HC Deb 09 February 2000 vol 344 cc273-85
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 21, leave out from "communicate" to "activity" in line 22 and insert— or cause to be communicated—

  1. (a) an invitation to engage in investment activity; or
  2. (b) information which is intended or might reasonably be presumed to be intended to lead directly or indirectly to engagement in such".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 28, leave out

capable of having an effect and insert—

intended to be acted on by a person". Amendment No. 185, in page 8, line 34, leave out

The Treasury may by order specify and insert—

Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of an oral communication which does not constitute an invitation to engage in investment activity and the Treasury may by order specify other". Government amendment No. 68.

Amendment No. 388, in clause 212, page 108, line 10, after "communicate", insert—

to a person in the United Kingdom". Amendment No. 403, in page 108, line 10, leave out from "communicate" to end of line 11 and insert—

, or cause to be communicated, to a person in the United Kingdom—

  1. (a) an invitation to participate in a collective investment scheme; or
  2. (b) information which is intended, or might reasonably be presumed to be intended, to lead directly or indirectly to such participation.".
Amendment No. 404, in page 108, line 15, leave out

capable of having an effect and insert—

intended to be acted upon by a person". Amendment No. 389, in clause 214, page 109, line 19, after "communicated", insert— and none of the exemptions prescribed by rules made by the Authority under section 212(5) would have applied".

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

The Minister was cut off in full flow, but I hope that that will not prevent her or her colleagues from returning to the unanswered points, perhaps on Third Reading. She began a little unconvincingly, if I may say so, and perhaps the real answers were further on in her brief. Staff training is sufficiently important to warrant the provision of a little more information. However, under the rules of the House we must pass on to restrictions on financial promotion, which relates to an important part of the Bill.

Clause 19 caused a lot of problems in Committee and we debated it at considerable length. However, I freely concede that the Bill has been greatly improved in this respect. The first stab at restricting financial promotion was absurd, as almost everyone would have been prevented from telling almost anybody about any investment activity whatever. The Government rapidly recognised that as unworkable, if not absurd. I gave an example in Committee that was not contradicted by any Labour Member: if I was not an authorised person, telling my neighbour that he ought to think about taking out a pension would have been a criminal offence. That approach would have completely discredited the law, as it does us no service to have laws that are widely ignored or ridiculed.

The Government have improved that aspect of the Bill, and advice or an invitation to invest must be offered in the course of business. That is a big improvement, but our amendment would improve things further—the clause is still drawn very widely indeed—by importing an element of intention to the activity, or at least strengthening the intention element. The person communicating information must invite the other person to invest or intend to do so. The clause, certainly in some respects, refers to an invitation but also to an inducement. It is not clear whether that provision operates sufficiently in respect of the intention of the person making the offer or issuing the invitation, and it relies too much on effect. It is important to be more explicit about the motives and state of mind of the person issuing the invitation; otherwise, we shall catch those who provide information—it may be acted on by others who may undertake investment activity as a result of reading it or listening to such people—even though they did not intend to issue any sort of invitation whatever.

Amendment No. 5 tackles the issue of communications received from outside the UK. At present, the Bill attempts to criminalise communications that are capable of having an effect in the UK unless they are made by an authorised person. Many people issuing electronic invitations or making information available on websites will not have heard of the FSA and will certainly not be authorised persons.

The provision is far too wide and is liable to catch communications between two people, neither of whom are in the UK, but which nevertheless could be seen and acted on by someone in the UK—for instance, on the internet. An invitation over the internet from someone in Canada to another person in the United States may be freely accessible in this country and could be acted on by someone here, who would be caught by the clause. I think that that provision is largely unenforceable. If I am wrong, perhaps the Financial Secretary could explain how the clause will operate. Amendment No. 5 would remove the phrase capable of having an effect and insert the words intended to be acted on by a person". That is an important restriction and a narrowing of the clause, which would give it greater purpose and effect.

Amendment No. 185 would expressly provide that oral communications are allowed. This is more in the nature of a probing amendment, but I hope that it will lead to a short debate on the issue of solicited as against unsolicited communications. As things stand, even a telephone call that is solicited by a client could be caught by the Bill. To give another example, a firm based abroad may be telephoned by someone from this country who has seen some of its promotional literature and wants to know more about the products or services on offer. If the firm responds, it could be guilty of an offence. I should like to know whether that is reasonable, and how it can be enforced. Our amendment tackles that problem and would exclude such oral communications from the prohibition.

