Supplementary Vote on Account 2000–01

HC Deb 14 March 2000 vol 346 cc170-81

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words `(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.—[Mr. McNulty.]

3.41 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

This matter caught my eye when it was first sneaked on to the Order Paper on Friday. When I read the motion, I began to muse on why the Government would wish to table something that contained the phrase shall apply as if the words for the consideration of the House, especially on a Friday afternoon. I began to wonder whether some skulduggery was involved.

I am delighted that the procedures of the House allow for a full and proper debate on the matter which, as I hope to illustrate, is rather more important than the Government believe. The provenance of the motion is, I believe—subject to any correction—Standing Order No. 54, which states:

Three days, other than Fridays, before 5th August, shall be allotted in each session for the consideration of estimates. One of the most important elements of the relationship between the House of Commons and the Executive was always the consideration of the provision of Supply by the House of Commons to the Government. I submit that anything that relates to that should be the subject of a full debate. However, the motion appears to provide—I am, of course, open to correction when the Minister replies—for the matter to be debated in substance but only under the condition that there is no debate after 10 o'clock. That will not do. I suspect that the main business today, which includes several amendments and Third Reading, means that there is only a very slim chance that the substance of later motions will be discussed before 10 o'clock.

The motion that we are being asked to approve will probably allow later motions to slip through without proper debate. That cannot be acceptable. The helpful introductory note to the supplementary vote on account states: The Vote on Account provides finance to allow existing services to continue during the early months of the coming financial year, pending Parliament's consideration of the main Supply Estimates. In other words, the motion is a mechanism to allow government to function and to allow the continued spending of moneys before the House has a proper opportunity fully to consider the matters.

Rather impertinently, it goes on: The amounts in the Vote on Account are normally a standard 45 per cent. of the amounts already voted for the corresponding services in the current year. That is all very cosy. There is not much opportunity for the House of Commons to give proper consideration to the substance of what it is being asked to agree. The motion was slipped in on Friday, and again late last night. Thanks to the eternal vigilance of an hon. Member whom I am too modest to name, it is now—rightly—the subject of debate on the Floor of the House. However, the motion states that there can be no debate after 10 o'clock, and that makes me suspect that the Government believe that the matter will not be properly considered.

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

A moment ago my right hon. Friend demanded a full debate on this matter, but has he noticed that the Leader of the House is not present, even though the motion is in her name? Her deputy, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, is here, however. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government must ensure that the debate continues for as long as is needed for the right hon. Lady to hop, skip and jump to the Chamber?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend is normally a charitable man, but he is probably being a bit hard on the Government. I am a fair man, and must concede that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in whose name the vote on account motion has been tabled, has been courteous enough to attend. I am confident that he will give us a full reply to this debate. Perhaps the Leader of the House's deputy will tell us about the procedural matter, and then the Financial Secretary will tell us something about the substance of the motion.

The final page of the document from which I have quoted leaves me rather confused. The table listing the allocation to votes contains two salient figures. The first is the sum of £7 million, the existing provision voted on account. The second figure is the real substance of the matter—a sum of £1,000 that is to be added to the estimates.

Normally, I am prepared to go a long way to accept matters at their face value, but that second figure tries me to the limit. The Government have tabled a separate motion, under the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 54 and 55, and it has appeared in the Order Paper on three successive days. When passed, it will secure for the Government additional funding of £1,000. That seems rather odd.

It is the small size of the Government's request that leads me to think that we should be a given a full explanation. I do not believe that the Treasury is that strapped for cash, as we are led to believe that it is rather flush right now. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will expatiate on the Government's war chest before he explains why he needs the House to vote him an extra £1,000.

I raise these questions because I do not know the answer to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he seeks to detain the House over a sum of £1,000. The footnote to the final table in the document states that the sum includes provision for expenditure on the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate which is being set up under the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate Bill which received Third Reading in the House of Lords on 3 February 2000. That is a little teasing. If the Government can set up such an inspectorate for £1,000 I shall be more impressed than I usually am at their efficiency. However, if the Minister assures me that that is what he is going to do, I shall be the first to vote for the proposal, to demonstrate the gratitude of the taxpayers of Bromley and Chislehurst. I will take a bit of persuading, however, because something tells me that that is not necessarily the whole story.

