FUNCTIONS OF INSPECTORATE

HC Deb 14 November 2000 vol 356 cc843-54

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 4, line 30, at end insert (", provided that no such direction shall merge the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons").

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw)

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

This is the first opportunity I have had to join my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in congratulating the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his appointment.

Let me deal with the drafting—the technical reasons why the amendment should not be accepted—before dealing with the substantive issue. Technically, it is very defective. As the words in brackets suggest, it would lay down in law the impossibility of merging the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. As drafted, it would not achieve that.

Let me now turn to the substantive issue, on which I hope to reassure the House. The power of direction for which clause 7 provides enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the probation service. It has nothing to do with the Prison Service, and it would therefore have no effect.

I have spent rather more years in opposition than any Opposition Member.—

Mr. Hawkins

Not long enough.

Mr. Straw

Too long—although I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 18 years provides good training.

Anyway, having spent some time in opposition, I do not criticise the Opposition for the fact that their amendment is technically defective. Nevertheless, I hope they will accept that it is.

Let me proceed to the substantive issue: whether it would be appropriate to merge the inspecting functions of the chief inspector of prisons with those of the chief inspector of probation.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)

May I return to the question of the drafting?

I understand that the amendment may have technical deficiencies, but I think the Home Secretary's argument was that because clauses 6 and 7 deal with the inspectorate of the probation service, the formulation allowing the option of a merger would not work. That is at best arguable, and, as the Government have not—I think—offered any drafting alternative, I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not consider his technical objections to be related to the substance even of the drafting. There may be a technical problem, but according to my reading, it is not a substantive technical problem—although there is a debate about that.

6 pm

Mr. Straw

I shall come to the substantive issue, which is the important part of this point. I hope to provide reassurance to the House, not least by reference to a written answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) which I gave earlier today. The Lords amendment, which relates only to the functions of local probation boards, would not achieve the desired effect. The Secretary of State would not be prohibited from using the existing statutory provisions—the Prison Act 1952, as amended. They relate to the inspector of probation and therefore allow a single person to combine the functions of both posts.

I come to the substance of the matter. On 9 June in a written answer, I told the House that I was delighted that Her Majesty had consented to extend the appointment of the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, until 2001. I added that Sir David has made a great contribution to our shared goal of ensuring that prisoners are held securely in safe, decent and healthy establishments. I am pleased that he will continue in his role beyond the expiry date of his original appointment. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, Sir Graham Smith, also retires close to the end of July 2001. I added that aligning the dates when both inspectors are to retire, and hence when both posts would become vacant, would give the Government flexibility in considering how best to ensure that the arrangements for inspection of prisons and the probation service best support closer working between the services as well-ensuring that the individual services continue to be inspected rigorously and independently as they have been. I shall be making a further statement to Parliament on this in due course.—[Official Report, 9 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 392–93W]. On 27 July, I announced to the House that I would publish a consultation paper setting out a choice of options for drawing the work of the two inspectorates together. That document, which is entitled "Inspecting the Work of the Prison and Probation Services: Options for the Future", was published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in early August and placed in the Library. It sets out the current arrangements and four options: maintaining current arrangements, establishing terms of reference for the inspection of joint working, sharing inspectors between the two inspectorates, and a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation.

The consultation period ended on 31 October. We told the consultees that their responses would be made public and placed in the Library, unless they objected, and I am making arrangements for that. However, it may help if I summarise those responses, as I have in the written answer that I gave earlier today, and say what decisions have been taken. A majority of consultees favoured some change, including the establishment of terms of reference for the inspection of joint working between the criminal justice agencies and the sharing of inspectors between the inspectorates. By contrast, only small minorities were in favour of either the status quo or the appointment of a single joint chief inspector for prisons and probation.

During the consultation exercise, a helpful scheme was suggested by Her Majesty's chief inspectors of constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, the magistrates courts and the probation and prison services to inspect practice across their boundaries systematically. That scheme, which I hope commends itself to the House, has much to recommend it and the consultation exercise also suggests that it will command broad support. It is therefore the option that I propose to pursue, along with the arrangements canvassed in the consultation exercise for bringing the work of the inspectorates much closer together.

As I made clear in my June answer, we shall have an opportunity to establish new arrangements when both inspectors retire next July. For completeness, it may help if I refer to the concluding paragraph of my written answer. Sir David and Sir Graham have plainly made significant contributions to raising standards in the prison and probation services. I am grateful to them for their work, and I am sure that that is reflected by the House as a whole. In view of the retirements in July next year, I shall advertise both chief inspector posts in the new year. My answer does not refer to the terms of reference of the appointments, but plainly they will take account of the new arrangements for joint inspections of the kind proposed by the five inspectorates to which I referred.