Amendment No. 388 concerns collective investment schemes. Clause 122 prohibits authorised firms from marketing unregulated investment schemes. We are not quarrelling with that, but our amendment would restrict that to persons in the United Kingdom; otherwise, firms in this country would be unable to market schemes in other countries where the local regulator had no objection, and we could face the bizarre situation in which the only schemes that could not be marketed in such countries would be United Kingdom schemes, which would put our industry at a competitive disadvantage.

It is wrong in principle that firms in this country should face a double jeopardy. They could be stopped from marketing a certain investment scheme which falls foul of the rules over here, even though the countries to which their marketing effort is directed have no problems. If that happens, the citizens and investors in that country will simply buy from everyone else except the United Kingdom. I do not think that this is compatible with the principle set out in the Bill, which is to try to safeguard the competitiveness of the United Kingdom industry. It is not right that one part of the Bill should conflict with the expressed objectives and principles in another. 1 shall be interested in the Minister's comments.

5 pm

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms)

The financial promotion regime dealt with in the clause governs the advertising of financial services and investments. It is important for ensuring that members of the public are not ripped off. The regime that we have developed and enshrined here seeks to bring the law more up to date and to recognise new technologies and different media, such as the internet and digital television.

The guiding principles have been to make the new regime future-proof and technologically neutral. We are committed to doing everything we can to make sure that the UK is in the lead in making the best use of technology in this field, as in all fields. We are also proposing new financial promotion exemptions in secondary legislation to make informal capital-raising by small businesses and start-ups easier.

The financial promotion regime set out here applies to unauthorised persons. Authorised persons will be subject to the rules of the Financial Services Authority. So the clause is unlikely to have a direct effect on the businesses of financial services firms. This is an issue where there has been a good deal of misunderstanding, and the House needs to be clear about it.

Government amendments to the clause and to clause 212 were proposed in Committee in July in response to consultation. As the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) acknowledged, they have gone a long way to meeting the concerns that were expressed at that time.

The amendments did two main things. First, they introduced a business test into the financial promotion prohibition, so that only promotions made in the course of business are caught, and not the discussion between neighbours that the right hon. Gentleman suggested, which could have been caught by the earlier formulation. Secondly, the amendments changed the language of the basic financial promotion prohibition so that the prohibition and offence apply to communications which are more clearly promotional in nature, not just information which might lead to financial services activity.

We have put out two consultation papers on financial promotion. The second included a draft order with exemptions from the basic financial promotion prohibition. The consultation period for the second paper closed very recently. We shall listen carefully to comments on the draft order and to other comments made in relation to the clause. It is important that we do not prejudge at this stage the results of that consultation exercise.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 403 seek to reinstate the previous financial promotion restriction, although they recognise that there should be a business test. It was not clear from what the right hon. Member for Wells said, but it is the case that they propose bringing back the old language, before the July amendments, catching information which is intended or might reasonably be presumed to lead directly or indirectly to engagement in investment activity", with the focus on "information". In the July amendments that was changed to make reference to a prohibition on invitations or inducements to engage in investment activity.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the form of words in the amendment enshrined a greater degree of intent than is in the wording of the Bill, but I do not think that that is so. There is clearly in the wording here, "invitation or inducement", greater clarity about what is envisaged than in the old wording, which has appeared again in amendment No. 4.

The changes were made in response to concern expressed in consultation that factual information that was not promotional could be caught by the prohibition as originally drafted. I am surprised that the Opposition should suggest returning to the earlier wording.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central)

I am sure that my hon. Friend has followed the exchanges that have taken place between two of our great popular newspapers over the past 10 days. Allegations have been made—it is not necessary to explore the truth of them here—that journalists responsible for giving investment advice themselves had investments in the companies and enterprises that they were tipping. Do the Government intend activities of that kind to be caught by the clause?

If this is a difficult question, I am happy for further thought to be given to it, but we need clarification. The investing public are now very aware of the situation, because of the conflict between the two newspapers.

Mr. Timms

My hon. Friend presents me with an interesting invitation to engage in the crossfire between two august institutions. I shall resist on this occasion, but he has raised a significant point, on which we may be able to comment before the end of the debate.