I would like to think that we could have debated the substance later in the day. However, as we will probably not be able to vote on it later in the day—because one way or another, I suspect that we will get to 10 o'clock without that opportunity arising—we need to know why the Government are trying to sneak through this measure, whatever the amount may be, without being sufficiently confident of their case to give it a proper opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House. Those are the questions that I want to ask today.

3.50 pm

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I would like to refine what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has just said. The House is indebted to him for his eagle-eyed attention to the business. At least four questions need to be specifically addressed.

First, footnote a. to the estimates tells us what is really happening. We are told that the sum shown includes provision for expenditure on the crown prosecution inspectorate. When the word "includes" appears, we can be quite sure that other matters may be included as well. Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to tell us whether any other items of expenditure fall outside that provided for under the crown prosecution inspectorate? Otherwise, the word "includes" would be otiose.

My second point is about substance. We are being asked to vote £1,000 on account of the crown prosecution inspectorate. I am the first to believe that the inspectorate is a very worthy organisation, but we are entitled to know a little more about it. How many officials are we sanctioning? What will be its annual cost? How many officials have so far been recruited? When does the expenditure start? If we are being asked to vote money, we have a right to answers to those questions.

Mr. Forth

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend does not assume or expect that the expenditure has already started, since we have not yet approved it. Presumably, he is anticipating it as future expenditure.

Mr. Hogg

I never make concessions of that kind in favour of the Government. My right hon. Friend raises a very fair point, and I hope that Ministers will address it. We need to know how many staff there will be, when they will be recruited, and when the money will start to be spent.

Mr. Bercow

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be a matter of legitimate concern to the House if, in anticipation of the likely approval of the sum of money, applications for staff had already been received, or advertisements in pursuit of staff had been made by the inspectorate? If the House decided not to approve the sum in question, there would be a number of disappointed and angry people with reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government.

Mr. Hogg

Interestingly, that point leads to my next question—namely, the relationship between a money resolution and the supplementary estimates. Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to tell us the extent to which the matter has already been covered by a money resolution and, for the purposes of the supplementary estimates before us, the exact relationship between the money resolution, for which he was no doubt responsible, and the supplementary estimates?

Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)

Has not my right hon. and learned Friend touched on the kernel of the matter? The expenditure in question relates not to an Act but to a Bill, and it would probably be better approved during the course of proceedings on the Bill. Instead, the House is being asked to authorise expenditure to a body that is not yet law.

Mr. Hogg

There is a great deal of force in what my hon. Friend says. I have not checked Hansard—that is a failing on my part—but the Ministers who have the conduct of the Bill should have told us of its spending implications when they were taking the matter through the House. They may have done so. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us what he told the House when the Bill was debated on Second Reading.

Mr. Forth

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that much of what has already been said in this brief debate would have been rendered otiose if, at the beginning of it, the Minister had had the courtesy to explain to the House why he wanted the matter to be approved? Instead, he sits in his place—albeit most courteously and patiently—while we speculate on the matter with no information from him.

Mr. Hogg

I shall not accuse the Minister of discourtesy; I, too, have been a Minister, so I know what he was hoping. He hoped that my right hon. Friend would not hop to his feet—not an unworthy hope and one that I understand.

Mr. Bercow

It was unrealistic.

Mr. Hogg

Indeed—but it was not unworthy. The Minister hoped that the matter would go through on the nod. However, happily from the point of view of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst intervened to ask for a full explanation.

We are being asked to approve £1,000. Does it include the cost of printing the motion, or is that an additional cost? In order that the matter may be wholly transparent, what is the cost of printing the document?