In view of my substantive remarks, I understand some of the anxieties raised in the other place about a single joint inspectorate, and it was right to consult both Houses of Parliament as well as those outside who are interested in the future of the inspectorates. We have run a genuine consultation exercise and have reached conclusions based on how best to take the services forward. I hope that they will command wide support and that the House will accept both the spirit in which I have moved the motion to disagree and its consequence

Miss Widdecombe

I thank the Home Secretary for the tone in which he discussed this important Lords amendment. I see considerable merit in the proposal for a joint inspectorate. Indeed, in the longer term, I see merit in joining the two services. Both serve the aims of criminal justice, but, regrettably, can often pull against each other because, rather than running as a seamless whole, they work as distinct bodies. Furthermore, both provide services that would be better dealt with as part of a seamless whole. For example, our prisons run offending behaviour courses that seek to address drug, alcohol and gambling addictions and temper management. However, the Prison Service often operates in isolation on those courses and people who leave prison have no means of support to implement the strategies that they have been taught. If the services acted more seamlessly, much more aftercare could be provided.

I genuinely see merit in the Home Secretary's proposals and would not want him to think that I lightly dismiss them and his reasons for not accepting the amendment. I can travel quite a long way with him, but I am sure that he accepts that there has been understandable unease in another place and that the consultation suggests that such unease is even more widespread. Therefore, further reassurances are necessary if he is to convince another place that the safeguard that it proposes should not be implemented. For example, the chief inspectors say that only about 25 per cent. of the work is joint and, therefore, the overwhelming majority of that to be inspected would not fall in such a category.

Some of the work carried out between the two services is very different. For example, the Prison Service has a major duty to prevent escapes and security is an important aspect of the inspector's work, as is the provision of a humane regime. Slopping out, time out of cell, visiting facilities, bullying and purposeful regimes are not mirrored in the work of the probation service. Therefore, it is arguable that they deserve separate inspection.

However, there was an underlying suspicion in another place that any merger could simply be a cost-cutting measure designed to save the Chancellor money, rather than to promote excellence in inspection. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friends in another place the Home Secretary's comments about the deficiency of the safeguard that they have inserted, but they were seeking to ensure that such a measure could not happen by stealth and that if the right hon. Gentleman—or, indeed, any of his successors—decided to go ahead with such a merger in future, he or his successor would have to return to Parliament for approval and, therefore, would be subject to the full rigours of scrutiny in both Houses. That being no bad thing, and given the Government' s regrettable tendency sometimes to ignore the House, I find that, on balance, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's disagreement, although I do not want to imply that I would never support—or, indeed, propose—such a merger. I commend the protection of parliamentary scrutiny to the House and, therefore, I agree with their Lordships in the said amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I sense a conviction about the conclusion that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) had a little difficulty arriving at.

I thank the Home Secretary for the timetable, by which we have received the written answer in advance of the debate. That is obviously sensible and helpful.

When I started my job for my party, I was entirely neutral about such matters; I had no pre-conceived view about whether there should be one inspectorate or two. Therefore, I undertook the same exercise as the Government have properly done—namely, I looked for myself, listened to people and sought to form a view according to the information that I was given. In that context, I own up to the fact that I now know much more about the prison inspectorate than about the probation inspectorate, both of which are highly respected. Indeed, both chief inspectors are well regarded, and the House will want to pay tribute to both, as the Government have done.

I say that because I am one of the few Members of Parliament who have had the privilege of spending two days with the inspectorate on a recent inspection of Armley prison, Leeds. That inspection was extremely well done and highly regarded by the prison staff, the management and the inmates. I thank those who facilitated my presence: the inspectorate team and their advisers; the prison management; the new governor of Armley, who was very welcoming, as were her staff; and the prisoners, who, at their instigation, allowed me to sit in, for example, on a sex offender treatment session—obviously, entirely respecting confidentiality—so that I could see how such things proceed. From that and the other prison visits that I have taken part in since starting my job, I have no doubt that the regime and methods are extremely effective for routine and ad hoc inspections.

I share the prisons Minister's view on a controversial issue. For example, as a result of the ad hoc inspections at Brixton—a prison which he and I know relatively well from our present and previous roles—he was right to conclude that the regime could not continue without a threat of severe change. That inspection was largely prompted by complaints, which led to the Minister's visit and decision, so the process appears to work, and I pay tribute to the system.

The Home Secretary was absolutely fair in saying that it is logical to extend the appointments of the occupants of both posts so that they end at the same time, providing the flexibility to consider whether there should be a combined post. I do not dissent from that sensible proposal. There is now a process, to which the Home Secretary has alluded, that will allow both posts to be considered complementarily.

