HC Deb 05 April 2000 vol 347 cc1078-90
Mr. Maclennan

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 19, line 12, leave out from "if' to "disclosure" in line 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 19, line 15" after "to,", insert "substantially".

No. 28, in page 19, line 20" after "to,", insert "substantially".

No. 43, in page 19, line 23, leave out from "deliberation" to end of line 25.

No. 29, in page 19, line 24" after first "otherwise", insert "substantially".

No. 30, in page 19, line 24, after "to", insert "substantially".

No. 13, in page 19, line 28, leave out from "that" to "compliance".

No. 14, in page 19, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 20.

Government amendments Nos. 61, 87 and 88.

Mr. Maclennan

Clause 34 is probably the most obnoxious clause remaining to be considered in detail tonight. Our amendments are designed to prevent the purposes of the Bill being vitiated in an all-embracing fashion by the elimination of the test of harm being determined by reference to the reasonable opinion of a qualified person.

That is a bizarre provision, which could sabotage the entire Bill if it is allowed to stand. The provision would allow Government Departments to claim, without any significant harm test, that disclosures would be harmful to public affairs, whereas there are provisions that would allow—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. General conversations are taking place throughout the Chamber. Hon. Members must listen to the right hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.

Mr. Maclennan

There are provisions that would allow the Secretary of State for Defence, for example, to withhold information, wrongly claiming that disclosure would prejudice the country's defences. In that circumstance, under clause 24 the commissioner could overturn the decision. Other major matters might be those handled by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and prejudice to the economy could be claimed. Those matters could be reviewed objectively by the commissioner.

This catch-all provision is designed to prevent that scrutiny being effective. Its purpose is to enable the so-called "qualified person" to give a view, the reasonableness of which can be challenged only by judicial review criteria.

In my judgment and that of hon. Members on all sides of the House, this is one of the most unattractive measures in the Bill. It is a belt-and-braces provision. It covers broadly the same matters as clause 33 and is wholly unnecessary. If amendment No. 12 is accepted, as I profoundly hope it will be tonight, or something similar to it on another occasion, it will restore the objectivity of the test of harm. That is a core necessity.

The test would be applied to information which, in the authority's "reasonable opinion", would inhibit the frankness of advice or exchange of views, or otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. The language of the clause makes it plain how broad that exclusionary provision is.

The matter has been considered by a number of bodies. It was considered by the Select Committee on Public Administration, which asked that the "reasonable opinion" test be dropped and gave its reasons, which were forceful and commended themselves to those who are advancing the amendment.

The House of Lords Select Committee also concluded that the exemption "goes too far" and that the test should be an objective one, reviewable by the Information Commissioner. if the Minister can produce any new arguments, I have no doubt that the House will listen with enormous interest. So far, the catch-all provision has been defended with arguments that have not carried weight with those who scrutinised the Bill closely in draft form. Those arguments did not carry weight in the Committee that considered the Bill and should not carry weight tonight.

Dr. Tony Wright

I shall be brief. Although time presses, it would be remiss to allow the relevant provisions to pass without the comment that they deserve. If we were considering them at a different hour, they would receive more attention than they will receive in the next few minutes.

We are considering profoundly important provisions. Those who were here many hours ago would have heard me describe the four barricades that the Government had erected in clauses 33 and 34 to prevent access to policy areas. The amendment would simply remove one of the barricades. Three barricades would remain.

The exemption in clause 34 allows any public authority, including Departments, local authorities and quangos to assert that in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person— a Minister or an official— disclosure would…prejudice…the effective conduct of public affairs. That means that the commissioner could not challenge that opinion unless it was irrational. That is a strong test. An official could advance all sorts of reasons to show that the opinion was not irrational.

The Government rightly emphasise the interlocking character and the seamless quality of the Bill. One has to understand one bit of it in order to understand another, and to understand the impact of the commissioner's power on the exemptions. The Bill keeps crucial provisions from the commissioner because it incorporates the test of irrationality. It thus needlessly erects a barrier to access. Such a barrier should not exist. Amendment No. 12 simply asks the Government to remove one of the four barricades that they have erected and move more seriously towards openness and access.

Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)

I start by disagreeing with one of the comments of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). I entirely agree with his remarks about the substance of clause 34 and the amendments. However, he suggested that we should consider the matter only perfunctorily because of the late hour. The issues that we are examining and the question whether we are, to use the Prime Minister's words before the last election, entering a new era of fundamental change in the relationship between the Government and the public, in which we have the courage to establish new standards of information disclosure and openness in government, are sufficiently important for us to consider the Bill through the night or beyond. We should not therefore be inhibited by considerations of the hour.

Dr. Tony Wright

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies

I shall, but I want to move on to the hon. Gentleman's important substantive points.

Dr. Wright

I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not say that we should, but that we would, pay less attention to the Bill because of the lateness of the hour.

Mr. Davies

I am happy to stand corrected and to withdraw any aspect of my remarks that might have been regarded as disparaging or critical of the hon. Gentleman. I accept the exegesis of his remarks in the spirit in which they were delivered. I do not want to develop the bad habit that seems to have been established between the hon. Gentleman and me of disagreeing about secondary or tertiary matters, because we agree on the substance of what is at stake.

The Bill was sufficiently restrictive of the public's right to know what happens on their behalf behind the green baize door of government before we reached clause 34. Clause 33 excludes a vast range of Government activities, including the formulation or development of government policy, Ministerial communications, the provision of advice by any of the Law Officers…the operation of any Ministerial private office. 10.15 pm

Other provisions refer to the security services and there are all sorts of other specific exclusions under which information that falls into certain categories could not even be expected and no case for disclosure to the public, ab initio, could be considered. As if that were not enough, the clause contains the catch-all that, even if information was not in an exempt category, the mere decision of a so-called qualified person—that refers not only to Ministers of the Crown, but to all sorts of other people—could override what ought to be the Government's primary obligation: giving the public a fair and true account of events.

That is thoroughly unsatisfactory and I very much support amendment No. 12, which would remove the obnoxious phrase in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person… Anybody could say that his opinion was reasonable, which strengthens the argument against the words would, or would be likely to, prejudice— (i) the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility of Ministers…frank and free provision of advice…the frank and free exchange of views… Anybody could make a case for any information being withheld on those vague, broadly drawn grounds. At least the amendment would tighten that a little. If the phrase in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person… were deleted, subsection (2) would state: Information to which this section applies is exempt information if disclosure of the information…would, or would be likely to, prejudice… Presumably, that would mean that the Information Commissioner would be the arbiter of whether there would be prejudice if the information were revealed. That is a more satisfactory and objective solution.

We are once again dealing with a great theme of the Bill: Ministers would argue and decide in their own case, without any further appeal, that a matter or information should not be revealed. They are being given amazingly broad grounds: pick one, choose any—there is a whole list with which they could justify the withholding of the information. The amendment represents the absolute minimum requirement if we are even to begin to accept that there is any sincere intention on the Government's part to open up proceedings in the Executive branch and to give real substance and meaning to the Bill.

Mr. Fisher

If we do not amend the clause, the great danger is that it is likely to be one of the most used. Any of the 340 public authorities that did not want to release information that was not exempt would find it easy not to master the Bill or to see its way through the thicket of harm tests and other matters, but simply to home in on the clause and say that a senior executive thinks that the release of information would prejudice the frank and free exchange of information or the efficient conduct of the body. Anything could be caught. If it is to approve the measure, the House must understand the power that it will give to all those bodies to avoid the Bill's intention, which is to give the public a right of access to public information.

We are meant to be giving people rights to have information that should be theirs—they pay for it and actions are taken on their behalf. The clause will frustrate that—it is bound to do so—and I fear that it will be used again and again. I draw the House's attention to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in Committee: The Government consider that only a qualified person can have a full understanding of the issues involved in the decision-making processes of a public authority. That is an extraordinarily bold and broad remark. He went on to say: we do not consider that it would be right for the prejudice caused by that sort of information to he determined by the commissioner.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 January 2000; c. 321.] That is even more disturbing. The commissioner, who is the one guardian of the rights for the public on which we are legislating, has almost been weighed down with praise from both sides of the House. She is an admirable woman, and everyone is delighted that she has got the job, but she will not be trusted by the Government. The Government do not consider that her opinion should be even weighed in the balance, let alone have priority over the self-validation of senior people in the public authorities.

