HC Deb 05 June 2000 vol 351 cc50-9

Lords amendment: No. 59, in page 23, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert— ("(4) If the Authority grants an application for, or for variation of, a Part IV permission, it must give the applicant written notice.

(5) The notice must state the date from which the permission, or the variation, has effect.

(6) If the Authority proposes—

  1. (a) to give a Part IV permission but to exercise its power under section 40(6)(a) or (b) or 41(1), or
  2. (b) to vary a Part IV permission on the application of an authorised person but to exercise its power under any of those provisions (as a result of section 42(5)),
it must give the applicant a warning notice.

(7) If the Authority proposes to refuse an application made under this Part, it must (unless subsection (8) applies) give the applicant a warning notice.

(8) This subsection applies if it appears to the Authority that—

  1. (a) the applicant is an EEA firm; and
  2. (b) the application is made with a view to carrying on a regulated activity in a manner in which the applicant is, or would be, entitled to carry on that activity in the exercise of an EEA right whether through a United Kingdom branch or by providing services in the United Kingdom.

(9) If the Authority decides—

  1. (a) to give a Part IV permission but to exercise its power under section 40(6)(a) or (b) or 41(1),
  2. (b) to vary a Part IV permission on the application of an authorised person but to exercise its power under any of those provisions (as a result of section 42(5)), or
  3. (c) to refuse an application under this Part,
it must give the applicant a decision notice.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Timms.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be for the convenience of the House to consider an amendment to Lords amendment No. 59, Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64, 71, 72, 75 to 77, 84 to 87, 97, 101, 102, 134 to 141, 236, 241 to 249, 252 to 254, 274 to 295, 297 to 303, 305 to 313, 393, 398 to 402, 503 to 525, 526, an amendment to Lords amendment No. 526, and Lords amendments Nos. 527 to 533, 546 and 604.

5.15 pm
Mr. Flight

Several Government amendments tabled in the other place dealt with procedural matters, particularly in relation to warning, decision and final notices. We view most of those amendments as improvements to the Bill and as having picked up many of the matters raised in this place in Committee. However, in the draftsman's haste to table the amendments, an error seems to have been made in Lords amendment No. 59. That is why we have tabled our amendment to that Lords amendment.

Clause 50 was substantially redrafted on Report in the other place. It is concerned with the FSA's obligation to determine applications for permission to conduct a regulated activity. However, as drafted it provides that if the FSA proposes, after receiving an application for permission, to impose limitations under paragraph 40(7)(a) on the description of a regulated activity for which application has been made, or a narrower or a wider description under paragraph 40(7)(b), or a requirement under subsection 41(1), the FSA would have to issue the applicant with a warning notice, then a decision notice, and then a final notice. The provision applies even if the applicant, as part of the consideration of his application, requests the FSA to impose the limitation or to include the stated requirement up front.

Therefore, currently the only alternatives are to go through the warning, decision and final notice procedure—which is surely a waste of everyone's time—or for the applicant to withdraw his application and resubmit it in the form acceptable to the FSA. The trouble with the second alternative is that the six-month period for considering applications would start to run in relation to the new application and could put an applicant at considerable disadvantage.

Therefore, our amendment to Lords amendment No. 59 provides that, if the FSA exercises its powers to impose limitations or specify particular descriptions of regulated activities under paragraphs 40(7)(a) or (b), or includes limitations under subsection 41(1) at the request of the applicant, the warning, decision, and final notice requirements would not apply. It is necessary to cover all the different types of notice, because the applicant may make his request at any stage—for example, after the warning notice has been given, but before a decision notice has been given.

Our amendment to Lords amendment No. 59 is very technical. However, the Opposition hope that the Government will readily agree to it, on practical grounds. Our amendment to Lords amendment No. 526—which proposes inserting a new clause after clause 376—is more substantial than our previous amendment and designed to prevent the whole Bill hitting the rails in relation to the European convention on human rights.

The Government have effectively made the European convention, which they clearly support, part of United Kingdom law. The House, too, has broadly indicated its support for the convention. Our amendment is intended to provide for compliance with the convention in relation to the disclosure of evidence to the accused. Other provisions of the Bill are simply not in compliance with the convention, although we have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will certify—as required by the Human Rights Act 1998—that the Bill is compatible with the rights granted by the convention.