I thank the Home Secretary for undertaking the consultation process. We should thank him for his response to that process; it shows that he listened. He and I occasionally have our run-ins—we even had a mini run-in yesterday—but I hope that I have never said that he does not listen and deal with the arguments. He and his colleagues are always fair in that respect. The consultation has been well carried out in this case. On balance, a persuasive case was put to the Home Secretary. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was persuaded by it.

6.15 pm

I shall cite some examples—first, the experience of people of great competence and experience across all parties who argued for the separation of the inspectorate. In the other place, Lord Windlesham and Lord Hurd, a former Home Secretary, were clear about their views. Among my colleagues, Lord Dholakia, who has huge experience of the Prison Service and of rehabilitation, was clear about his view. There is much weight of experience to suggest that the inspectorates should be kept separate.

I give considerable weight to someone who has been prayed in aid—namely, the Bishop of Lincoln, who is the bishop to the prisons. I have known him since he was my college chaplain at university and greatly respect him for his common sense and straightforwardness. He concluded that the inspectorates should remain separate. A host of the great and the good, and the competent, has come to the same view.

I shall not repeat the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, but there are clearly issues that are expressly to do with custody. The prison regime suggests that much work needs to be done. There is no doubt that the prisons inspectorate has a huge amount of work to do. The Prison Service needs a lot of work and improvement. No one in any of the parties would doubt that the service needs external assessment to keep people up to the mark. Sir Stephen Tumim and Sir David Ramsbotham have been very good at independently criticising the Prison Service and constructive about how to proceed. However, that exercise is wholly different from inspecting what only sometimes overlaps with the work done by the probation service.

The probation service has much more natural liaison with many other agencies, such as the health service, housing and social services, the youth service, the education service and the voluntary sector dealing with drugs and alcohol rehabilitation and so on. All that is different in style and character from dealing with the in-house management of the Prison Service. Therefore, I reached the same view as that which most peers, the Home Secretary and—for the time being, at least—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald have reached: the inspectorates should be kept separate.

The amendment, whether or not it is perfectly drafted, would prevent the policy being changed without Parliament taking that decision. The strength of Parliament's view has been—and the clarity of the conclusion reinforced that view—that the amendment is necessary. Clearly, concern has been expressed in both Houses. The Home Secretary's preferred option clearly has much to commend it, and I accept that it came from the consultation process. It appears that the proposal should be acceptable to the inspector of constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates courts, the probation service and the prisons. Of course, some of their work needs to be done together.

One of the lessons that I learned at Armley the other day was that the procedure for moving people from prison to the outside world still does not work well. That is not a matter of political dispute. I shall not pretend to know many cases, but Armley prison does all sorts of things. It is one of the biggest prisons in the country and acts as a local prison, so prisoners go there on remand and then serve a short period after their conviction. Sometimes the periods are very short—six weeks, or three or six months. I think that the inspection, which was carried out only a couple of months ago, showed that no one who had been a remand prisoner and then served a short period of imprisonment before their release received any pre-release preparation whatever. Some of those people will have broken their drug or alcohol habits inside; others will have had anger problems and been on a course, or have had a history of sex offending, but there was no preparation for their release because they were short-sentence prisoners. As in the films, they walked through the door into the world with their bags in their hands, but without any preparation. That system will not stop reoffending.

Just as, in the health service debate, the link between health and social services is so important, we need to make that link. That means that there needs to be collaboration, but prison and probation, inside and outside, custody and relative freedom are different things. I am glad that the Home Secretary and the Government have said that there will be two separate inspectorates. Our amendment—which, with the right hon. Lady, we will press to the vote—will, I hope, flag up the fact that we want that decision to be changed only by Parliament, not by the Executive without parliamentary authority.

Mr. Straw

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for the way in which they have made their points. I am glad that the decisions on the future of the inspectorate, which I have announced today by way of written answer, appear to have wide support in the House.

I do not disagree with much of what the right hon. Lady said in her opening remarks—certainly her point about the way in which the Prison Service and the probation service pull against each other. We need to get them to operate more as a seamless whole.

I advance an argument not for having a joint inspector, but for recognition of the need for the two services to work much more closely together. Some functions of the probation service are very different from the functions of the Prison Service. There is a substantial difference between the physical incarceration of a category A long-term prisoner and the preparation of a pre-sentence report on a woman who will not face custody, but has severe problems of mental illness—but there is an increasing overlap in the middle. There is an overlap partly because of the need to ensure better connection between that part of the sentence which is served in custody and that part which is served in the community, for all the reasons that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman have mentioned. We need to ensure, say, on drug treatment that there is proper connection. What was once a clear dividing line between punishment in custody and punishment in the community is now much fuzzier at the edges.

