HC Deb 12 December 2001 vol 376 cc895-911

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 7, line 7, after "authority" insert to a relevant public authority".

Mr. Blunkett

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

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this, we may take the following: Lords amendment No. 6 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 38 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 43, Lords amendment No. 44 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 47, Lords amendment No. 48 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 49 to 64.

Mr. Blunkett

First, and in the interests of brevity, I shall describe the way in which we want to proceed this evening and subsequently in the House of Lords. Many things have been said outside the House, but the tone of debate on Second Reading and in Committee was one of constructive dialogue among people rightly querying, scrutinising and, where appropriate, opposing. Tonight and tomorrow, I want to proceed in the same spirit from the Government Front Bench to seek to allay fears and to find common ground where it exists, disagreeing only where we genuinely do so.

There have been misunderstandings from time to time, but the Human Rights Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, individual Members and parties have made suggestions here and in the House of Lords that we have taken on board, whether on sunset clauses or reviews or on reasonableness or links with terrorism. We have adjusted the justice and home affairs provisions. We have included consultation and, where appropriate, affirmative resolution. We have sought to accommodate where we can the genuine concerns of Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords. I intend to try to do so as we proceed tonight.

I must make it clear, however, that no one would understand a position whereby we failed to take the necessary action and, having so failed, were later proved to have failed to provide the necessary protections. That is the spirit in which I intend to proceed.

At the end of September, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out why, on part 3 and parts 10 and 11, we need to be clear about the interrelationship of one set of actions with another: Global terrorism and organised crime are now inextricably linked. The boundary between terrorist activity and criminal activity has become increasingly blurred. The fingerprints of terrorism lie on the drugs dealt to our children on street corners as surely as they lie on the plans to destroy the World Trade Centre …We need to combat the link between international crime and terrorism. I agree, which is why we ask that parts 3, 10, 11 and 13, with the provisos that we shall deal with tonight, be returned to the House of Lords in a form that restores the previous intentions.

I ask the House to reject Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8, because they would confine what is possible to what directly or indirectly relates to a risk to national security or to a terrorist. We do not believe that it will be possible for people to do their jobs appropriately if those confining mechanisms are put in place. Our law enforcement agencies, the services that provide support to them and our security services have given us a clear understanding that if the Lords amendments are approved by the two Houses, they will simply not be able to do their job. On part 10, the Lords amendments as framed would set the situation back rather than help people to do a better job. I give an example on part 3 in relation to the interchange of information, the knowledge that exists and the way in which people react.

7.15 pm

Take an employment agency that is being inspected. The inspectors come across information relating to an individual seeking to take up a particular, sensitive job. It is discovered that that person has claimed large amounts of benefit. Let us call him Mr. AQ, just as an example of someone who might seek to do that. According to the framing of the House of Lords proposal, it would not be possible for that information to be shared. No one outside the House would thank us if we so restrained information giving and the sharing of concerns that Mr. AQ continued to draw benefits. It would be illegal to pass on the information required.

Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam)

I fail to understand the Secretary of State's reasoning. If it were suspected that Mr. AQ is involved in terrorism and a threat to national security, under the terms of the Lords amendment the information could be shared. On the other hand, if we wanted to investigate Mr. AQ for benefit fraud, surely the correct way to deal with that would be through benefit fraud legislation, not anti-terrorism legislation.

Mr. Blunkett

But we would not know; that is the point. A Mr. AQ is investigated for a range of activities, including massive benefit fraud, and discovered—he may be discovered, let us put it no more strongly than that—to be involved in or even wanted by security and intelligence services elsewhere. That is just a possibility, which even those on the Liberal Democrat Benches might concede to be fairly close to reality.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

Does the Home Secretary not realise that a wide gate is opening, through which comes this proposition? Anyone suspected of any crime, or indeed anyone against whom there is evidence of any crime, may have applied to them the full rigour of measures that we could not justify for inclusion in normal criminal legislation. There is just a possibility, unsupported by evidence, that he might have a terrorist intention, but surely that is not the purpose of the Bill. Its purpose is to enable the authorities, if they have such a suspicion of a terrorist involvement, to bring into play powers not normally thought proportionate to the crimes involved.

Mr. Blunkett

I would not dream of doing to the right hon. Gentleman what Lord Ackner did to me on radio on Sunday—patronise him. Let me put it this way: the interchange described by the Leader of the Opposition on 26 September is the one that I am referring to, and I want to send it back to the House of Lords for reconsideration. I have described a tightening of the noose.