We are particularly concerned about two specific matters: the right given to the accused not to have used against him evidence that was extracted from him only under compulsion of law; and the right to legal assistance. The Government have quite rightly provided those protections in the case of market abuse, but have refused to grant them in the case of ordinary disciplinary proceedings. Unfortunately, it is not possible to raise the latter issue now, as to appropriate amendments have been tabled on which to hang a debate on it. That is why our amendment to Lords amendment No. 526 relates only to the disclosure of evidence and does not go any wider. We hope that the Bill will comply with the European convention at least on this issue.

We have requested repeatedly that the Financial Services Authority should give an accused person all the evidence available to it, even if it is helpful to the accused by showing that he could not have committed the offence. The Government have finally provided for that in certain cases. That is what our amendment is about. The new clause inserted by amendment No. 526 provides for important exceptions from that general principle. First, evidence does not have to be disclosed if it has been intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued under any enactment relating to the interception of communications or if it is subject to legal privilege. More worryingly, the new clause also allows the FSA to refuse the accused access to particular material if allowing him access would not be in the public interest or would not be deemed to be fair in the FSA's eyes because of a potential prejudice to someone else's commercial interests.

In all those cases, the European convention clearly requires the accused to be given access to the material, or at least to other protections in its place. That was the subject of three recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in February. All three cases related to the use of public interest immunity certificates by the UK Government. The court held that the withholding of such evidence under those certificates in principle contravened the convention. The court decided that the Government would comply with the convention if it gave the trial judge the withheld evidence, so that he could see its effect and decide for himself whether it should be introduced, or other protections could be provided, in particular giving the accused a summary of what was in the material that was not handed over. That is what we are seeking to achieve with the amendment, which provides that the accused must be told reasons for the refusal—although that is not sufficient.

The Minister may repeat the Government's objection that the provisions should not apply to civil offences, because the decisions in question relate to criminal cases. We do not believe that that view is legally correct. Both decisions were based on article 6(1) of the European convention, which requires a fair hearing. The court's decision was that the hearing would not be fair if helpful evidence was withheld. Article 6(1) applies to civil as well as criminal offences, although perhaps the fair hearing requirement can be tailored differently in each case. We have received clear legal advice that the requirement in article 6(1) applies to disciplinary proceedings, even when they are treated as civil matters.

The Minister will be aware that Lord Lester, who is one of the leading authorities on the subject, has written an opinion that was submitted to the Treasury and the Joint Committee. He said that disciplinary proceedings would be treated as proceedings on criminal offences for the purposes of the European convention. If they are not, they are at least quasi-criminal in our view, because the accused could be subject to unlimited fines and perhaps thrown out of the industry. The European Court of Human Rights is more likely to treat the proceedings as if they were criminal, rather than merely civil issues in this context. Quite apart from the European convention, it is a matter of English law that the prosecutor—as the FSA describes itself in the new regime—should give the accused access to all the evidence that it has, even if, or perhaps especially when, it is helpful to the accused.

There are two key principles. One is the principle of natural justice. The second is the need for the legislation not to be bowled out quickly if it is to be operative. We believe that that will happen unless the Bill addresses the point raised by the amendment.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has put the points clearly and succinctly on what can be reasonably expected as a matter of legal fairness and in terms of whether or not the Government's proposals comply with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The question at issue is whether, unless the amendment is accepted, the Government's proposals will give the accused—of whatever name or description—a fair trial.

It is now fundamental to our law, happily, that where someone is accused of something, those acting as prosecutor should disclose all relevant documents, and should particularly be astute in disclosing any relevant documentation or other information in their possession which would assist the accused. The failure to do that on many occasions in the past underlies a large number of the serious miscarriages of justice with which we have had to wrestle over the past 15 years.

The FSA will be an extremely powerful body. We do not object to its power—we are raising questions about the manner in which it exercises that power. It is important that these matters of quasi-prosecution-whether they come under a civil or criminal heading—should be conducted with scrupulous fairness. The FSA should follow rules that are likely to lead to fairness in practice.

I await with interest what the Minister says on the cogent points that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has made and which I have sought to support.

