§ Mr. HawkinsI beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 9, line 22, leave out clause 16.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 111, in page 56, line 13, leave out schedule 2.
No. 113, in clause 17, page 10, line 4, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 114, in page 10, line 22, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 115, in page 10, line 24, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 116, in clause 18, page 10, line 28, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 117, in page 10, line 32, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 118, in page 10, line 37, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 119, in page 10, line 39, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 120, in page 10, line 41, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 121, in page 10, line 43, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 122, in page 11, line 3, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 123, in page 11, line 7, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
1037 No. 124, in page 11, line 10, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 125, in clause 46, page 25, line 9, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 126, in page 25, line 15, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 127, in page 25, line 22, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 128, in page 25, line 24, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 129, in page 25, line 26, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 130, in page 25, line 27, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 131, in page 25, line 30, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 132, in page 25, line 35, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 133, in page 25, line 41, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 134, in clause 47, page 25, line 44, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 135, in page 26, line 6, leave out "Commissioner's" and insert "Ombudsman's".
No. 136, in page 26, line 10, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 137, in page 26, line 16, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 138, in clause 48, page 26, line 18, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 139, in page 26, line 23, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 140, in page 26, line 28, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 141, in clause 49, page 26, line 32, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 142, in page 26, line 34, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 143, in clause 50, page 26, line 39, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 144, in page 26, line 42, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 145, in page 27, line 4, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 146, in page 27, line 11, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 147, in clause 51, page 27, line 35, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 148, in page 28, line 1, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 149, in page 28, line 6, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 150, in page 28, line 8, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 151, in page 28, line 31, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 152, in clause 52, page 28, line 33, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
1038 No. 153, in page 28, line 34, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 154, in page 29, line 3, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 155, in page 29, line 11, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 156, in clause 53, page 29, line 17, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 157, in clause 55, page 29, line 34, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 158, in clause 56, page 29, line 39, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 173, in page 30, line 2, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 159, in page 30, line 2, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 160, in clause 57, page 30, line 4, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 174, in page 30, line 8, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 161, in page 30, line 10, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 175, in page 30, line 11, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 162, in page 30, line 11, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 163, in page 30, line 13, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 164, in clause 58, page 30, line 15, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 165, in page 30, line 16, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 176, in clause 59, page 30, line 25, leave out "Commissioner" and insert "Ombudsman".
No. 166, in page 30, line 28, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 167, in page 30, line 30, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 168, in page 30, line 32, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 169, in page 30, line 34, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 170, in page 30, line 36, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 171, in page 30, line 42, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 172, in page 31, line 1, leave out "Tribunal" and insert "Parliamentary Information Committee".
No. 178, in clause 60, page 31, line 3, leave out from beginning to "provisions" in line 5 and insert "The".
No. 112, in page 62, line 16, leave out Schedule 4.
New clause 11—Information Ombudsman and Parliamentary Information Committee—
- '(1) There shall be an officer of the House of Commons called the Information Ombudsman, who shall be appointed by the House of Commons.
1039 - (2) There shall be a committee of the House of Commons appointed, to be called the Parliamentary Information Committee.
- (3) In this Act the Information Ombudsman is known as "the Ombudsman".'.
§ Mr. HawkinsAlthough that was a long list of amendments, I am happy to be able to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House that I can be relatively brief.
Hon. Members who have been following these debates will realise that we are talking here about the belief of the Opposition—supported, I think, by others who sat on the Opposition side in Committee—that there should be an information ombudsman and a parliamentary information committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke about this at length in Committee and I pay tribute to his work on the matter.
Parliament should have a say in ensuring that the public have access to information held by the Government and public authorities. The amendments would ensure that the task of enforcing the provision once it becomes an Act in some form or another—when another place has dealt with amendments such as No. 7, on which we recently voted—is kept separate from the work of the Data Protection Commissioner and the register. The two are distinct roles. One has the role of ensuring that personal information is not misused and the other has to ensure that as much information as possible is released.