For quite a long time, under successive Governments, the Prison Service has allowed people who are in its custody out on temporary release or on licence. It has allowed them, for example, to be in custody, but within open conditions, on trust. The probation service increasingly has a role of enforcement, which in some cases can literally involve the person being confined to a particular area: for example, under home detention curfew or under enforcement provisions of various orders. Therefore, as I say, at the extremes there are differences. In the middle, there is increasing overlap.

Nothing has been done by stealth. I find that part of the argument extraordinary—[Interruption.] It has been suggested that we had better accept the proposal to stop things happening by stealth, just in case. I understand, but nothing has been done by stealth.

I understood the unease that was expressed in the other place. I think that we have dealt with that. I understand the reasons why both Opposition parties want to put down a marker on the issue, but, even if the amendment were passed, it would have no effect. The arrangements that I am putting in place would, I imagine, last in any event for some years. Apart from anything else, no one would wish to be appointed to those important posts without some clarity and certainty about that, but I do not imagine for a second that a future Secretary of State would ever seek to make changes without coming to the House and getting its approval one way or another.

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

The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 166.

Division No. 331]	6.24 pm
AYES
Ainger, Nick	Brinton, Mrs Helen
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Alexander, Douglas
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	Browne, Desmond
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Buck, Ms Karen
Ashton, Joe	Burden, Richard
Atherton, Ms Candy	Burgon, Colin
Atkins, Charlotte	Butler, Mrs Christine
Banks, Tony	Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Barnes, Harry	Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Barron, Kevin	Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Battle, John	Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bayley, Hugh	Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Beard, Nigel	Campbell-Savours, Dale
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Cann, Jamie
Begg, Miss Anne	Caplin, Ivor
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)	Casale, Roger
Bennett, Andrew F	Caton, Martin
Benton, Joe	Cawsey, Ian
Bermingham, Gerald	Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Berry, Roger	Chaytor, David
Betts, Clive	Clapham, Michael
Blackman, Liz	Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Blears, Ms Hazel	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Borrow, David	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Clelland, David

