HC Deb 24 July 2000 vol 354 cc802-12

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 34, line 22, at end insert—

("(4B) The regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete.")

Mr. Rooker

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

The amendment relates to inherited SERPS, and I have to say that I do not believe that it is appropriate to have a debate on the issue at this point. I do not think that any hon. Member could accept the other place tabling amendments that could lead to substantial additional spending of public money running into billions of pounds, which is the implication of the Lords amendment. However, I accept why the Lords did that. We made an announcement about inherited SERPS and explained what we planned to try to do, following reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the National Audit Office. As I said before, the matter is probably the single greatest example of public maladministration since the war and is a major problem. We accept that putting it right, however one chooses to do so, will cost billions of pounds.

Since we made the announcement in March, we have not been able to put any more flesh on our plans. Indeed, we said that we would not and explained that we hoped to come back before the end of the year with proposals for regulations for an inherited SERPS scheme. People are working on the issue, and the Social Security Advisory Committee has issued a consultation paper, responses to which are due in August. We shall examine those responses carefully. The Select Committee on Social Security and the Select Committee on Public Administration have taken evidence on the issue as well, so we have to have draft regulations for them to consider. In the meantime, many people at the Benefits Agency headquarters in Leeds are working to prepare the scheme.

We have to look at all kinds of matters, such as how many people might apply. We do not know whether there will be 50, 000, 5 million or 10 million applications, or even more. When we do not know how many people will apply, it takes an awful lot of background work to work out the parameters of the scheme so that it will have the capacity to deal with telephone and other inquiries. Just because we have not given any details does not mean that we are not doing anything about the situation. For example, we have to cover an issue raised in the other place, which is what kind of appeals will be processed. For instance, how do we deal with people with a severe mental disability, who may have started to suffer from dementia since making an inquiry about SERPS? We have to deal with all those matters before we introduce a scheme.

The House of Lords wanted to give the Government a nudge to remind them that they had not fallen asleep, and to ensure that the inherited SERPS scheme worked and that the Government were doing something. All that I can say is that, with the best will in the world, we intend to introduce proposals for a practical scheme that meets the original criteria that we set out regarding those people who had been, or felt they had been, misinformed, with the burden of proof being the Government's responsibility, as the ombudsman said. However, it is far too early to curtail and corral the Government in the way that the amendment seeks to do. In effect, the amendment completely wrecks anything that we plan to do with the inherited SERPS scheme, so I urge the House to disagree with the Lords.

Mr. Pickles

Strangely enough, I agree with most of what the Minister said, but I do not agree that the amendment wrecks the Government's intentions. They have made very clear how they will deal with the inheritance rules on SERPS. The amendment would prevent any backsliding on their commitment.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is the biggest incident of maladministration since the second world war, and I, for one, certainly accept responsibility on behalf of the previous two Conservative Governments. The present Government cannot escape responsibility because we knew less than a year ago that benefits offices were giving duff information to people making inquiries, and we know even now that things are not right.

We are fortunate to have several excellent reports on the subject. I draw the attention of the House to the report of the National Audit Office and the Department of Social Security's internal audit service to the permanent secretary at the Department. Page 1 says that in view of the extensive consideration in 1999 given to the issue of misleading information, we are concerned that from November 1999 to 10 January 2000 contradictory lines were taken in official correspondence and other sources of information about the legal position after 5 April 2000. Even now, we do not have a complete grip on the problem.

No Member of the House can feel smug about their involvement in this issue. The House singularly failed to check the Executive on these important measures. However, I suppose the time must come when the blame game has to end. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman sought to deal practically with the problems. Guidelines have been issued and Ministers have given clear assurances in Committee, in this House and in another place.

We also have the NAO's recommendations and the ombudsman's report. It is to the Government's credit that they accepted the ombudsman's report. As my noble Friend Lord Higgins has said several times in another place, generally there are no clear recommendations in that report. However, it makes two recommendations that are reasonably clear. First, on page 13 in paragraph 32, the ombudsman states that the Department should provide redress on a global, rather than an individual, basis. Secondly, he says that the burden of proof, to which the Minister referred, that a claimant would not have acted differently had he or she not been misinformed rested on the department.