In debates, the Government appear to have suggested that it would be unwise to give the Information Commissioner any more powers because of what has been caricatured as information override. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said that amendments that would allow the Information Commissioner the power to compel disclosure would
artificially and unnecessarily, create a democratic deficit.We think, however, that the arrangements should be based on the very important work that has already been done, which we seek to extend, with regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. We feel strongly that this House should have a say in ensuring that the public have access to information held by the Government and by public authorities. Ultimately, it should be notfor Ministers, but for Parliament to decide whether information should be released in the public interest. That is why we have tabled these amendments.7.30 pm
In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
A democracy must mean something…Some of the arguments that we have heard, seeking to shift the balance towards allowing an unelected official to overrule the democratically elected Government, are profoundly undemocratic.—[Official Report. Standing Committee B, 8 February 2000; c. 431.]There is a simple word to describe that very peculiar argument—oxymoron. The peculiar aspect is that it does not recognise the democratic deficit in the legislation. That may explain why the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department is responding to this debate rather than the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. We feel strongly that this House should have a role.1040 The Government believe that Ministers and judges must have the final say. We say that the public interest—which is different from what the public are interested in, although the media constantly seek to confuse the two—should ultimately be determined by those who have been elected to office.
Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendment today, I hope that perhaps in another place, or when the Bill comes back to this House after its consideration in another place, the Government will decide that we are right. If the Government accept our proposals, they will, in the long run, have the gratitude of those who seek to use—
§ Mr. BercowI am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I follow the thrust of his argument. Will he confirm that we believe that Parliament, rather than Ministers or officials, should exercise discretion in these matters, but that it would be quite wrong wantonly and recklessly to cede that discretion to the Information Commissioner in the way that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seemed to advocate last night?
§ Mr. HawkinsMy hon. Friend is right. If the Government are introducing what they call a Freedom of Information Bill—the number of Labour Back-Benchers who have just voted against the Government shows that they have not even convinced many of their colleagues—they should do it properly. Because the Bill gives the Secretary of State and, ultimately, officials the final say over whether information should be released, there is undoubtedly a democratic deficit. Our proposals in new clause 11 and the amendments are the logical progression to the code of practice on access to Government information, which we introduced when in office.
Many people, including the Campaign for Freedom of Information, believe that not only have the Government gone back on their proposals in the Bill and the White Paper, but they are now making proposals that provide less freedom of information than the previous Government's code.
§ Mr. LockThe Government's proposal is to create a single Information Commissioner, who will take over the actions and duties of the Data Protection Commissioner and will have responsibility for both freedom of information and data protection. The amendments would keep the Data Protection Commissioner doing her job and create a parliamentary information ombudsman to police the freedom of information regime.
Two arguments—incompatibility and resources—have been made for that proposal. Frankly, neither stands examination. On compatibility, the commissioner herself says that data protection rights and freedom of information rights are complementary and mutually supportive in practice, and that she supports having a single commissioner. The Conservative proposal is in direct opposition to the view of those who will have to operate the legislation and are most intimately acquainted with it.
Secondly, the proposals ignore the balance between personal and public data. There has to be a balance between what is confidential and what should be revealed. Under the proposed scheme, mutually inconsistent decisions from two different bodies will define that balance. That is a recipe for confusion and disaster.
1041 Thirdly, the proposals ignore the effect on the public. The public need a single point of application if they want data. Quite often, they will ask for mixed personal data under the Data Protection Act 1998 and public data under the freedom of information legislation. Instead of having one body to approach, the Conservatives propose having two, so people would have to know in advance the precise structure of the legislation. It is a great shame that the Opposition spokesman cannot listen to the reasons why his proposal is not acceptable.
The point about resources is entirely false. Yes, it will take more resources to have a single commissioner, but to be honest, that expenditure has to be incurred anyway. The Opposition propose two bureaucracies, two sets of commissioners and two sets of investigations. Resources will be used much better if there is only one.
The Opposition's wish to divide the Data Protection Commissioner and the parliamentary Information Commissioner is, in one sense, unique. That course of action has been rejected in the common-law jurisdictions of Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. On this occasion, the Conservatives are going the Gallic way. They have been persuaded by the practice in France and are obviously moving further towards the practices of the European Union in this respect. This seems to be the one practice that they have chosen to adopt, having rejected all other aspects of French culture and nationality, and all the other attractions of France. I prefer the system in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, which keeps the Information Commissioner and the Data Protection Commissioner under one roof.
