galbraith, Sam|
|Blackman, Liz||Gapes, Mike|
|Blair, Rt Hon Tony||Gardiner, Barry|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||George, Bruce (Walsall S)|
|Blizzard, Bob||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Blunkett, Rt Hon David||Godsiff, Roger|
|Boateng, Rt Hon Paul||Goggins, Paul|
|Borrow, David||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)||Gunnell, John|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Hain, Peter|
|Browne, Desmond||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Burden, Richard||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Burgon, Colin||Hanson, David|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet|
|Byers, Rt Hon Stephen||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Healey, John|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Caplin, Ivor||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Casale, Roger||Heppell, John|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Hesford, Stephen|
|Church, Ms Judith||Hewitt, Ms Patricia|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Hill, Keith|
|Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)||Hodge, Ms Margaret|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Home Robertson, John|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Hood, Jimmy|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Clelland, David||Hope, Phil|
|Coaker, Vernon||Howarth, Alan (Newport E)|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Coleman, Iain||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Cooper, Yvette||Hoyle, Lindsay|
|Corbett, Robin||Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)|
|Corston, Jean||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Cox, Tom||Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Cranston, Ross||Hurst, Alan|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Hutton, John|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Ingram, Rt Hon Adam|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)|
|Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire||Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Darling, Rt Hon Alistair||Jamieson, David|
|Darvill, Keith||Jenkins, Brian|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)|
|Dawson, Hilton||Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)||Osborne, Ms Sandra|
|Jones, Helen (Warrington N)||Palmer, Dr Nick|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||Pearson, Ian|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||Pendry, Tom|
|Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa||Perham, Ms Linda|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Pickthall, Colin|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Pike, Peter L|
|Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)||Plaskitt, James|
|Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)||Pollard, Kerry|
|Kelly, Ms Ruth||Pond, Chris|
|Kemp, Fraser||Pound, Stephen|
|Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)||Powell, Sir Raymond|
|Khabra, Piara S||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Kidney, David||Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Primarolo, Dawn|
|King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)||Prosser, Gwyn|
|King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)||Purchase, Ken|
|Kumar, Dr Ashok||Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce|
|Ladyman, Dr Stephen||Quinn, Lawrie|
|Lawrence, Ms Jackie||Radice, Rt Hon Giles|
|Laxton, Bob||Rammell, Bill|
|Lepper, David||Rapson, Syd|
|Leslie, Christopher||Raynsford, Nick|
|Levitt, Tom||Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)|
|Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)||Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)|
|Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen||Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)|
|Linton, Martin||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)||Rooker, Jeff|
|Lock, David||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Love, Andrew||Roy, Frank|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Ruane, Chris|
|McCabe, Steve||Ruddock, Joan|
|McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)||Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)|
|Ryan, Ms Joan|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Salter, Martin|
|Macdonald, Calum||Sarwar, Mohammad|
|McFall, John||Savidge, Malcolm|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Sawford, Phil|
|McIsaac, Shona||Shaw, Jonathan|
|McKenna, Mrs Rosemary||Sheerman, Barry|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|McNulty, Tony||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|MacShane, Denis||Short, Rt Hon Clare|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Singh, Marsha|
|McWalter, Tony||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Mallaber, Judy||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)|
|Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)||Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)|
|Martlew, Eric||Smith, John (Glamorgan)|
|Maxton, John||Snape, Peter|
|Meacher, Rt Hon Michael||Soley, Clive|
|Meale, Alan||Southworth, Ms Helen|
|Merron, Gillian||Spellar, John|
|Milburn, Rt Hon Alan||Squire, Ms Rachel|
|Miller, Andrew||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Moffatt, Laura||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Stevenson, George|
|Moran, Ms Margaret||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Morley, Elliot||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Mountford, Kali||Straw, Rt Hon Jack|
|Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie||Stringer, Graham|
|Mudie, George||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Mullin, Chris||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)|
|Naysmith, Dr Doug||Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)|
|Norris, Dan||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|O'Hara, Eddie||Timms, Stephen|
|Olner, Bill||Tipping, Paddy|
|O'Neill, Martin||Todd, Mark|
|Organ, Mrs Diana||Touhig, Don|
|Trickett, Jon||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Truswell, Paul||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)||Wills, Michael|