Amendment No. 5 deals with the territorial scope of the financial promotion prohibition. We discussed that at length in Committee, and it was also dealt with in the two financial promotion consultation papers. Territorial scope is especially important given the increasing use of the internet, whereby overseas providers can easily target UK investors. We want to encourage use of the internet, which should lower costs to consumers and provide consumer choice. It should also give UK businesses better access to a wider range of consumers. It is, however, important for consumers to have appropriate protection as well.

The financial promotion prohibition has a twofold territorial scope. It applies to promotions issued from the UK to places or persons overseas, and also to inward promotions—promotions issued to the UK from outside it. Amendment No. 5 relates to inward promotions, and proposes that promotions that originate overseas but are intended to be acted on by a person"— a UK person—should be caught. The language in the Bill as it stands catches inward promotions that are capable of having an effect in the UK. I should point out, however, that the draft financial promotion exemptions order, on which we have been consulting, proposes the limitation of that arrangement, so that only communications that are actually directed at the UK will be caught. That may well deal with the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Wells.

Amendment No. 5 would have a fairly similar effect to that of inserting the "directed at" test—currently in the order—in the Bill. Both the amendment and the clause as currently drafted reflect, to an extent, the principle of so-called host state regulation: regulation in the country in which a promotion is received. We mention in the consultation paper that we have been considering putting the "directed at" test in the Bill, rather as the right hon. Gentleman proposes. We think, however, that it would be inappropriate to make any change along those lines at this stage, for a number of reasons.

First, the consultation has only just ended, and we need to consider it properly. Secondly, we need to view the issue in the light of potential European Union and international developments—and, in particular, a possible move to the "home state" or "country of origin" regulatory principle in respect of financial promotions, if that is provided for in future by EU legislation or other multilateral agreements. We want to ensure that the Bill is future-proof in that respect.

We support the principle of home state regulation that is reflected in the draft European e-commerce directive, although its application is limited in the financial services sector, but we are not currently convinced by the argument for applying solely the home state regulatory principle to financial promotions in advance of appropriate European legislation. We need to bear in mind the importance of the UK acting consistently with other jurisdictions. If the UK applied, say, only home state regulation, but other European economic area jurisdictions applied only host state regulation, there could be undesirable results and gaps in the system. However, it is an important issue. We have been consulting on it. We prefer not to prejudge the results of that consultation by amending the Bill at this stage. The possibility remains of doing so later. I hope that Conservative Members will take some comfort from that.

I move to amendments Nos. 388 and 404. Amendments that would have had a similar effect were debated in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury recognised that there might be a case for applying the territorial scope of the collective investment scheme marketing prohibition differently from that of the clause 19 prohibition. We will continue to reflect on that in the light of consultation responses to the financial promotion consultation paper; again, reflection on that is not yet concluded.

Amendment No. 185 seeks to provide that oral promotions should not be prohibited, unless they amount to an invitation to engage in investment activity. That is not appropriate. First, it reintroduces the concept of oral and other types of communication to the basic prohibition. We have tried to do away with those concepts in the light of developing technology. For example, why should someone be allowed to promote investments orally, but not over the internet, say, via an internet chat room, which to all intents and purposes has similar features to a conversation, in that a chat room effectively allows informal, immediate on-line "conversations"? The distinction is not as clear cut as it should be to be included.

Secondly, there are numerous ways in which a person might promote investments which do not amount to an outright "invitation." Conceivably, quite a hard sell would be involved, but it might not be an invitation. Under amendment No. 5, such a hard sell could be exempt, but we are not seeking to regulate all forms of communication. Seeking to control conversations of all types is not sensible. That is why we have proposed that communications that are not made in the course of business should not be caught. Therefore, a conversation between friends in the pub or neighbours should not be caught, unless it is made in the course of business.

The draft exemptions order proposes various other exemptions that could apply to oral communications: for example, a widespread exemption for calls that are invited by the recipient of the promotion and that are not made as part of a wider selling campaign.

Amendment No. 389 tracks amendment No. 787, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in Committee. The intention behind the clause is that, if an authorised person cannot issue the promotion, an authorised person cannot approve an unauthorised person issuing it either. Beyond that, it will be for the authority to make rules under clause 118 concerning authorised persons' approval of financial promotions. That is the intention. As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said, we are still considering how well the drafting achieves that. We will come back to the matter, if necessary, in due course. We will, of course, reflect again on what the right hon. Member for Wells has said.