The Government's proposal really does not make sense. I trust that if we cannot frustrate this misconceived clause here, those in another place will view it with much more rigour and with less charity.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Earlier, we discussed whether the final decision should remain with this place or with Ministers accountable to this place—the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), among others, used the phrase "democratic accountability—or whether it should lie with an authority outside this place.

Anyone reading the Bill, especially clause 34, would surely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and others that the flaw in the Government's proposal is that it allows someone speaking for the body in question to decide what should be disclosed. In relation to non-public authorities—other elements of public life—it would be reasonable for Parliament, Ministers, chief executives, the Speaker, the Clerk of the House or the presiding officer to make decisions. When it comes to the vested interests of the body involved, it is clearly unhelpful to the public access intentions of the Bill for the person making the decision to be the person who approaches that decision from the point of view of the organisation whose information is to be released. Self-evidently, that person will take the view of the organisation.

Let me give an obvious example. The amendment seeks to remove the fact that the "qualified person" who would make the decision on the basis of having a "reasonable opinion" and of being appropriately qualified, in relation to a Government Department, would be any Minister of the Crown. Advice would be given by civil servants. The civil servants would say, "Minister, this could prejudice"—that is the test—"the maintenance of collective responsibility", or the free and frank provision of advice. The Minister, on the basis of the advice given, would be entitled without question to take the view that that was reasonable advice which he or she was bound to follow, but no court could deal with that. The whole point is that, under administrative law, it is outwith the ability of the court to say that a perfectly reasonable decision had not been made. The decision is reached from the prejudiced point of view of the organisation against which, as it were, someone is seeking information. We are trying to establish a mechanism to provide an objective assessment that is not performed by someone within the organisation. What we are discussing is whether an outsider or an insider decides whether prejudice is involved. The history of the debate, in this country and everywhere else, suggests that someone outside must adjudicate, with all the checks and balances that the legislation provides.

The hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) suggested that, although we had been debating these matters for nearly two working days, we had not given the matter the attention that it deserved. I am sure no one who has looked at the Bill fails to realise that the clause and the amendments are hugely significant. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, this is where the block will come. This is the clause that allows people to say, "No, you cannot have the information", and no one will be able to have that reviewed or overturned. This is the blocking mechanism that can be used by an individual who will act on advice, perhaps in good faith but not necessarily so. I hope that the House will support the amendment.

I do not know the official Opposition's position on amendment No. 12, but I hope that they will support us on it. Still, I pay tribute to them—they have moved, now that they are in opposition, from thinking that there should not be a statute governing these matters to a somewhat more progressive view. In this debate, of all the forces ranged around the argument, it is the Opposition parties and Labour Members who are not Ministers—

Dr. Lynne Jones

Not likely.

Mr. Hughes

I truly believe that, one day, the enlightened will be vindicated, and that even the day of Government enlightenment will dawn. I hope that the hon. Lady and I will be there, walking through the gates, when that happens.

I hope that Conservative Members will join us in the Lobby. It is important that we should not provide a blocking mechanism to those who have an interest to protect. We have to take the right to decide away from those who could themselves cause the most harm to freedom of information.

Mr. Greenway

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tempted me to say that, in Committee, on behalf of the Opposition, I proposed that clause 34 should be deleted entirely. That is not an appropriate proposal to make on Report. Nevertheless, I agree with all that he said about the clause's provisions—which the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), if I heard him correctly, described as belt and braces: the belt is clause 33, and the braces are clause 34. Conservative Members have consistently taken the view that we should not have both.

I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) may be tempted to suggest that our problem with amendment No. 12 is that—other than the fact that it does not really deal with the pernicious nature of the clause, which we should prefer to be deleted from the Bill entirely; I hope that the other place comes to the same conclusion—it is predicated on the narrow basis of whether there should be a test of reasonableness. I am not entirely sure that I know quite where the balance of the argument lies on that issue. On what basis is the decision maker—be he a Minister, local authority chief executive or the chief executive of any of the many quasi-autonomous national government organisations caught by the Bill—to decide that the release of information is likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs?