The amendments would create a parliamentary committee for the exercise of appeal rights instead of the information tribunal that currently exists. That would lead to exactly the same problems as attempting to divide data protection and freedom of information responsibilities. It is constitutionally confused and inept. Such a committee would have to consider many individual cases in which individual pieces of information were being sought. Within the legal structure of the Bill, the committee would have a heavy work load, and would be concerned not with the policy, which is clearly a matter for Parliament, but with the application of that policy to Mrs. Jones who is trying to get information out of her local health authority. Policy is a matter for Parliament; individual decisions are a matter for a tribunal.
In any event, under the tribunal system, an appeal on a point of law will naturally go to the High Court. The Opposition ignore the fact that, if a matter comes before a committee that interprets the legislation wrongly, it will be invidious to ask a High Court judge to overrule a parliamentary committee. That, I am afraid, would be the effect of the process, or ideas, floated in this group of amendments. They simply will not work. There would be a data protection tribunal, which would set a balance between personal data and the disclosure of such matters, and a committee, often dealing with similar information but setting a different balance. The amendments will not work.
It has often been said that we should learn from the experience of other data protection regimes. Those that have succeeded, such as the ones in Australia, New Zealand and other common law jurisdictions, have recognised that the appeal structure in individual cases, rather than the supervision of policy, is a right matter for 1042 a tribunal. I agree that the supervision of policy and its practical operation are matters for Parliament and that they should be kept under scrutiny.
However, we were not elected to Parliament to sit on a committee to hear appeals from all over the country about Mrs. Jones who wants information from her local health authority. That would be a decision for a tribunal. The operation of the overall policy is a matter for Parliament. The amendments confuse the distinction between individual cases and policy. I therefore urge the House to reject them. I encourage the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), now that he has heard about the problems with the amendments as they are currently drafted, to reconsider them. If he wants to pursue the matter, he might consider tabling in another place amendments that avoid the complications that I have outlined.
§ Mr. Simon HughesThe Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department prayed in aid the experiences of other jurisdictions. We are delighted to know that they are a source of inspiration for the Government. On this occasion, we are persuaded that the experience of other Administrations is a good thing. The Liberal Democrats share the Government's view on the structure for the Data Protection Commissioner and for the Information Commissioner.
We do not take the line proposed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on behalf of the Conservatives. I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's amendment was a probing one or one with more potential. I hope that the debate has persuaded him that it was better as a probing amendment, and that he will reconsider the idea. The Conservatives advanced those ideas in Committee; we did not support them. The hon. Gentleman inadvertently suggested that we were on board on the amendment, but that is not so.
Sadly, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is accurate in many of his assertions, used an argument that I made yesterday on a different point as support for his intervention in relation to the amendment. My separate point—on which the hon. Gentleman may disagree—was in yesterday's debate on override. We were discussing whether there should be a democratic override, as described by the Government—coming back to Ministers appointed by Parliament—or whether the ultimate decision could be taken by an independently appointed authority. In this case, that would be the commissioner. We argued that it would be better to trust someone who was not a member of the Government on matters relating to Government information. Although I understand the Opposition's point of view, I do not accept it, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, on this occasion, he was inadvertently misrepresenting me.
§ Mr. BercowOn the question of procedural propriety, I readily concede to the hon. Gentleman on this occasion. However, the truth will out: I wanted to attack the hon. Gentleman's position yesterday, but he sat down before I had the opportunity to do so, so I thought I would use my intervention as an excuse for doing so today.
§ Mr. HughesIf all the hon. Gentleman's attacks were 24 hours late, I would not have much to worry about.
1043 An important issue in the debate is the citizen's knowledge—how to use the freedom of information system—to which the Minister rightly alluded. We have argued constantly—on Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report—that we need legislation that citizens can understand and of which they are in charge. The more straightforward the system, the better it will be.
It follows from that that the person responsible for the management of the processes whereby people are helped to inquire about the data held about them and the person managing the acquisition of information about public authorities could be the same person and could have the same staff. Indeed, that is the Government's position. The nomination has already been made; we know who is intended to fulfil that function. We support the Government on that matter.
I hope that the fact that we are so happy publicly to support the Government, despite the difference of views in the Chamber, shows how objective we are on each subject under debate. If there is another resurgence of the cross-party view—as I suspect there may be later on—it will be because of the same objective assessment of the facts and of the merits of the case. I hope that the Government will find that especially persuasive—perhaps more so on the amendments on which we have yet to vote than on the previous one, when they were on the defensive and on the wrong side of the argument.