3.56 pm

Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry)

I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) initiated a debate on the motion, because it proposes certain changes to departmental expenditure in the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland appropriation order will soon come before the House, but the estimates before us deal with expenditure that falls outwith that order. This debate seems to offer us our only opportunity to consider that increased expenditure. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is impossible—

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to be clear that we are dealing with a procedural motion—not the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. Ross

The procedure of the House is that the estimates deal with expenditures in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members have already referred to expenditure elsewhere. I note that the document refers to expenditure in respect of the Saville inquiry—

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat repetitious. I have warned him. He is considering the wrong estimates.

Mr. Ross

I procured the document before me from the Vote Office; it covers the Northern Ireland Office estimates. They do not fall within the appropriation order for Northern Ireland; they are completely different. We rarely debate them in the House—

Madam Speaker

Order. I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that this is a procedural motion; it relates only to one narrow point. If the hon. Gentleman approaches the Chair, I will give him the documents that he may need. In the meantime, perhaps another Member would like to speak.

3.58 pm

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

I shall try to return to the document that I was given by the Vote Office—I hope it is the same one that you have, Madam Speaker—so that we can have a meaningful dialogue.

One of the greatest responsibilities on the shoulders of all Members of Parliament, and one of our least-used powers, is the scrutiny and control of expenditure. I have been a Member of the House for 13 years, yet I am still amazed at how often we nod through £1 billion here or £1 billion there. I make no apology for talking about this £1,000; with hindsight, I wish that I had spent more time talking about the billions of pounds.

The process of wresting control of expenditure from the Executive has been central to the development of the parliamentary democracy that we now enjoy. If we allow that scrutiny and control to wither completely, we should not be surprised if our parliamentary democracy withered and died as well. It is in that spirit that I put my questions about the document to the Minister.

My first question arises from paragraph 2 of the document's introduction. It states: The main Supply Estimates for 2000–01 will be presented in April 2000. However, a request has been made under that provision before the main estimates appear before us in April. We are entitled to assume therefore that it is a matter of some urgency. However, the Financial Secretary did not have the courtesy to explain to the House what that urgency is. Before we vote on the matter, I hope that he will explain why this £1,000 is so urgent and why it cannot be dealt with at the same time that the House deals with the estimates involving billions of pounds. I am sure that he will understand why I feel apprehensive. Something is going on that we should know about. Will he either tell us what is going on, or put my mind at rest by offering another explanation? We have yet to hear any explanation whatever.

My second concern arises from paragraph 4 of the document's introduction, which says: The Vote on Account may reflect a higher or lower amount than the usual 45 per cent. There is a norm of 45 per cent. for votes on account, but it does not apply to this case. It is an exception and, because it is an exception, there is yet another imperative on the Government to tell us what is so exceptional about the procedure. That would put our suspicious minds at rest. We would then understand the Government's integrity and honesty, if not their openness, when it comes to expenditure. Why does this item not involve the standard amount? We need an explanation.

My third concern relates to sub-paragraph c of paragraph 4. This vote on account is for the sum of £1,000 and sub-paragraph c states that if the Supply Estimate is for a token sum of £1,000 for self-financing services, no Vote on Account provision is sought but the continuation of the services in the new financial year is noted. From that, we are entitled to conclude that this item is not a self-financing exercise because the House's authority, through a vote on account, is being sought. All my concerns about the role of Parliament in our parliamentary democracy are correct. The estimate is not just a matter of accounting to put things right while money is brought in to pay for something that the Government are doing; it is real expenditure of taxpayers' money. However, we have not been told what it is for. We can look through the document for something that relates to the use of taxpayers' money, but we shall not find it. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell us.

The fourth concern arises out of paragraph 5 of the introduction. It refers to a "token Supplementary Vote", and the word "token" is the one that worries me. The Government are using smoke and mirrors. They want us to agree to giving them £1,000 so that they can do what they like. It is not the sum that the Government want, but just a token. Why have they not had the goodness and decency to tell the House what they are up to and what they really want? Instead, they have shuffled forward with a piece of paper saying, "Give us £1,000." They will then continue to do what they wanted to do in the first place. That is no way to treat Parliament and it is no way for an Executive to operate in a democracy; it is an abuse of democracy.