I realise that we do not yet have regulations on the subject, and I suspect that one reason for the amendment is to give the Government a prod about that, but it seems clear from what the Government said in another place and in Committee that they intend to provide redress on an individual basis. I understand that people who want to receive compensation under the Government's scheme have to jump over two hurdles. They have to show first, that they were misled by information, and secondly, that they sustained a loss. If the Government accept the ombudsman's report, they will have to prove otherwise. However, we know from what they have said that they will not have many records to disprove claims. They have set themselves an uphill struggle.

Baroness Hollis was most helpful in a debate on 6 July 1999, when she said: There is a very real issue of proof…No record is kept of telephone calls, any more than a record is normally kept of conversations at the desk. Paper records are kept for about six months. But if someone asserted that he had received that misleading advice, I suspect it may well be the case that the Government would have to prove that he had not, rather than the contrary, because there would be no evidence to counterbalance it.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1999; Vol. 603. c. 847.] Any claimant who says that he walked into the Department's local office in one of the many parliamentary constituencies and picked up a leaflet that did not contain the information about SERPs must have a case. It would be impossible for the Government to prove otherwise.

On 15 March, The Daily Telegraph reported a suggestion that the Government were seeking written evidence that claimants had originally made a claim.

Mr. Rooker

That is not true.

Mr. Pickles

The right hon. Gentleman says that it is not true, and that reassurance is good enough for me so I will not pursue the point.

We need to see regulations reasonably soon. Given the issue of burden of proof, the lack of records and the right hon. Gentleman's reassurance, the effect will be the same whether or not the amendment is agreed to because the Government will not be in a position to disprove claims. People will only have to say that they went into an office and picked up a leaflet about retirement in which SERPS was not mentioned, so they did not take the necessary precaution of increasing their private provision. It matters not a jot how Members vote this evening, the effect will be the same. If the NAO is right, we are looking at a cost of £8 billion, admittedly over a number of years, but that cost is very great.

Mr. Webb

I agree with the noble Friends of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) more than he does, because I agree with the amendment, and we will not support the Government's motion to disagree.

The Minister said that he wants to keep his options open—I hope that I am paraphrasing him fairly—and that the Government are in the process of drawing up regulations, so they do not want to close off any avenues. They think that the amendment may constrain their future actions. However, in saying that he is admitting that he can envisage circumstances in which the Government might want to breach the presumption in the amendment. In other words, he can envisage the introduction of regulations that do not presume that people have received incorrect or incomplete information unless they can prove that they have done.

6 pm

It is clear that the ombudsman is in no doubt. In the other place, Lord Higgins read out at some length correspondence that he had had with the ombudsman, and I shall repeat a couple of key phrases. In a letter to Lord Higgins, the ombudsman stated: I suggested to the Department that the onus of proof was therefore reversed. It was for the Department to prove someone would not have acted differently if they had not been misinformed…The presumption had to be that anyone who could reasonably claim to have been misled and in consequence to have acted, or failed to act, to their detriment had a prima facie claim for redress. Lord Higgins pointed out that people will still have to prove that they suffered loss as a result. Therefore, there are two issues: were the people given incorrect or incomplete information, and did that cause loss? People will still have to prove loss, but the presumption will be that they were given duff information, unless the Government can prove otherwise.

When the amendment was debated in the Lords, lengthy consideration was given to the question of incomplete information, as opposed to incorrect information, which, in turn, raises a broad spectrum of issues. The fundamental question is, when legislation as far-reaching as the Bill is passed, should people be informed individually? However, if the House approves the amendment, all we will be saying is that people who say that they were given incomplete information can be presumed to be telling the truth. The Government would not be required to do anything about that; even if the amendment were made, the regulations need not bind the Government to compensate everyone who was given incomplete information. In my view, compensation should be given, but that is not what the amendment would do; it merely reverses the burden of proof and leaves the Government free to make regulations based on that assumption.