|Turner, Neil (Wigan)||Wilson, Brian|
|Twigg, Derek (Halton)||Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)|
|Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)||Woolas, Phil|
|Tynan, Bill||Wray, James|
|Vaz, Keith||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Walley, Ms Joan||Wyatt, Derek|
|Ward, Ms Claire||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Watts, David||Mr. Greg Pope and|
|White, Brian||Mr. Clive Betts.|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Cousins, Jim|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Cran, James|
|Allan, Richard||Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)|
|Amess, David||Cryer, John (Hornchurch)|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael||Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)||Curry, Rt Hon David|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Dafis, Cynog|
|Baldry, Tony||Dalyell, Tam|
|Ballard, Jackie||Davey, Edward (Kingston)|
|Barnes, Harry||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Beggs, Roy||Davies, Quentin (Grantham)|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)|
|Bercow, John||Dobbin, Jim|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen|
|Blunt, Crispin||Duncan, Alan|
|Body, Sir Richard||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Boswell, Tim||Ewing, Mrs Margaret|
|Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)||Faber, David|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia||Fabricant, Michael|
|Brady, Graham||Fallon, Michael|
|Brake, Tom||Fearn, Ronnie|
|Brand, Dr Peter||Field, Rt Hon Frank|
|Brazier, Julian||Flight, Howard|
|Breed, Colin||Forth, Rt Hon Eric|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Fox, Dr Liam|
|Burnett, John||Fraser, Christopher|
|Burns, Simon||Fyfe, Maria|
|Burstow, Paul||Gale, Roger|
|Butterfill, John||Garnier, Edward|
|Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)||George, Andrew (St Ives)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Gibb, Nick|
|Cash, William||Gill, Christopher|
|Caton, Martin||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Chaytor, David||Gray, James|
|Chidgey, David||Green, Damian|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Greenway, John|
|Chope, Christopher||Grieve, Dominic|
|Clapham, Michael||Gummer, Rt Hon John|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)||Hague, Rt Hon William|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Harris, Dr Evan|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Hawkins, Nick|
|Clwyd, Ann||Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)|
|Collins, Tim||Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward|
|Colvin, Michael||Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Cotter, Brian||Horam, John|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Robathan, Andrew|
|Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)||Robertson, Laurence|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Hunter, Andrew||Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)|
|Jack, Rt Hon Michael||Rowlands, Ted|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Ruffley, David|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||St Aubyn, Nick|
|Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)||Sanders, Adrian|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Keetch, Paul||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)||Shepherd, Richard|
|Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|Key, Robert||Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|Laing, Mrs Eleanor||Soames, Nicholas|
|Lansley, Andrew||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Leigh, Edward||Spring, Richard|
|Letwin, Oliver||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)||Streeter, Gary|
|Lidington, David||Stunell, Andrew|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Swayne, Desmond|
|Livingstone, Ken||Swinney, John|
|Livsey, Richard||Syms, Robert|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Llwyd, Elfyn||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Loughton, Tim||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Luff, Peter||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|McDonnell, John||Tredinnick, David|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Trend, Michael|
|McIntosh, Miss Anne||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Maclean, Rt Hon David||Viggers, Peter|
|Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert||Walter, Robert|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Wardle, Charles|
|Madel, Sir David||Wareing, Robert N|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Waterson, Nigel|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Webb, Steve|
|Marshall-Andrews, Robert||Wells, Bowen|
|Mates, Michael||Welsh, Andrew|
|Maude, Rt Hon Francis||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|May, Mrs Theresa||Whittingdale, John|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)||Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann|
|Moore, Michael||Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd|
|Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)||Wilkinson, John|
|Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)||Willetts, David|
|Moss, Malcolm||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Willis, Phil|
|Norman, Archie||Wilshire, David|
|O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)||Winnick, David|
|Öpik, Lembit||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Ottaway, Richard||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|Page, Richard||Wise, Audrey|
|Paterson, Owen||Wood, Mike|
|Pickles, Eric||Woodward, Shaun|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Worthington, Tony|
|Prior, David||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Randall, John||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Mrs. Jacqui Lait and|
|Rendel, David||Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Amendment agreed to and Lords amendment in lieu disagreed to.
§ MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.