Mr. William Ross

I must confess that I am always confused by the way in which the estimates are written. However, it seems that the class V estimate for the Lord Chancellor's Department is £1,625,000,000, so £1,000 will not keep the Department running for very long.

Mr. Wilshire

That is exactly my point. It is a token sum, and we need to know the real figure.

You will be relieved to hear, Madam Speaker, that I turn now to my fifth and final point, which also arises from paragraph 5. It says: Token additional provision is being sought to draw to the attention of Parliament the intention to use Vote on Account money for the new service specified in the footnote. The Government say that the procedure is being used to draw their intention to the attention of the House, but it was not used to draw anything to our attention; it was used twice to get something through on the nod when nobody was looking, in the hope that we would not notice it. Yet here we have a so-called explanation of a wish to draw something to the attention of the House. I offer no apologies to the House for ensuring that we have a proper debate. That is what the Government want, as the document says.

Mr. Hogg

One way forward for the future might be for the Government to annex to these orders an explanatory memorandum, so we would have the answer in brief form before the debate. We might then know whether we collectively wanted to address the matter on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Wilshire

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. It is essential that we do all in our power to ensure that no Executive—Labour or Conservative—slip money, whether it is £1,000 or £1 billion, past the House, on the nod, late at night. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is to be commended for his vigilance. I feel guilty for not being as vigilant as he is.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I am listening to my hon. Friend extremely carefully. Is not he highlighting to the House, badly attended as it is for this debate, the inadequate way in which it deals with votes on Supply and estimates? Will he take note of the increasing concern expressed not only by the Procedure Committee, which I chair, but the Public Accounts Committee and, what is more, the influential Liaison Committee?

Mr. Wilshire

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wish him well in his endeavours to ensure that this does not happen again. It is absolutely proper that we debate these issues, and it is remiss of the Government to try to slip them through on the nod and to have offered no details at the start of the debate. The document provides no details; it refers simply to a Bill and a figure, which it says is a token.

I suggest that the Government read their history books and note that quite a few members of past Executives have ended up in clink, and one or two have lost their heads trying to defy Parliament on taxation.

4.8 pm

Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)

I join my colleagues in asking questions about the supplementary vote. The Financial Secretary is perfectly entitled to put the request for a supplementary vote before the House, but we are equally entitled to ask questions about it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for ensuring that we are doing so.

As I said earlier, it is unfortunate that the new service that is singled out as the justification for the supplementary vote is being set up by a Bill, rather than an Act that has already been passed. The House may well change the nature of the expenditure involved in the Bill before it becomes an Act. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill has only just arrived in the House, and we have not yet properly debated it or seen the various money resolutions that the Financial Secretary may want to attach to it.

My right hon. Friend may well want to note that paragraph 5 of the Treasury document refers to expenditure for a new service, but the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill says: There is no increase in expenditure as a direct result of the Bill. The Financial Secretary has come to the House, asking for additional resources, when the explanatory notes to the Bill make it clear that it does not involve an increase in expenditure. I can tell the House that the running costs for the inspectorate are some £2.5 million in the next financial year. Of course, the inspectorate exists already. The purpose of the Bill is to put it on a statutory basis.

The explanatory notes are more than helpful. They point out that although there is an increase in expenditure in the next year, that is largely the result of the need for the inspectorate to find accommodation separate from the Crown Prosecution Service.

I repeat: there is no increase in expenditure as a direct result of the Bill. Therefore, I am mystified as to how the Financial Secretary can pick out this item of expenditure and justify it to the House as being needed for the new service specified in the footnote to the table. That footnote specifically states:

Includes provision for expenditure on the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate which is being set up under the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate Bill which received Third Reading in the House of Lords. Precisely because of the confusion about whether new money is required for the inspectorate to be put on a statutory basis, it would have been better to wait until the Bill had been considered by the House. We could have decided whether or not to assent to the money resolution that the Financial Secretary may or may not table to the Bill. However, he has not done that, so all that we can rely on is the proceedings in another place. I suggest that the Financial Secretary should be asked to take the document away and try again.

4.11 pm

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

I am grateful to Opposition Members for providing me with the opportunity to explain the significance of the supplementary vote on account.