Government amendment No. 68 is a drafting amendment to improve the clarity of the wording. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Flight

As the Minister will recollect, there were 43 pages of debate on the clause in Committee. Numerous concerns about the clause have been raised by a raft of lawyers, by the communication industry, by the financial services industry and indeed by bureaucrats. It is somewhat strange that we should be on Report with the Government effectively saying at last that they recognise quite a lot of the concerns that we have expressed and will look to deal with them. We are left with a crucial clause that is nowhere near complete.

5.15 pm

We cannot see why the Government have for so long not taken the points, which are clear and straightforward and which our various amendments highlight. Without repeating all the points that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), there are four different territories. One is simple: we are dealing with a criminal offence. People can go to jail for it and there should be some requirement on the prosecution to prove intent; that the communication was to some extent promotional and intended to attract people potentially to invest.

The issue on the net is the most important. The Government seem to be saying that they will change their mind. The draft exemptions go some way towards that, but as the Government will be aware, there is quite a lot of detail that would lead a lot of businesses to fall foul of the order.

It has been made fairly clear that it would be possible to open EU infringement proceedings. Indeed, there is a question as to whether the Government should have cleared draft legislation with the Commission under the transparency directive before introducing it.

It seems that the Government will move in one form or other to the principle that we have suggested. Ridiculously, the wording capable of having an effect in the United Kingdom would ensure that almost any form of communication about the world would be covered by UK regulation. The many communications between a business in Tokyo and one in the United States on the net could have an effect if someone looked them up here. The suggestion that the FSA should regulate cyberspace is impractical and indeed damaging to our reputation.

Amendment No. 185 deals with the cold-calling and oral issue. The intention is not to exempt oral communications that were self-evidently fraudulent or designed to promote, but unless our amendment is accepted there will be problems with overseas investment firms that do not have branches in the UK and that would be unlikely to know the detailed requirements under the proposed Treasury orders and to remember to send a second document asking for consent to cold calls. Many breaches could arise in relation to the placement of flotations; United States security houses would naturally want to send offerings about the world by not just oral, but other means of communication. More thought will need to be given if our amendment is not to be accepted in that parameter.

Amendment No. 388 relates to the fact that the Bill prohibits authorised firms from marketing unregulated collective investment schemes. We believe that that prohibition should apply only when the communication is to a person in the UK. Again, there are many instances where schemes may not be regulated. They may be under jurisdictions other than that in the UK; UK firms may be properly promoting in other parts of the world, where there are either no regulations to prohibit them from doing so, or it is normal to do so. As the clause stands, particularly in the venture capital sector, some silliness could result.

We see amendment No. 389 as a correction. Clause 214 imposed a general prohibition on approving marketing materials for unregulated schemes. Our amendments limit that provision to where none of the exemptions prescribed by the FSA rules apply. As the clause is drafted, that may seem implicit, but it certainly is not,

This territory is of crucial importance. It is relevant to the development of the United Kingdom as a leading economy in e-commerce and to the international marketing of products and services by European Union financial services businesses. It concerns a criminal offence. The clause is not right yet, as the Government seem to admit. It is well overdue that it should be and we want to press our amendments.

Mr. Timms

We will certainly reflect on the arguments of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) as well as those of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). The clause has been a good deal improved since it first appeared before the Standing Committee. I am still not clear why Opposition Members are trying to reinstate some of the wording that was removed during the improvement process.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), on the activities of newspapers and journalists, as I said, I would not want to comment on the individual case to which he referred. Alongside the existing criminal offences of insider dealing and market manipulation, new provisions in the Bill will allow the FSA to impose penalties on anyone who abuses markets. Journalists will be in the same position as everyone else. Penalties could be imposed on them if they abuse the markets. Journalists do not at present need authorisation if they give advice in a newspaper or periodical whose principle purpose is not giving investment advice. In the consultation document on regulated activities under the Bill, which was published last year, we proposed that that position should be maintained.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in at least conceding that we are raising legitimate issues. Our worry is that this has all come so late. Although the Bill was first announced nearly three years ago and has been available in draft since July 1998, the Government are still grappling with some of the concepts. In addition, we discussed clause 19 exhaustively in Committee. By now, the Government should have come to a conclusion about some of these matters. The Bill is not simply for the convenience of the Government or the authority. Outsiders and the industry in general want to know where they stand.