§ Mr. GreenwayThe House should reflect on three aspects of the proposed amendments. First, the cultural mindset of a Data Protection Commissioner is, in essence, one of secrecy; whereas the amendments would introduce, for the first time, a culture of openness. That is not meant to be critical of Miss Elizabeth France, the current Data Protection Commissioner, who will also undertake the role of Information Commissioner under the Government's proposals.
However, the longer we discussed the Bill in Committee, the more it became obvious that much of the current work of the commissioner on matters that relate to the Bill involves ensuring the secrecy of personal information about individuals. The work on freeing up information to be carried out by the new commissioner is a different matter. The Government have not given that point sufficient thought. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) were right to pursue the matter.
The second point about our alternative proposal is that we feel strongly that there should have been a role for Parliament in overseeing the new freedom of information regime. Our debate on the availability of information—the facts and data that have underpinned and informed Government policy decisions—is another example of Parliament wanting to assert itself. Parliament is saying that we still have a role; we are not just a rubber stamp for everything that the Government or the Whitehall bureaucracy think is good for us. A parliamentary Committee to scrutinise the work of the Information Commissioner would be most beneficial.
The Minister will say, "But how many appeals will that Committee have to deal with?" We are not proposing a Committee in lieu of a commissioner—even if we are 1044 talking about an Information Commissioner who is separate from the existing Data Protection Commissioner so as to reflect their two different roles. What we are proposing, however, is a Committee in lieu of the Government's proposed tribunal. How many appeals does the Minister think their tribunal will have to deal with? The impression given throughout the Committee stage was that it would not have to deal with that many—that Ministers will be so reasonable, as will other public authorities, in their interpretation of their responsibilities under the Bill, that appeals to the tribunal will be quite rare. I do not think it would be as onerous a task as the Minister implies for a parliamentary Committee to oversee the work of an independent Information Commissioner.
My third point is a practical one, which we addressed in Committee but which was not answered satisfactorily. There will be a huge programme of work in implementing the Bill. One must question whether it is sensible for the Data Protection Commissioner, at this key point when the Data Protection Act 1998 is coming on stream, also to have the programme of work under the Bill—work with regard to the 2,000 or more public authorities which it is anticipated will be affected by the Bill.
Under the Government's proposal, all that will have to be done by the selfsame Data Protection Commissioner and her staff, so there is still an opportunity for the idea of a separation of roles between data protection and information to be progressed further.
Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath nor I want to detain the House for too long on this point, but one other thing should be said. The Minister said that the Opposition in the other place could think through a better scheme, which the Government could then look at. I was encouraged by that. Perhaps, like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I am unnecessarily optimistic, but the Minister has given us some encouragement. He will certainly have given the other place some encouragement to find a way in which to bring forward a scheme that might command more support and a more favourable response from Ministers.
Perhaps we have not given the attention to this proposal that we have given to some of the other meaty issues in the Bill. We have perhaps not thought through all the detail and structure in quite the way that we might have done if this were a Government proposal. I have, however, outlined several issues: the difference in cultural approach, arising from the fact that the Data Protection Commissioner is primarily involved in ensuring secrecy—confidentiality is perhaps a better word; the assertion that there should be a role for Parliament in overseeing the work of the Information Commissioner; and the huge practical work load that the Bill will put on the commissioner. Those issues suggest that the matter should be rethought. I hope that, in the other place, a scheme of arrangements that might commend itself not just to the Government, but to the other place as a whole, will be introduced, so that the Bill can be amended. In the meantime, I urge my hon. Friend to press the amendment to a Division to reinforce our view on the matter.
§ Mr. HawkinsAgain, I can be very brief. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for what he has said. I will certainly accept his suggestion that we press the amendments— 1045 which were never intended to be probing amendments—to a vote. I was encouraged by the Minister apparently leaving the door ajar.
Attention has been drawn to the fact that there is a similar regime in France. As a member of the Anglo-French all-party parliamentary group, I am delighted to find that my francophile tendencies are supported by what I am doing as a Front Bencher. I do not, however, accept the Minister's suggestion that the fact that some other Commonwealth countries have not accepted such a proposal is necessarily a criticism of it. As my hon. Friend said both tonight and in Committee, it would be a substantial and useful extra safeguard.