I think that Ministers—to be fair to them—have reached the judgment that there should be a test of reasonableness. If they have reached that judgment, the Bill should make it clear that that is the test. It should also make it clear that it is open to the commissioner to rule that someone who is qualified to decide on the release of information—on the basis that it would prejudice the conduct of public affairs—made that decision unreasonably.

The provision is therefore not quite as draconian as Liberal Democrat spokesmen have suggested. It will be possible to ask the commissioner to challenge the reasonableness of a decision not to release. If she concludes that a decision was unreasonable, she can—on my reading of the Bill—issue both her decision and an enforcement notice requiring release of that information.

10.30 pm

In Committee, we argued that the clause should be deleted, because it is an unnecessary addition to the Bill. I was one of the earliest speakers in the debate, but I endorse everything that was said by those who spoke later about the quality of the debate and the release of information that informs and advises Ministers on Government policy. If the clause has the validity that Ministers believe that it has in not requiring all information to be released, I fail to understand why it is necessary, given all the other exemptions in the Bill. We would rather it was deleted, but if it is to stay, there has to be a test.

Mr. Hawkins

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who dealt with the issue in Committee, has set out our position. We have some sympathy with the amendment, but we shall not join the Liberal Democrats in the Lobby if they press the matter to a vote.

Mr. Lock

The clause rightly focuses on the first test of whether information should be exempt. Should it be the decision of a commissioner on whether disclosure would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation, or should it be the reasonable opinion of a qualified person? The issues involved in the decision-taking process of public authorities are so near the heart of government that we believe that only a qualified person, as defined by the Bill, can have a full understanding of them. Although the issues in clause 34 are less sensitive than those in clause 33 and a class exemption is not justified, the Government do not believe that it would be right for the commissioner to substitute her view for that of the authority on the question of prejudice; hence the test of the reasonable opinion of a qualified person.

The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is right. The commissioner may still overturn the decision of a qualified person if she believes the decision to be unreasonable. I confirm his reading of the Bill. That means that the information would not be exempt and would be disclosable.

Mr. Simon Hughes

If the commissioner ruled that the ministerial decision was unreasonable, would it still be open to the Government to seek a judicial review of that decision?

Mr. Lock

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, of course it would. Any decision taken in an administrative capacity is subject to judicial review, because the person who takes it is obliged to act within the law. Any decision made by a Minister can be subject to judicial review to determine whether it was lawful. The issue is not what another person would have done had they been the commissioner. The question is whether, applying the Wednesbury irrationality test, the commissioner has acted correctly.

The clause balances the right to know against the public's right to effective public administration. The amendment strikes at the heart of good administration. The Government believe that there must be a compromise measure between the power of the commissioner to order the disclosure of information and effective public administration. The clause delivers that compromise through the concept of a reasonable opinion of a qualified person. The amendments would overturn that balance and the Government cannot accept them.

There is a further reason why we cannot accept the amendments. There has been an assumption in some speeches tonight—including that of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who seems not to be here to listen to the answer to his speech—that clause 13 applies to clause 34. We heard a great deal about clause 13 last night and the Government have moved significantly to strengthen provisions on what happens when there is exempt information. The fact that information has been certified as prejudicial in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person is not the end of the series of tests. The tests are not barriers so much as hurdles that a Government Department must get over in trying to keep information confidential. So those tests—the balancing act in clause 13, the Information Commissioner's opinion as to whether that balancing act has been carried out correctly, and the scheme involving the intervention of the Secretary of State outlined last night by my right hon. Friend—will all apply to the provisions under clause 34.

The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is very well informed in these matters, so I am sure that when he introduced the debate he gave the House only the first line of the argument. However, his introduction did not take account of the subsequent hurdles that Government Departments will have to get over to maintain confidentiality. The balance in clause 34—the reasonable opinion of a qualified person—is thus entirely reasonable.

Mr. Simon Hughes

By definition, these are untested waters in this country. Can the Minister describe the experience in other Administrations that are similar to ours? How often have provisions such as this produced a decision against Ministers? In my experience of administrative law, Ministers would be upheld nine times out of 10, because their decisions would be judged to be within the parameters covered by the word "reasonable".