Mr. Timms

These amendments fulfil an undertaking that we gave in Committee to table amendments to rationalise the decision-making procedures across the Bill as a whole. They do not just makes things neater and more consistent, but clarify a number of important issues raised during the Bill's passage.

I wish to refer to the nature of the tribunal. Following our consultation on the Bill in 1998, we amended it to make clearer the first instance nature of the tribunal. However, concern was raised that we had not eliminated all room for doubt, so we have gone further. The amendments to part IX make absolutely explicit the ability of the tribunal to consider any evidence that it considers relevant. The amendments also make it absolutely clear that disciplinary decisions and decisions to withdraw authorisation or approval cannot take effect while the matter is still open to review by the tribunal or higher courts.

Supervisory decisions, such as the imposition of requirements under part IV while a possible threat to the interests of consumers is evaluated, can take effect before that point—as Opposition Members acknowledged in Committee that they must—but only where the particular grounds for the action justify it taking effect earlier.

We have replaced the various separate provisions dealing with notices for payment with a single provision in amendment No. 522—a concern raised by Opposition Members. The amendments make clear that the FSA cannot publicise the actions it proposes in warning and decision notices while the matter is open to review. I refer hon. Members to amendment No. 523, as there has been confusion on that point.

In line with the recommendation of the Joint Committee, publication is generally required when any proposed action does take effect to ensure the necessary degree of transparency. However, information may not be published if that would be unfair or would prejudice the interests of consumers.

The amendments also include extended provisions, giving rights of access to material held by the FSA in disciplinary-type cases. We have taken on board representations made to us by the Law Society and Opposition Members. These rights would include not only the material on which the FSA relied in reaching its decision, but material it considered but did not rely upon, or which it obtained in the course of an investigation into the matter and which it considered may assist the other party.

Those are generous rights of access, going beyond those generally available in administrative proceedings. They are modelled on those that apply in criminal cases, and we have introduced them for these cases to reflect the wide range of powers and sanctions under the Bill.

5.30 pm

Lords amendment No. 101 is a consequential change arising from the transfer of the official listing function. Other amendments in this group are consequential changes arising from the alignment of the sanctions for market abuse under part VIII with those available under parts V and XIV.

Lords amendments Nos. 134, 135, 137, 138 and 140 make consequential changes to the procedural provisions in part VIII to reflect the wider range of available sanctions.

I believe that the House will welcome these changes, which show how ready we have been to listen to the points made by the industry, other interested bodies and opposition parties, and how we have worked to improve the Bill at a technical level.

The amendment to Lords amendment No. 59 is identical to one that was debated in another place and my response will be along similar lines to the points made there.

When the authority grants a permission or variation in terms that the applicant has requested, that amounts to granting an application so the procedure that applies is the simple written notice procedure under clause 50(4) and not the warning/decision/final notice procedure under clause 50(6)(a).

That includes requirements imposed on the permission under clause 47 when those requirements are requested by the applicant. When the request is made after the initial application is made but before it is determined, that should not delay the date on which the applicant will be able to benefit from the new permission. Equally, when the applicant asks for permission narrower than that originally sought, there is nothing to prevent the FSA from treating that as an application for the narrower permission and proceeding to grant it through the simple written notice procedure.

The important point is that the amendment to Lords amendment No. 59 is unnecessary and, moreover, unhelpful because it casts doubt on whether clause 50(4) would apply in that situation. I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that a person should be able to accept the requirements that the FSA proposes to impose if it grants the application. In practice. that will be achieved by the FSA telling the applicant that it is minded to impose a requirement, and the applicant will be able to accept the requirement either by submitting a notice under clause 50(3) withdrawing the application and a new application reflecting the requirements, or by submitting an application under clause 49(2) for a variation along the lines proposed by the FSA. In either case, the Bill allows appropriately streamlined procedures to apply, enabling the application to be suitably expedited.

The substance, although not the precise wording, of the amendment to Lords amendment No. 526 is also familiar from debates in another place. It would require a summary of any material withheld to be given to a person on whom the FSA proposes to impose a penalty. Subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause that amendment No. 526 will introduce will enable the FSA to withhold material in certain circumstances.