Like many other hon. Members, I am sure, I have always believed that the more parliamentary scrutiny there is, the better. There are far too many occasions when Members of all parties are ridiculed in the press and media. We are all the targets of criticism. We put ourselves up to be shot at. We must come to expect that. Nevertheless, whatever party we represent in this place, we all, I hope, have a genuine belief in the value of parliamentary scrutiny.
That is what the new clause and amendments are intended to achieve. We believe that they are right. We do not say that they are necessarily perfect. I was encouraged when the Minister suggested that, in another place, the issue might be returned to. It should be. Ultimately, it will be something that the Government will have to concede—I think the other place will insist that the Government do so. In the meantime I intend to press the amendments and the new clause to a vote.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 373.
1048| Division No. 145] | [7.56 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Flight, Howard |
| Amess, David | Forth, Rt Hon Eric |
| Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James | Fox, Dr Liam |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Fraser, Christopher |
| Baldry, Tony | Gale, Roger |
| Bercow, John | Garnier, Edward |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Gibb, Nick |
| Blunt, Crispin | Gillan, Mrs Cheryl |
| Body, Sir Richard | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Boswell, Tim | Gray, James |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Green, Damian |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | Greenway, John |
| Brady, Graham | Grieve, Dominic |
| Brazier, Julian | Gummer, Rt Hon John |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Hammond, Philip |
| Burns, Simon | Hawkins, Nick |
| Butterfill, John | Hayes, John |
| Chope, Christopher | Heald, Oliver |
| Clappison, James | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Collins, Tim | Horam, John |
| Cran, James | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Davies, Quentin (Grantham) | Hunter, Andrew |
| Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) | Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Day, Stephen | |
| Donaldson, Jeffrey | Key, Robert |
| Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Duncan, Alan | Kirkbride, Miss Julie |
| Duncan Smith, Iain | Laing, Mrs Eleanor |
| Evans, Nigel | Leigh, Edward |
| Fabricant, Michael | Letwin, Oliver |
| Fallon, Michael | Lidington, David |
| Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Loughton, Tim | Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian |
| Luff, Peter | Spelman, Mrs Caroline |
| Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas | Spring, Richard |
| McIntosh, Miss Anne | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew | Streeter, Gary |
| Maclean, Rt Hon David | Swayne, Desmond |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Syms, Robert |
| Madel, Sir David | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Malins, Humfrey | Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) |
| Maples, John | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Mates, Michael | Tredinnick, David |
| Trend, Michael | |
| May, Mrs Theresa | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Moss, Malcolm | Viggers, Peter |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Walter, Robert |
| Norman, Archie | Waterson, Nigel |
| O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) | Wells, Bowen |
| Ottaway, Richard | Whitney, Sir Raymond |
| Page, Richard | Whittingdale, John |
| Paice, James | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Pickles, Eric | Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) |
| Redwood, Rt Hon John | Yeo, Tim |
| Robathan, Andrew | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Robertson, Laurence | |
| Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Ruffley, David | Mr. Keith Simpson and |
| St Aubyn, Nick | Mr. John Randall. |
| NOES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Byers, Rt Hon Stephen |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Caborn, Rt Hon Richard |
| Alexander, Douglas | Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) |
| Allan, Richard | Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
| Ashton, Joe | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Cann, Jamie |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Caplin, Ivor |
| Austin, John | Casale, Roger |
| Ballard, Jackie | Caton, Martin |
| Barnes, Harry | Cawsey, Ian |
| Barron, Kevin | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Chaytor, David |
| Beard, Nigel | Church, Ms Judith |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Clapham, Michael |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) |
| Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) | |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) |
| Benton, Joe | Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Berry, Roger | Clelland, David |
| Best, Harold | Clwyd, Ann |
| Betts, Clive | Coaker, Vernon |
| Blackman, Liz | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Cohen, Harry |
| Blizzard, Bob | Coleman, Iain |
| Boateng, Rt Hon Paul | Colman, Tony |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Connarty, Michael |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Cooper, Yvette |
| Brake, Tom | Corbett, Robin |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Corston, Jean |
| Breed, Colin | Cotter, Brian |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Cousins, Jim |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Cranston, Ross |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Browne, Desmond | Cummings, John |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) |
| Burden, Richard | |
| Burgon, Colin | Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) |
| Burstow, Paul | Dalyell, Tam |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Darling, Rt Hon Alistair |
| Darvill, Keith | Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Davidson, Ian | Hurst, Alan |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Hutton, John |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Dawson, Hilton | Illsley, Eric |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Ingram, Rt Hon Adam |