I remind the House that the purpose of the vote on account is to provide finance to allow existing services to continue during the early months of the coming financial year, pending the consideration by Parliament of the Supply estimates, which take effect from mid-July. Where it is intended that new services currently before Parliament, like the one mentioned in this brief debate, will be funded between 1 April and the passing of the Appropriation Act, that is drawn to Parliament's attention by means of a footnote. That is the standard procedure for dealing with such matters.

Our Standing Order No. 55(2)(a) covers votes on account and specifies that questions arising from such votes on account should be tabled not later than 6 February. The documentation for the vote on account 2000–01 was submitted last November, and both Houses agreed it on 16 December.

Because the most appropriate vote for the crown prosecution service inspectorate had not been confirmed by last November, the vote on account 2000–01 did not include a footnote referring to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill. I am pleased to tell the House that parliamentary progress on that Bill has been faster than anticipated at that time. A supplementary vote on account for spending in the period from the start of the new financial year until mid-July will make it possible to implement Parliament's decision in respect of the Bill when Royal Assent is achieved.

The motion amends—

Mr. Fallon

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms

I shall give way just once, then I must make progress.

Mr. Fallon

The Minister is referring to progress on a particular Bill. Will he confirm that the House has not yet started its consideration of that Bill?

Mr. Timms

Indeed, but the Bill has reached Third Reading in the House of Lords and is on its way to be considered here. It is normal for initial spending on such measures to be authorised in this way.

The motion amends Standing Order No. 55—

Mr. Hogg

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms

No, I cannot give way again.

Mr. Hogg

Will the Minister give way? He is not short of time.

Mr. Timms

No, I will not give way again.

The motion amends Standing Order No. 55 for today, so that we can take the necessary vote on account resolution with the spring estimates to be considered tonight, rather than with the winter supplementary estimates with which the earlier vote on account was taken. That is the standard procedure to meet the requirements of the House when it has to take estimates at times different from those normally allowed for in Standing Orders. For example, that procedure was adopted in January 1992 when the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was a Minister at the Foreign Office, and a supplementary vote on account was required to provide cover for a late new estimate for the European Communities budget. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman recalls that. The procedure is perfectly standard.

Mr. Hogg

Will the Financial Secretary give way?

Mr. Timms

I shall not give way because I do not want to detain the House longer than necessary.

The procedure is intended to draw Parliament's attention to the fact that the vote on account will be used to fund an important new service as soon as Royal Assent is given to the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill.

Opposition Members also referred to the £1,000 token votes. Again, that is standard procedure; there are 13 in the spring supplementary estimate. They are a device for drawing the House's attention to the intention to incur spending on a new service.

I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 16.