I hope that the Government are not telling the House that they reserve the right not to reverse the burden of proof. The ombudsman has made his views clear and Baroness Hollis stated that the Government accepted the arguments regarding reversal. Therefore, if the amendment is not accepted, how does the Government envisage the scheme operating? Baroness Hollis said: When the time comes for people to make their claims, we envisage asking them a few questions about how and roughly when they saw a leaflet.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2000; Vol. 614, c. 771-72, 777.] We are talking about events occurring from 1986 onward—leaflets that were read in the late 1980s. When I asked the Minister about the position of married women on the reduced rate, saying that many were misled, he replied that it all happened ages ago and that no one could prove that—yet the Government appear to want to keep open the option of requiring people to do precisely that.

At issue is not merely whether or not people read a leaflet, but whether or not they visited a citizens advice bureau: Baroness Hollis said that going to a citizens advice office or Age Concern, both of which were misled by dodgy leaflets, would be good enough. Therefore, if someone makes a claim, the DSS official will ask, "When did you see the leaflet?", to which the individual might reply, "I didn't see a leaflet, but I got the wrong impression." The official will then ask whether the individual went to a citizens advice bureau or Age Concern. That strikes me as being an extraordinary process.

The crucial point is that people will have to believe it is worth their while making a claim, but if there is a whiff of a suggestion that, when they phone up, they will be asked to provide proof, most will not bother; if there is any suggestion that they will be asked questions about how and roughly when they saw a leaflet, some will think that they cannot possibly remember. We shall be dealing with people who have passed retirement age: the Minister specifically mentioned people who are mentally impaired, but most people cannot remember what leaflet they looked at 10 years ago, let alone the person they chatted to at an advice centre. I am extremely concerned that the Government want to retain the option of not reversing the burden of proof.

Just before the debate, I received some comments from Age Concern, which strongly supports the amendment. It says that, unless the amendment is made, it will still be up to individuals to make a claim; to provide details of how they were misinformed; to show they relied on this information…and to show that they may suffer financially. That is a lot of hurdles. Showing that one has suffered financially will be extremely difficult, especially because the proof consists of having done nothing—one did not opt out, even though one might have done, because the scheme appeared to be a good one. The Government have a moral duty to erect the fewest hurdles possible, but, although they have nodded in the direction of reversing the burden of proof, they appear to want to keep their options open.

Some pensioners contacted Age Concern about the existing proposals, not the amended version; they want the amendment to be made. One said: The majority of those misled are pensioners, many may not feel up to the task of convincing the DSS that their claim is valid. We have to make it as easy as possible to claim because, otherwise, people will not do so; reversing the burden of proof is crucial. Another pensioner said: Continuing the uncertainty is a constant source of distress and erosion in our lives. Can I please make my application soon, remove this worry and enjoy the time left to us? The amendment would help to end that uncertainty, because it would guarantee the reversal of the burden of proof. The fact that the Government do not want to accept it suggest that they want to change tack in the near future. We want to reassure pensioners. We think that the Lords and the Conservative Front Benchers in the other place were right. I hope that their hon. Friends in this House will support their colleagues at the other end of the Corridor. We certainly shall.

Mr. Rooker

As I said at the outset, we have no scheme to lay before the House, so it is not possible to go into the sort of detail that hon. Members want. However, let us be straight: the purpose of the amendment is to insert into primary legislation a provision ensuring that any applicant to the inherited SERPS scheme will be deemed to have been given incorrect or incomplete information unless the Department can prove otherwise. The effect would be to allow people who have neither sought nor received information to be deemed to have received incomplete or incorrect information. That almost amounts to a policy reversal.

Mr. Webb

indicated dissent.

Mr. Rooker

Yes, it does.

The ombudsman estimates that deferring the policy change for 30 months until 6 October 2002 and introducing an inherited SERPS scheme to cover those who were misled or misinformed would cost up to £8.2 billion by 2050, so we are not talking about Government penny-pinching. However, the amendment would increase the costs significantly by opening up the scheme to people who were not misinformed because they never asked for information: reversing the policy by making the amendment would result in a cost of £23 billion by 2050.

We have made it clear that we want to protect people who were given incomplete or incorrect advice. We do not record telephone calls, so we have no evidence. Claimants will sign a form, which has not yet been designed, saying that they phoned an office; they will sign and date it as is normal with a DSS form. We will not be able to challenge that statement—we shall have to accept what they say. That is the burden of proof under which we shall be working. The amendment would extend that protection to people who were never advised and who never asked any questions. I cannot believe hon. Members want to make a decision far in advance of the Government introducing a scheme after considering the Select Committee reports and the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It would be barmy to make such a decision when the cost of the amendment, at up to £23 billion, is three times greater than the highest figure suggested for our proposals.