Requiring the FSA to provide a summary of any such evidence would be going too far. Subsections (4) and (5) require notice to be given of the fact that material is being withheld on grounds that it is subject to privilege, or because the FSA has taken the view that access would be unfair or against the public interest. When such a view has been reached, subsection (5) also requires those reasons to be included in the notice. That will enable the person who is subject to the notice to consider whether he should refer the matter to the tribunal, but, in line with the general approach under other legislation, notice will not be given of material that is excluded because it has been intercepted under a warrant or indicates that such a warrant has been issued.

I should remind the House that the FSA does not itself make use of such warrants, but in the interests of effective co-operation between law enforcement agencies we cannot exclude the possibility that it may have access to such material.

The summary that the amendment to the Lords amendment would require would appear to have to cover material withheld under any of the cases set out in subsections (2) to (5) of the new clause. It cannot be right that the FSA should give anyone a summary of material that indicates the existence of an interception warrant, material obtained under such a warrant or information that is subject to legal professional privilege, including legal advice, or is subject to public interest immunity—for example, because it suggests the existence of an informer. Even if the amendment applied only to material considered for comparative purposes under subsection (2), it still would not be right.

To the extent that the consistency of FSA decision-making is properly a matter for public concern, ample material will already be in the public domain on which to judge consistency with the FSA's general policy. The FSA will have to consult on and publish a statement of its policy on financial penalties. It will also publish material on the disciplinary actions it has taken in its annual report each year. That material will also be available to the tribunal, but the primary focus of the tribunal's decision will properly be the merits of the particular case before it. It is the merits of the case against which the proposed penalty must ultimately be judged.

Hon. Members asked about the position with regard to the European convention. Convention rights will be fully met at the stage at which a reference is made to the tribunal, including rights of access to evidence. That is the fair and impartial tribunal required by article 6, before which, and for the purposes of which, evidence will be disclosed. The new clause introduced by the amendment to amendment No. 526 would go further than we are required to go by the convention and further than it is sensible to go. I hope that the House will resist that amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 250.