Division No. 104]	[4.16 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Crausby, David
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Allan, Richard	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Allen, Graham	Cummings, John
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Dalyell, Tam
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Darvill, Keith
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Ashton, Joe	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Atkins, Charlotte	Davidson, Ian
Austin, John	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Baker, Norman	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Ballard, Jackie	Dawson, Hilton
Barron, Kevin	Dean, Mrs Janet
Beard, Nigel	Dobbin, Jim
Begg, Miss Anne	Doran, Frank
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Dowd, Jim
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Drew, David
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Bennett, Andrew F	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Benton, Joe	Edwards, Huw
Berry, Roger	Efford, Clive
Best, Harold	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Betts, Clive	Ennis, Jeff
Blackman, Liz	Etherington, Bill
Blears, Ms Hazel	Fearn, Ronnie
Blizzard, Bob	Field, Rt Hon Frank
Borrow, David	Fisher, Mark
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Fitzpatrick, Jim
Bradshaw, Ben	Flint, Caroline
Brake, Tom	Flynn, Paul
Brand, Dr Peter	Foster, Don (Bath)
Breed, Colin	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)	Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Fyfe, Maria
Browne, Desmond	Gapes, Mike
Buck, Ms Karen	Gardiner, Barry
Burden, Richard	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Burgon, Colin	George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Burnett, John	Gerrard, Neil
Burstow, Paul	Gibson, Dr Ian
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen	Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Godman, Dr Norman A
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Godsiff, Roger
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Goggins, Paul
	Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Cann, Jamie	Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Caplin, Ivor	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Casale, Roger	Gunnell, John
Caton, Martin	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Cawsey, Ian	Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Chaytor, David	Hanson, David
Clapham, Michael	Harris, Dr Evan
Clelland, David	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Clwyd, Ann	Healey, John
Coffey, Ms Ann	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Cohen, Harry	Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Coleman, Iain	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Colman, Tony	Hepburn, Stephen
Connarty, Michael	Heppell, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hesford, Stephen
Cooper, Yvette	Hill, Keith
Corbyn, Jeremy	Hinchliffe, David
Cotter, Brian	Hoey, Kate
Cousins, Jim	Hood, Jimmy
Cranston, Ross	Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Hope, Phil	Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hopkins, Kelvin	Morley, Elliot
Howells, Dr Kim	Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Hoyle, Lindsay
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Mountford, Kali
Hurst, Alan	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Hutton, John	Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Iddon, Dr Brian	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Illsley, Eric	Oaten, Mark
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	O'Hara, Eddie
Jamieson, David	O'Neill, Martin
Jenkins, Brian	Öpik, Lembit
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Organ, Mrs Diana
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)	Pearson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Pendry, Tom
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)	Perham, Ms Linda
	Pickthall, Colin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Pike, Peter L
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Plaskitt, James
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Pollard, Kerry
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa	Pond, Chris
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Pope, Greg
Keeble, Ms Sally	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Kelly, Ms Ruth	Prosser, Gwyn
Kemp, Fraser	Purchase, Ken
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)	Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
	Quinn, Lawrie
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)	Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Khabra, Piara S	Rapson, Syd
Kidney, David	Raynsford, Nick
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)	Rendel, David
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Laxton, Bob	Rooney, Terry
Lepper, David	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Leslie, Christopher	Rowlands, Ted
Levitt, Tom	Roy, Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)	Ruane, Chris
Linton, Martin	Ruddock, Joan
Livsey, Richard	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Llwyd, Elfyn	Ryan, Ms Joan
Lock, David	Sanders, Adrian
Love, Andrew	Sarwar, Mohammad
McAvoy, Thomas	Savidge, Malcolm
McCabe, Steve	Sawford, Phil
McDonagh, Siobhain	Sedgemore, Brian
McDonnell, John	Shaw, Jonathan
McFall, John	Shipley, Ms Debra
McIsaac, Shona	Short, Rt Hon Clare
Mackinlay, Andrew	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McNulty, Tony	Singh, Marsha
MacShane, Denis	Skinner, Dennis
Mactaggart, Fiona	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
McWalter, Tony	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McWilliam, John	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Mallaber, Judy	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Soley, Clive
Martlew, Eric	Southworth, Ms Helen
Maxton, John	Squire, Ms Rachel
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Merron, Gillian	Steinberg, Gerry
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Stevenson, George
Miller, Andrew	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mitchell, Austin	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Moffatt, Laura	Stinchcombe, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Stoate, Dr Howard
Moore, Michael	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Moran, Ms Margaret	Stringer, Graham

Stunell, Andrew	Tynan, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Ward, Ms Claire
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Watts, David
	Webb, Steve
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)	White, Brian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Timms, Stephen	Wilson, Brian
Tipping Paddy	Winnick, David
Todd,Mark	Wood, Mike
Tonge, Dr Jenny	Woolas, Phil
Touhig, Don	Worthington, Tony
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)	Wyatt, Derek
Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)	Mrs. Anne McGuire and
Tyler, Paul	Mr. Kevin Hughes.
NOES
Chope, Christopher	Shepherd, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
	Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Donaldson, Jeffrey	Townend, John
Fallen, Michael	Wardle, Charles
Gill, Christopher	Wilkinson, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
	Tellers for the Noes:
Robathan, Andrew	Mr. Eric Forth and
Ross, William (E Lond'y)	Mr. David Wilshire.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply as if the words `(aa) supplementary votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.