Mr. Pickles

I apologise for interrupting the Minister in full flow. On the question of telephone calls, if people make that call, sign the form and there is no proof that they acted in any way other than they say they did, does the fact of their having done nothing and having made no additional provision constitute sufficient proof, or will something else be required?

Mr. Rooker

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for us to come forward with the scheme.

People will have to say at some time or another that they might have done something differently. That naturally follows if they were misinformed. They will have to say that they did not do something that they would have done owing to bad information. That is the purpose of an inquiry about SERPS in the first place. The hurdle would be information that led someone to a certain course of action; they would tell us about the false information on which they had relied.

It is not such an onerous hurdle for people to say that they made a call, the date of which they cannot remember, and were reassured that they and their spouses would be okay and that, say, the claim would be 100 per cent. As a result, they did not take action to protect their position. People could tell us that they had received advice confirming that their claim would be chopped to 50 per cent. in 2000, which subsequently led them to take out a life policy that they were mis-sold.

Mr. Webb

There are two aspects to the amendment: incomplete information and incorrect information. I said clearly, and the record will show, that it does not follow that, on agreeing the amendment, regulations would require the Government to do anything about people who received incomplete information. The amendment would merely create the presumption that if somebody said that something had happened and the Government could not disprove it, it was so. However, on incorrect information, they should have to do something. Does the Minister agree with the ombudsman when he said: I suggested…that the onus of proof was therefore reversed?

Mr. Rooker

We have accepted the ombudsman's report and that is what we shall try to implement.

I make the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about the global solution, which is important. I remember that before I entered the House there was an argument about a misleading answer given by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he was Minister of Aviation hack in 1972. He gave as an excuse that his answer was global—but that is another point.

I have my Q and A before me; I will give the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar the question and the answer because it makes an important point. Does the scheme provide a global solution as recommended by the ombudsman? Yes. The ombudsman's concern, as Mr. Buckley himself said to the Public Administration Committee, was that it seemed impractical and unfair to put people through something like the special payments scheme that the Department already runs, in which they would be required to describe their circumstances in some detail and why they were entitled to redress. The inherited SERPS scheme therefore must be based on the presumption that anyone who could reasonably claim to have been misled…had a prima facie claim for redress. There is no doubt about that; that covers, globally, the people who were misinformed and feel that they have been misled.

Mr. Wigley

If the Government successfully disagree with the Lords amendment, will the Minister give an assurance along the lines that organisations concerned with specific aspects of the questions, such as Mencap, which deals with people with learning difficulties, will be fully consulted on the scheme? The question was raised by Lord Rix, and he did not press his amendment on that understanding. Will the Minister give such an undertaking?

Mr. Rooker

Yes, when we bring forward the scheme in draft and in full, there will be full and adequate consultation with all those who have an interest. That is not meant to be a qualification.

Achieving the task will be very difficult. The lower estimate of doing so is £8 billion, but we have no idea of the number of claimants, and the upper estimate, as I have said, is £23 billion. That is huge public expenditure. To listen to some hon. Members, who suggest doing so willy-nilly, 10 times a day, it could be paid for from the surplus in the national insurance fund.

It would not be sensible to amend the legislation. Doing so would completely scupper our proposals for an inherited SERPS scheme. I cannot put it plainer than that.

Question put, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 26.