The situation is summed up by the stance on amendment No. 5. The Government are saying that the clause goes too wide, catches too many people and will be unenforceable, but that they will use secondary legislation to restrict its provisions. It is wrong to attempt to outlaw something in primary legislation and then authorise it in secondary legislation. People who want to know how the industry is to be regulated, who will be caught and what offences they risk falling foul of, will go to the Bill—it is the Act, as it will then be, that will be scrutinised. The single volume that is publicly available will be the fountainhead of knowledge about the regulatory system, not all the orders, the regulations and the endless flow of secondary legislation.

On the basis of the quality of legislation alone, the Government are condemned. Even now, they have not come to a conclusion on some of these matters. As a mark of that fact and to emphasise the importance that we attach to the matter and that we expect some serious amendments to be made in another place, we shall divide the House on amendment No. 5.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 8, line 28, leave out capable of having an effect

and insert intended to be acted on by a person"—[Mr.Heathcoat—Amory.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 312.

Division No. 69] [5.25 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Allan, Richard
Amess, David Clappison, James
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Collins, Tim
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) Colvin, Michael
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Cormack, Sir Patrick
Baker, Norman Cotter, Brian
Baldry, Tony Cran, James
Ballard, Jackie Curry, Rt Hon David
Beggs, Roy Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Beith, Rt Hon A J Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Bercow, John Day, Stephen
Beresford, Sir Paul Donaldson, Jeffrey
Blunt, Crispin Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Body, Sir Richard Duncan, Alan
Boswell, Tim Duncan Smith, Iain
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Evans, Nigel
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia Faber, David
Brady, Graham Fabricant, Michael
Brake, Tom Fallon, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Flight, Howard
Browning, Mrs Angela Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Fox, Dr Liam
Burnett, John Fraser, Christopher
Burns, Simon Garnier, Edward
Burstow, Paul George, Andrew (St Ives)
Cable, Dr Vincent Gibb, Nick
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Gill, Christopher
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Öpik, Lembit
Green, Damian Ottaway, Richard
Greenway, John Page, Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Paice, James
Hague, Rt Hon William Paterson, Owen
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie Pickles, Eric
Hammond, Philip Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Hancock, Mike Prior, David
Hayes, John Redwood, Rt Hon John
Heald, Oliver Rendel, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) Robathan, Andrew
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David Robertson, Laurence
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Horam, John Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Ruffley, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hunter, Andrew St Aubyn, Nick
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Sanders, Adrian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage) Sayeed, Jonathan
Jenkin Bernard Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Shepherd, Richard
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Keetch Paul Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W) Spicer, Sir Michael
Spring, Richard
Key, Robert Steen, Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) Streeter, Gary
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Stunell, Andrew
Kirkwood, Archy Swayne, Desmond
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Syms, Robert
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Lansley, Andrew Tavlor, John M (Solihull)
Leigh, Edward Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Letwin, Oliver Taylor, Sir Teddy
Lidington, David Townend, John
Lilley,.Rt Hon Peter Trend, Michael
Livsey, Richard Tayler, Paul
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Tyrie, Andrew
Loughton,Tim Viggers, Peter
Luff, Peter Walter, Robert
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Wardle, Charles
McIntosh, Miss Anne Webb, Steve
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew Wells, Bowen
Maclean, Rt Hon David Welsh, Andrew
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert Whitney, Sir Raymond
McLoughlin, Patrick Whittingdale, John
Major, Rt Hon John Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Maples, John Wilkinson, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis Willetts, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian Willis, Phil
May, Mrs Theresa Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Moore, Michael Yeo, Tim
Moss, Malcolm Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Nicholls, Patrick
Norman, Archie Tellers for the Ayes:
Oaten, Mark Mr. Keith Simpson and
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) Mr. John Randall.
NOES
Ainger, Nick Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Benton, Joe
Alexander, Douglas Best, Harold
Allen, Graham Betts, Clive
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Blackman, Liz
Ashton, Joe Blears, Ms Hazel
Atkins, Charlotte Blizzard, Bob
Austin, John Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Barnes, Harry Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Barron, Kevin Borrow, David
Battle, John Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Beard, Nigel Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Bradshaw, Ben
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Brinton, Mrs Helen
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) Gardiner, Barry
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Gerrard, Neil
Browne, Desmond Gibson, Dr Ian
Buck, Ms Karen Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Burden, Richard Godman, Dr Norman A
Burgon, Colin Godsiff, Roger