Mr. Lock

I hear the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am not in a position to answer it tonight. I do not have full details of the experience in other countries, and I am not sure that they would be of significant use, as they might not be exact parallels of the proposals in the Bill or of the circumstances in this country. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with some relevant examples, and will copy that information to any other hon. Member who might be interested.

Finally, Government amendments Nos. 61, 87 and 88 are necessary to ensure that references to the Bill's application to Northern Ireland are correct. I shall not say more about them now, but will answer any questions of detail from hon. Members.

Mr. Maclennan

I forecast that the Minister would have little new to say to us, and that has been proved accurate. I chose not to quote in extenso the opinion of the Select Committee on Public Administration, so I have failed to drive home sufficiently clearly the point that using the device of the qualified person as a preliminary hurdle, and allowing that person's reasonable opinion to be the test of whether there is prejudice, precludes the commissioner from reaching an effective judgment. We believe that the commissioner's judgment of what is prejudicial should be substituted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked an entirely apposite question about judicial review. It will be much more difficult to overturn the view of a qualified person than it would be if the commissioner did not have that obstacle in the way.

That would, perhaps, not matter if clause 34(2)(c) did not contain an appalling catch-all phrase. The qualified person can take the view that the disclosure concerned would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs. That means almost anything: it is as wide as the channel.

It is not true—indeed, it is misleading to suggest, as I think that the Minister did—that the matters covered in the clause are issues close to the heart of Government. That is plainly inconsistent with the language used in that subsection. The reality is that it is a device that could sabotage the whole purpose of the Bill. I predict that it could be used time and again to stop the public exercising a right to know.

The clause is most dangerous—it is probably the most dangerous in the Bill—because it could have such a wide and sweeping effect on the right to know. For that reason, I hope that it will be studied with great attention in another place and that there will be a strong disposition there to support the view that was taken by its Committee when it considered the issue and sought a more objective test of prejudice.

I hope that the House will think it right to express forcefully its view on this matter tonight.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 324.