Division No. 281] [6.14 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Ainger, Nick Begg, Miss Anne
Allen, Graham Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ashton, Joe Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Atherton, Ms Candy Bennett, Andrew F
Atkins, Charlotte Benton, Joe
Banks, Tony Bermingham, Gerald
Barnes, Harry Berry, Roger
Barron, Kevin Best, Harold
Bayley, Hugh Betts, Clive
Beard, Nigel Blears, Ms Hazel
Blizzard, Bob Flynn, Paul
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Borrow, David Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Fyfe, Maria
Bradshaw, Ben Gardiner, Barry
Brinton, Mrs Helen Gerrard, Neil
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) Gibson, Dr Ian
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Goggins, Paul
Burden, Richard Golding, Mrs Llin
Burgon, Colin Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Butler, Mrs Christine Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Gunnell, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Campbell-Savours, Dale Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Cann, Jamie
Caplin, Ivor Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Casale, Roger Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Cawsey, Ian Healey, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Hepburn, Stephen
Chaytor, David Hesford, Stephen
Chisholm, Malcolm Hill, Keith
Clapham, Michael Hinchliffe, David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Home Robertson, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Hopkins, Kelvin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Howells, Dr Kim
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Clelland, David Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clwyd, Ann Humble, Mrs Joan
Coaker, Vernon Hurst, Alan
Coffey, Ms Ann Iddon, Dr Brian
Cohen, Harry Illsley, Eric
Connarty, Michael Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N) Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Cooper, Yvette Jenkins, Brian
Corbett, Robin Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Corbyn, Jeremy Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Corston, Jean
Cox, Tom Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Cranston, Ross Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dalyell, Tam Keeble, Ms Sally
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Darvill, Keith Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Kelly, Ms Ruth
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Khabra, Piara S
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Kidney, David
Kilfoyle, Peter
Dawson, Hilton King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Dean, Mrs Janet Kumar, Dr Ashok
Denham, John Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Dismore, Andrew Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Dobbin, Jim Laxton, Bob
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank Lepper, David
Donohoe, Brian H Leslie, Christopher
Doran, Frank Levitt, Tom
Drew, David Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Linton, Martin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Efford, Clive Lock, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise Love, Andrew
Ennis, Jeff McAllion, John
Field. Rt Hon Frank McAvoy, Thomas
Fisher, Mark McCabe, Steve
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna McCafferty, Ms Chris
Flint, Caroline McDonagh, Siobhain
Macdonald, Calum Ruane, Chris
McDonnell, John Ruddock, Joan
McGuire, Mrs Anne Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
McIsaac, Shona Ryan, Ms Joan
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary Salter, Martin
McNamara, Kevin Savidge, Malcolm
McNutty, Tony Sedgemore, Brian
MacShane, Denis Shaw, Jonathan
Mactaggart, Fiona Sheerman, Barry
McWilliam, John Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mahon, Mrs Alice Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mallaber, Judy Skinner, Dennis
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Maxton, John Southworth, Ms Helen
Meale, Alan Squire, Ms Rachel
Merron, Gillian Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Michael, Rt Hon Alun Steinberg, Gerry
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley) Stevenson, George
Miller, Andrew Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mitchell, Austin Stoate, Dr Howard
Moffatt, Laura Stuart, Ms Gisela
Moonie, Dr Lewis Sutcliffe, Gerry
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Morley, Elliot
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mountford, Kali Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mudie, George Timms, Stephen
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Tipping, Paddy
Naysmith, Dr Doug Todd, Mark
Norris, Dan Touhig, Don
O'Hara, Eddie Truswell, Paul
Olner, Bill Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Organ, Mrs Diana Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Osborne, Ms Sandra Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Palmer, Dr Nick Tynan, Bill
Pearson, Ian Vis, Dr Rudi
Perham, Ms Linda Walley, Ms Joan
Pickthall, Colin Wareing, Robert N
Pike, Peter L Watts, David
Plaskitt, James White, Brian
Pollard, Kerry Whitehead, Dr Alan
Pond, Chris Wicks, Malcolm
Pound, Stephen Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Powell, Sir Raymond
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Prosser, Gwyn Wills, Michael
Purchase, Ken Winnick, David
Quinn, Lawrie Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles Woolas, Phil
Rammell, Bill Worthington, Tony
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Wray, James
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Roche, Mrs Barbara Wyatt, Derek
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Tellers for the Ayes:
Rowlands, Ted Mr. David Jamieson and
Roy, Frank Mr. Jim Dowd.
NOES
Allan, Richard Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Ballard, Jackie Kirkwood, Archy
Beith, Rt Hon A J Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Oaten, Mark
Brand, Dr Peter Rendel, David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Sanders, Adrian
Cotter, Brian Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Foster, Don (Bath) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Harris, Dr Evan Tonge, Dr Jenny
Webb, Steve Tellers for the Noes:
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd Mr. Donald Gorrie and
Willis, Phil Mr. Andrew Stunell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Forward to