Division No. 211] [5.37 pm
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Allan, Richard (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Amess, David Key, Robert
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Baker, Norman Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Baldry, Tony Lansley, Andrew
Bell, Martin (Tatton) Leigh, Edward
Bercow, John Letwin, Oliver
Beresford, Sir Paul Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Blunt, Crispin Lidington, David
Boswell, Tim Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Brady, Graham Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Brand, Dr Peter Llwyd, Elfyn
Brazier, Julian Loughton, Tim
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Browning, Mrs Angela MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) McIntosh, Miss Anne
Bums, Simon MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Burstow, Paul Maclean, Rt Hon David
Butterfill, John McLoughlin, Patrick
Cable, Dr Vincent Madel, Sir David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Major, Rt Hon John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Chidgey, David May, Mrs Theresa
Clappison, James Moss, Malcolm
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh) Norman, Archie
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Oaten, Mark
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Collins, Tim Öpik, Lembit
Cotter, Brian Ottaway, Richard
Cran, James Page, Richard
Curry, Rt Hon David Paice, James
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) Paterson, Owen
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Pickles, Eric
Day, Stephen Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Randall, John
Duncan, Alan Redwood, Rt Hon John
Duncan Smith, Iain Rendel, David
Evans, Nigel Robathan, Andrew
Fabricant, Michael Robertson, Laurence
Fallon, Michael Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Fearn, Ronnie Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Flight, Howard Ruffley, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Foster, Don (Bath) Sanders, Adrian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman Sayeed, Jonathan
Fraser, Christopher Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gale, Roger Shepherd, Richard
Gill, Christopher Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Gray, James Soames, Nicholas
Greenway, John Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Grieve, Dominic Spicer, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Spring, Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Hammond, Philip Steen, Anthony
Hawkins, Nick Swayne, Desmond
Heald, Oliver Swinney, John
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David Syms, Robert
Horam, John Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Taylor, Sir Teddy
Jenkin, Bernard Trend, Michael
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Tyrie, Andrew
Viggers, Peter
Keetch, Paul Walter, Robert
Wells, Bowen Yeo, Tim
Whitney, Sir Raymond Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Whittingdale, John
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd Tellers for the Ayes:
Willetts, David Mr. Peter Luff and
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) Mr. Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) Clifton-Brown.
Ainger, Nick Donohoe, Brian H
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Doran, Frank
Alexander, Douglas Drew, David
Allen, Graham Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Atherton, Ms Candy Edwards, Huw
Austin, John Efford, Clive
Battle, John Ellman, Mrs Louise
Bayley, Hugh Ennis, Jeff
Beard, Nigel Field, Rt Hon Frank
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret Fisher, Mark
Begg, Miss Anne Fitzpatrick, Jim
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Benton, Joe Galloway, George
Berry, Roger Gapes, Mike
Best, Harold Gardiner, Barry
Betts, Clive George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Blackman, Liz Gerrard, Neil
Blears, Ms Hazel Gibson, Dr Ian
Blizzard, Bob Godman, Dr Norman A
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul Godsiff, Roger
Borrow, David Goggins, Paul
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Golding, Mrs Llin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Bradshaw, Ben Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Brinton, Mrs Helen Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Grogan, John
Buck, Ms Karen Gunnell, John
Burgon, Colin Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Butler, Mrs Christine Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Campbell—Savours, Dale Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Cann, Jamie Healey, John
Caplin, Ivor Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Caton, Martin Heppell, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Hinchliffe, David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Hope, Phil
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Hopkins, Kelvin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Howells, Dr Kim
Clelland, David Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Clwyd, Ann Humble, Mrs Joan
Coffey, Ms Ann Hurst, Alan
Coleman, Iain Hutton, John
Connarty, Michael Iddon, Dr Brian
Corbett, Robin Illsley, Eric
Corbyn, Jeremy Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Cousins, Jim Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Crausby, David Jamieson, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Jenkins, Brian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch) Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack Johnson, Miss Melanie
(Copeland) (Welwyn Hatfield)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Darvill, Keith Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Davidson, Ian Keeble, Ms Sally
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dawson, Hilton Kelly, Ms Ruth
Dean, Mrs Janet Kemp, Fraser
Denham, John Khabra, Piara S
Dismore, Andrew Kidney, David
Dobbin, Jim King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Kingham, Ms Tess Rowlands, Ted
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie Roy, Frank
Laxton, Bob Ruddock, Joan
Leslie, Christopher Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Levitt, Tom Ryan, Ms Joan
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) Salter, Martin
Linton, Martin Sarwar, Mohammad
Lock, David Savidge, Malcolm
Love, Andrew Sawford, Phil
McAvoy, Thomas Sedgemore, Brian
McCabe, Steve Shaw, Jonathan
McDonagh, Siobhain Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Macdonald, Calum Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McDonnell, John Skinner, Dennis
McIsaac, Shona Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary Smith, John (Glamorgan)
McNamara, Kevin Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
McNulty, Tony Soley, Clive
MacShane, Denis Southworth, Ms Helen
Mactaggart, Fiona Steinberg, Gerry
McWilliam, John Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mahon, Mrs Alice Stoate, Dr Howard
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury) Stringer, Graham
Marshall-Andrews, Robert Sutcliffe, Gerry
Martlew, Eric Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Maxton, John (Dewsbury)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Michie, Bill (Shef'd Heeley) Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Miller, Andrew Temple-Morris, Peter
Moffatt, Laura Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Moonie, Dr Lewis Timms, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret Tipping, Paddy
Mountford, Kali Todd, Mark
Mudie, George Touhig, Don
Mullin, Chris Trickett, Jon
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Naysmith, Dr Doug Turner, Neil (Wigan)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Olner, Bill Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
O'Neill, Martin Tynan, Bill
Organ, Mrs Diana Walley, Ms Joan
Palmer, Dr Nick Ward, Ms Claire
Pearson, Ian Wareing, Robert N
Pendry, Tom White, Brian
Perham, Ms Linda Whitehead, Dr Alan
Pickthall, Colin Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Pike, Peter L (Swansea W)
Plaskitt, James Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Pond, Chris Wills, Michael
Pope, Greg Winnick, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Wood, Mike
Purchase, Ken Woodward, Shaun
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce Worthington, Tony
Quinn, Lawrie Wyatt, Derek
Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) Tellers for the Noes:
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) Mr. Jim Dowd and
Rooney, Terry Mrs. Anne McGuire.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64 agreed to.

Forward to