Division No. 149] [10.42 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Ballard, Jackie Keetch, Paul
Brake, Tom Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Brand, Dr Peter
Breed, Colin Kirkwood, Archy
Burnett, John Llwyd, Elfyn
Burstow, Paul McDonnell, John
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Clwyd, Ann Moore, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Oaten, Mark
Corbyn, Jeremy Öpik, Lembit
Cotter, Brian Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Cousins, Jim Rendel, David
Dalyell, Tam Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Sanders, Adrian
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Shepherd, Richard
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Stunell, Andrew
Fisher, Mark Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Tonge, Dr Jenny
Foster, Don (Bath) Tyler, Paul
George, Andrew (St Ives) Webb, Steve
Harris, Dr Evan Willis, Phil
Harvey, Nick Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Hinchliffe, David Tellers for the Ayes:
Hopkins, Kelvin Sir Robert Smith and
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Mr. Ronnie Fearn.
NOES
Ainger, Nick Blackman, Liz
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Blears, Ms Hazel
Alexander, Douglas Blizzard, Bob
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Atherton, Ms Candy Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Atkins, Charlotte Bradshaw, Ben
Austin, John Brinton, Mrs Helen
Barnes, Harry Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Barron, Kevin Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Bayley, Hugh Browne, Desmond
Beard, Nigel Buck, Ms Karen
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Burden, Richard
Begg, Miss Anne Burgon, Colin
Beggs, Roy Butler, Mrs Christine
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Bennett, Andrew F Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Benton, Joe Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Bermingham, Gerald Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Berry, Roger Campbell-Savours, Dale
Best, Harold Cann, Jamie
Caplin, Ivor Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Casale, Roger Grocott, Bruce
Caton, Martin Grogan, John
Cawsey, Ian Hain, Peter
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Chaytor, David Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Clapham, Michael Hanson, David
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Healey, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Hepburn, Stephen
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Heppell, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Hesford, Stephen
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hill, Keith
Coaker, Vernon Hodge, Ms Margaret
Coffey, Ms Ann Hoey, Kate
Cohen, Harry Hood, Jimmy
Coleman, Iain Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Colman, Tony Hope, Phil
Connarty, Michael Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) Howells, Dr Kim
Cooper, Yvette Hoyle, Lindsay
Corston, Jean Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cranston, Ross Humble, Mrs Joan
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Hurst, Alan
Cummings, John Hutton, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) Iddon, Dr Brian
Illsley, Eric
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Darvill, Keith Jamieson, David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Jenkins, Brian
Davidson, Ian Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Dawson, Hilton Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Dean, Mrs Janet Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Denham, John Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Dismore, Andrew Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dobbin, Jim Keeble, Ms Sally
Donaldson, Jeffrey Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Donohoe, Brian H Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Doran, Frank Kemp, Fraser
Dowd, Jim Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Khabra, Piara S
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Kidney, David
Edwards, Huw Kilfoyle, Peter
Efford, Clive King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ellman, Mrs Louise King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ennis, Jeff Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Field, Rt Hon Frank Laxton, Bob
Fitzpatrick, Jim Lepper, David
Fitzsimons, Lorna Leslie, Christopher
Flint, Caroline Levitt, Tom
Follett, Barbara Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George Linton, Martin
Galloway, George Lock, David
Gapes, Mike Love, Andrew
Gardiner, Barry McAvoy, Thomas
George, Bruce (Walsall S) McCabe, Steve
Gerrard, Neil McDonagh, Siobhain
Macdonald, Calum
Gilroy, Mrs Linda McFall, John
Godman, Dr Norman A McGuire, Mrs Anne
Godsiff, Roger McIsaac, Shona
Goggins, Paul McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Golding, Mrs Llin McNulty, Tony
Gordon, Mrs Eileen MacShane, Denis
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) Mactaggart, Fiona
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) McWalter, Tony
McWilliam, John Shaw, Jonathan
Maginnis, Ken Sheerman, Barry
Mahon, Mrs Alice Shipley, Ms Debra
Mallaber, Judy Singh, Marsha
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Skinner, Dennis
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxfotd E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Martlew, Eric Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Maxton, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Merron, Gillian Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan Snape, Peter
Miller, Andrew Soley, Clive
Moffatt, Laura Southworth, Ms Helen
Moonie, Dr Lewis Spellar, John
Moran, Ms Margaret Squire, Ms Rachel
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Morley, Elliot Steinberg, Gerry
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Stevenson, George
Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mountford, Kali Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mullin, Chris Stinchcombe, Paul
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Stoate, Dr Howard
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Naysmith, Dr Doug Stringer, Graham
Norris, Dan Stuart, Ms Gisela
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Sutcliffe, Gerry
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Olner, Bill
Organ, Mrs Diana Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Osborne, Ms Sandra Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Palmer, Dr Nick Temple-Morris, Peter
Pearson, Ian Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Pendry, Tom Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Perham, Ms Linda Timms, Stephen
Pickthall, Colin Tipping, Paddy
Pike, Peter L Todd, Mark
Plaskitt, James Touhig, Don
Pollard, Kerry Trickett, Jon
Pond, Chris Truswell, Paul
Pope, Greg Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Pound, Stephen Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Powell, Sir Raymond Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Prescott, Rt Hon John Tynan, Bill
Primarolo, Dawn Walley, Ms Joan
Prosser, Gwyn Ward, Ms Claire
Purchase, Ken Wareing, Robert N
Quinn, Lawrie Watts, David
Radice, Rt Hon Giles White, Brian
Rammell, Bill Whitehead, Dr Alan
Raynsford, Nick Wicks, Malcolm
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Roche, Mrs Barbara Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff Wills, Michael
Rooney, Terry Wilson, Brian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Winnick, David
Rowlands, Ted Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Roy, Frank Wood, Mike
Ruane, Chris Woodward, Shaun
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Woolas, Phil
Ryan, Ms Joan Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Salter, Martin Wyatt, Derek
Sarwar, Mohammad
Savidge, Malcolm Tellers for the Noes:
Sawford, Phil Mr. David Clelland and
Sedgemore, Brian Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 20, line 10, at end insert— '() in relation to information held by any public authority which does not fall within paragraph (b), (f) or (j) and whose functions are exercisable wholly or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate wholly or mainly to transferred matters, means the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland acting jointly, or any Northern Ireland Minister nominated in relation to that public authority by those Ministers so acting,'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Forward to