Butler, Mrs Christine Goggins, Paul
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Golding, Mrs Llin
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Campbel-Savours, Dale Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Cann, Jamie Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Caplin, Ivor Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Casale, Roger Grocott, Bruce
Caton, Martin Grogan, John
Cawsey, Ian Gunnell, John
Chaytor, David Hain, Peter
Chisholm, Malcolm Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Clapham, Michael Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Hanson, David
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Healey, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clwyd, Ann Heppell, John
Coaker, Vernon Hesford, Stephen
Coffey, Ms Ann Hill, Keith
Coleman, Iain Hinchliffe, David
Colman, Tony Hodge, Ms Margaret
Connarty, Michael Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Cooper, Yvette Hope, Phil
Corbett, Robin Hopkins, Kelvin
Corston, Jean Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Cousins, Jim Howells, Dr Kim
Cox, Tom Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Cranston, Ross Humble, Mrs Joan
Crausby, David Hurst, Alan
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Hutton, John
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Iddon, Dr Brian
Cummings, John Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) Jamieson, David
Jenkins, Brian
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Dalyell, Tam Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Darvill, Keith Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Davidson, Ian Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Dawson, Hilton Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Denham, John Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dismore, Andrew Keeble, Ms Sally
Dobbin, Jim Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Doran, Frank Kemp, Fraser
Dowd, Jim Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Drew, David Khabra, Piara S
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Kidney, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Kilfoyle, Peter
Edwards, Huw King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ellman, Mrs Louise King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ennis, Jeff Kumar, Dr Ashok
Etherington, Bill Lepper, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank Leslie, Christopher
Fisher, Mark Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Fitzpatrick, Jim Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Fitzsimons, Lorna Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Flint, Caroline Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Follett, Barbara Love, Andrew
Foster, Rt Hon Derek McAvoy, Thomas
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) McCafferty, Ms Chris
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) McCartney, Rt Hon Ian(Makerfield)
Fyfe, Maria
Galloway, George McDonagh, Siobhain
Macdonald, Calum Sarwar, Mohammad
McDonnell, John Savidge, Malcolm
McFall, John Sawford, Phil
McGuire, Mrs Anne Sedgemore, Brian
McIsaac, Shona Shaw, Jonathan
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary Sheerman, Barry
McNamara, Kevin Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
McNulty, Tony Shipley, Ms Debra
MacShane, Denis Short, Rt Hon Clare
Mactaggart, Fiona Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McWalter, Tony Singh, Marsha
McWilliam, John Skinner, Dennis
Mahon, Mrs Alice Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mallaber, Judy Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Snape, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Soley, Clive
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Spellar, John
Martlew, Eric Squire, Ms Rachel
Maxton, John Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael Steinberg, Gerry
Meale, Alan Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Stinchcombe, Paul
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan Stoate, Dr Howard
Miller, Andrew Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mitchell, Austin Stringer, Graham
Moran, Ms Margaret Stuart, Ms Gisela
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Sutcliffe, Gerry
Morley, Elliot Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mountford, Kali Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mudie, George Temple-Morris, Peter
Mullin, Chris Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Timms, Stephen
Naysmith, Dr Doug Tipping, Paddy
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Todd, Mark
O'Hara, Eddie Touhig, Don
Organ, Mrs Diana Trickett, Jon
Osborne, Ms Sandra Truswell Paul
Pearson, Ian Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Pendry, Tom Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Pickthall, Colin Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Plaskitt, James Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Pollard, Kerry Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Pond, Chris Tynan, Bill
Vis, Dr Rudi
Pope, Greg Walley, Ms Joan
Pound, Stephen Ward, Ms Claire
Powell, Sir Raymond Wareing, Robert N
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Watts, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) White, Brian
Prescott, Rt Hon John Whitehead, Dr Alan
Primarolo, Dawn Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Ken Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Quinn, Lawrie Wilson, Brian
Radice, Rt Hon Giles Winnick, David
Rammell, Bill Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Rapson, Syd Wise, Audrey
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Wood, Mike
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) Woodward, Shaun
Rogers, Allan Woolas, Phil
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff Worthington, Tony
Ross, Emie (Dundee W) Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Ruane, Chris Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Tellers for the Noes:
Ryan, Ms Joan Mr. David Clelland and
Salter, Martin Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 8, line 35, leave out

rules made under section 118 and insert "financial promotion rules".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Forward to