Clwyd, Ann	Heppell, John
Coaker, Vernon	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hill, Keith
Cohen, Harry	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Coleman, Iain	Home Robertson, John
Colman, Tony	Hood, Jimmy
Connarty, Michael	Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hope, Phil
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)	Hopkins, Kelvin
Cooper, Yvette	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Corbett, Robin	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Corston, Jean	Howells, Dr Kim
Cousins, Jim	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cranston, Ross	Humble, Mrs Joan
Crausby, David	Hurst, Alan
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Hutton, John
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Iddon, Dr Brian
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)	Illsley, Eric
	Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire	Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Jamieson, David
Darvill, Keith	Jenkins, Brian
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Davidson, Ian	Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Dawson, Hilton	Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Dean, Mrs Janet	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Denham, John	Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Dismore, Andrew	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Dobbin, Jim	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Donohoe, Brian H	Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Doran, Frank	Keeble, Ms Sally
Dowd, Jim	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Drew, David	Kemp, Fraser
Drown, Ms Julia	Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Khabra, Piara S
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kidney, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Edwards, Huw	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Efford, Clive	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Kingham, Ms Tess
Ennis, Jeff	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Lammy, David
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna	Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Flint, Caroline	Laxton, Bob
Flynn, Paul	Lepper, David
Follett, Barbara	Leslie, Christopher
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Levitt, Tom
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)	Linton, Martin
Foulkes, George	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Gapes, Mike	Lock, David
Gardiner, Barry	Love, Andrew
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	McAvoy, Thomas
Gerrard, Neil	McCabe, Steve
Gibson, Dr Ian	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Godman, Dr Norman A	McDonagh, Siobhain
Godsiff, Roger	Macdonald, Calum
Goggins, Paul	McDonnell, John
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McFall, John
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	McGuire, Mrs Anne
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	McIsaac, Shona
Grocott, Bruce	McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Grogan, John	McNamara, Kevin
Hain, Peter	McNulty, Tony
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	MacShane, Denis
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Mactaggart, Fiona
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)	McWalter, Tony
Hanson, David	McWilliam, John
Healey, John	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Mallaber, Judy
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hepburn, Stephen	Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Marshall-Andrews, Robert	Shipley, Ms Debra
Martlew, Eric	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Singh, Marsha
Merron, Gillian	Skinner, Dennis
Michael, Rt Hon Alun	Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Miller, Andrew	Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Mitchell, Austin
Moffatt, Laura	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Moran, Ms Margaret	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)	Snape, Peter
Morley, Elliot	Soley, Clive
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Southworth, Ms Helen
	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)	Steinberg, Gerry
	Stevenson, George
Mountford, Kali	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mudie, George	Stinchcombe, Paul
Mullin, Chris	Stoate, Dr Howard
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)	Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)	Stringer, Graham
Naysmith, Dr Doug	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Norris, Dan	Sutcliffe, Gerry
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Olner, Bill	Taylor, David (NW Leics)
O'Neill, Martin	Temple-Morris, Peter
Organ, Mrs Diana	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Osborne, Ms Sandra	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Palmer, Dr Nick	Timms, Stephen
Pearson, Ian	Tipping, Paddy
Pendry, Tom	Todd, Mark
Perham, Ms Linda	Touhig, Don
Pickthall, Colin	Trickett, Jon
Pike, Peter L	Truswell, Paul
Plaskitt, James	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Pollard, Kerry	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Pond, Chris	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Pope, Greg	Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Pound, Stephen	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Tynan, Bill
Prescott, Rt Hon John	Vaz, Keith
Prosser, Gwyn	Walley, Ms Joan
Purchase, Ken	Ward, Ms Claire
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce	Wareing, Robert N
Quinn, Lawrie	Watts, David
Radice, Rt Hon Giles	White, Brian
Rammell, Bill	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Wicks, Malcolm
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Roche, Mrs Barbara
Rogers, Allan	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff	Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Rooney, Terry	Wills, Michael
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)	Wilson, Brian
Rowlands, Ted	Winnick, David
Roy, Frank	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Ruane, Chris	Wood, Mike
Ruddock, Joan	Woodward, Shaun
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Woolas, Phil
Ryan, Ms Joan	Worthington, Tony
Salter, Martin	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Sarwar, Mohammad	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Savidge, Malcolm	Wyatt, Derek
Sawford, Phil
Sedgemore, Brian	Tellers for the Ayes:
Shaw, Jonathan	Mr. Kevin Hughes and
Sheerman, Barry	Mr. Graham Allen.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Harris, Dr Evan
Allan, Richard	Harvey, Nick
Amess, David	Hawkins, Nick
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Hayes, John
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Horam, John
Baker, Norman	Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Ballard, Jackie	Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Beggs, Roy	Hunter, Andrew
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Jenkin, Bernard
Bercow, John	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Blunt, Crispin	Keetch, Paul
Body, Sir Richard	Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)	Key, Robert
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Brady, Graham	Kirkwood, Archy
Brake, Tom	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Brand, Dr Peter	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Brazier, Julian	Lansley, Andrew
Breed, Colin	Letwin, Oliver
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Browning, Mrs Angela	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Livsey, Richard
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Burns, Simon	Llwyd, Elfyn
Burstow, Paul	Loughton, Tim
Butterfill, John	Luff, Peter
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cash, William	McIntosh, Miss Anne
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Chidgey, David	McLoughlin, Patrick
Chope, Christopher	Malins, Humfrey
Clappison, James	Maples, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Moore, Michael
Collins, Tim	Moss, Malcolm
Cotter, Brian	Nicholls, Patrick
Cran, James	Norman, Archie
Curry, Rt Hon David	Oaten, Mark
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)	Öpik, Lembit
Day, Stephen	Ottaway, Richard
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Page, Richard
Duncan, Alan	Paice, James
Duncan Smith, Iain	Pickles, Eric
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Nigel	Prior, David
Faber, David	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael	Rendel, David
Fallon, Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Fearn, Ronnie	Robertson, Laurence
Flight, Howard	Ruffley, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Foster, Don (Bath)	St Aubyn, Nick
Fox, Dr Liam	Sanders, Adrian
Fraser, Christopher	Sayeed, Jonathan
Gale, Roger	Shepherd, Richard
Garnier, Edward	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
George, Andrew (St Ives)	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Gibb, Nick	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Gill, Christopher	Spring, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Steen, Anthony
Green, Damian	Stunell, Andrew
Greenway, John	Swayne, Desmond
Grieve, Dominic	Syms, Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hague, Rt Hon William	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hammond, Philip	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Taylor, Sir Teddy	Whittingdale, John
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Tonge, Dr Jenny	Willetts, David
Tredinnick, David	Willis, Phil
Trend, Michael	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tyler, Paul	Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Tyrie, Andrew	Yeo, Tim
Viggers, Peter	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Waterson, Nigel	Tellers for the Noes:
Webb, Steve	Mr. James Gray and
Whitney, Sir Raymond	Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 30 agreed to.