| Denham, John | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Dismore, Andrew | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Dobbin, Jim | Jamieson, David |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Jenkins, Brian |
| Doran, Frank | Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) |
| Dowd, Jim | Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) |
| Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Edwards, Huw | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Ennis, Jeff | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Fearn, Ronnie | Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Fisher, Mark | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | Keetch, Paul |
| Flint, Caroline | Kemp, Fraser |
| Follett, Barbara | Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W) |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Khabra, Piara S |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Kidney, David |
| Foulkes, George | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Galloway, George | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Gapes, Mike | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Gardiner, Barry | Kirkwood, Archy |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| George, Bruce (Walsall S) | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
| Gerrard, Neil | Laxton, Bob |
| Gilroy, Mrs Linda | Lepper, David |
| Godman, Dr Norman A | Leslie, Christopher |
| Godsiff, Roger | Levitt, Tom |
| Goggins, Paul | Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Lewis, Terry (Worsley) |
| Gordon, Mrs Eileen | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| Graham, Thomas | Linton, Martin |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Lock, David |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Love, Andrew |
| Grocott, Bruce | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Grogan, John | McCabe, Steve |
| Gunnell, John | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | Macdonald, Calum |
| Hall, Patrick (Bedford) | McDonnell, John |
| Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | McFall, John |
| Hanson, David | McIsaac, Shona |
| Harris, Dr Evan | McKenna, Mrs Rosemary |
| Harvey, Nick | Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | McNulty, Tony |
| Healey, John | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | McWalter, Tony |
| Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | McWilliam, John |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Heppell, John | Mallaber, Judy |
| Hesford, Stephen | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Hill, Keith | Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) |
| Hinchliffe, David | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Hodge, Ms Margaret | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Hoey, Kate | Marshall-Andrews, Robert |
| Hood, Jimmy | Martlew, Eric |
| Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Maxton, John |
| Hope, Phil | Meacher, Rt Hon Michael |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Merron, Gillian |
| Howarth, Alan (Newport E) | Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Milburn, Rt Hon Alan |
| Howells, Dr Kim | Miller, Andrew |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | Moffatt, Laura |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Moore, Michael | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Morley, Elliot | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Soley, Clive |
| Southworth, Ms Helen | |
| Mountford, Kali | Spellar, John |
| Mudie, George | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Mullin, Chris | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) | Stevenson, George |
| Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Norris, Dan | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Oaten, Mark | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Olner, Bill | Stringer, Graham |
| O'Neill, Martin | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Öpik, Lembit | Stunell, Andrew |
| Organ, Mrs Diana | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Osborne, Ms Sandra | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | |
| Pearson, Ian | Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) |
| Perham, Ms Linda | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| Pickthall, Colin | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Pike, Peter L | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Plaskitt, James | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Pollard, Kerry | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Pond, Chris | Timms, Stephen |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Tipping, Paddy |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Todd, Mark |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | Touhig, Don |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Trickett, Jon |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Truswell, Paul |
| Purchase, Ken | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk) |
| Radice, Rt Hon Giles | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
| Rammell, Bill | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Raynsford, Nick | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) | Tyler, Paul |
| Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) | Tynan, Bill |
| Rendel, David | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Roche, Mrs Barbara | Wareing, Robert N |
| Rogers, Allan | Watts, David |
| Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff | Webb, Steve |
| Rooney, Terry | White, Brian |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Rowlands, Ted | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Roy, Frank | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Ruane, Chris | |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Willis, Phil |
| Salter, Martin | Wills, Michael |
| Sanders, Adrian | Wilson, Brian |
| Sarwar, Mohammad | Winnick, David |
| Savidge, Malcolm | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Sawford, Phil | Wood, Mike |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Woodward, Shaun |
| Shaw, Jonathan | Woolas, Phil |
| Shipley, Ms Debra | Worthington, Tony |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Singh, Marsha | Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wyatt, Derek |
| Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) | |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Mrs. Anne McGuire and |
| Mr. Greg Pope. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.