Take Customs and Excise rightly intervening on those who seek to smuggle, be it drugs, people or tobacco. It suspects that someone is undertaking a crime, but it needs to be able to share information, even if it has no proof. Remember that, in those particular circumstances, judicial review and the normal protections of the legal fraternity fall into play. There may be no suspicion of terrorist activity, but Customs and Excise needs to be able to share information with law enforcement agencies, knowing that a great deal of drug smuggling and other activity leads to the funding of terrorism, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly pointed out.

Mr. Fisher

Can the Home Secretary explain how a suspicion may be arrived at if there is no proof of any sort against such a person?

Mr. Blunkett

Obviously, it must be late in the day and late in the week, because I am struggling to understand why my hon. Friend feels that a body involved in such dealings—as Customs and Excise is day in, day out—that had a reason to pass material to the police would do so other than because it suspected that something was amiss. [Interruption.] No, no. The restriction being imposed, if my hon. Friend would kindly read what the Lords have done, restricts to the point where a body has to suspect that a terrorist act is in the offing.

Mr. Fisher

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Blunkett

In a second.

I know that my hon. Friend is trying to help me and to ensure that the position is clarified so that the law enforcement agencies can do their job effectively, irrespective of whether he feels that there should have been a separate Bill. I refer him to schedule 4, which contains a list of disclosure powers that would allow investigation, all involving a different time scale and a different premise. Before the Lords amended it, the clause sought to harmonise arrangements for the sharing of information in a way that would assist the apprehending of terrorists. That is where we started on Second Reading, and it is where we are today.

I think that we have made some progress, in that many who were worried are now less worried. In the Lords great confusion arose, rather than clarity, but we have sought to deal with that by discussing the data protection provisions that can be brought into play. It may help my hon. Friend and Opposition Members, however, if I say what I think we should also do.

As well as referring to the Data Protection Act 1998, we have indicated that the Human Rights Act 1998 would protect people from unjustifiable intrusion. Because—as has just been illustrated—there has been so much worry and suspicion, my colleagues and I feel that we should ask our colleagues in the Lords, when they consider these measures tomorrow afternoon and evening, to clarify what we believed, and still believe, to be automatically the position under the Human Rights Act: that proportionality should apply in relation to the use of the powers we are discussing, so that a judgment can be made on whether those using them have taken into account the proportionality of their suspicions.

7.15 pm
Norman Baker (Lewes)

Does the Home Secretary accept that there may be disclosures, or sharing, of information of which an individual has and can have no knowledge, and that that individual will therefore be unable to invoke the Human Rights Act?

Mr. Blunkett

Yes. That is why my amendment helps: rather than having to apply the Human Rights Act retrospectively, or rely on agencies' familiarity with the terms of the Act, people would be able to understand the meaning of "proportionality" if it were built into the legislation and the guidance issued to such agencies.

We want to ensure that the Bill stands the test of time, and later we will discuss how Members might be accommodated in that regard. Given that we are trying to be helpful, it would assist us if others were helpful to us. I understand the suspicion that is felt; I understand why it is right for every Member, whatever side he or she is on, to ensure that the Executive are challenged and scrutinised. Given that I am trying to be helpful, however, I hope that my efforts will be reciprocated, because tomorrow night we must make decisions that will indeed stand the test of time.

Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire)

The Home Secretary knows that I broadly support what he is trying to achieve in this regard, but I want to ask him a question that has, in part, already been asked from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Lords amendment No. 6 concerns national security and terrorist activity, which, as the Home Secretary says, are frequently linked. However, it uses the word "suspects", rather than referring merely to evidence. I wonder whether the Home Secretary is not going too far in opening the gate wider, and whether his lawyers may not have lead him to believe that the word "suspects" is wide enough to encompass what he is trying to achieve.

Mr. Blunkett

As I have said, we are building the concept of proportionality into the Bill. There are many "suspicions"; the action taken on the basis of those suspicions is the crucial issue, given that we are authorising action through the law. I think that if we can coalesce in ensuring that the suspicion leading to such action is proportionate, we can allay some fears.

We are resisting amendment No. 38, which relates to part 10, and Nos. 40 and 44, which relate to part 11. Our reasons concern the interface between what is needed to tackle terrorism directly and the picking up, as it were, of lines that lead to an understanding of how to pursue terrorists through a knowledge of organised crime and the actions of our services.

Some Members have expressed concern about the extension of powers. As I said in Committee, we have reflected and have sought to allay their fears—for instance, in regard to the use of Ministry of Defence and British Transport police in areas outside their immediate jurisdiction. We have provided for the involvement of the Police Complaints Authority—in future, the independent Police Complaints Commission—in the event of problems, and the Bill already provides for considerable restraints.

The House of Lords—inadvertently, of course; no one would have done this intentionally—has made the use of the MOD and British Transport police even more difficult than it is now. This week a British Transport police officer went beyond his jurisdiction at Finsbury Park station to help a serving Metropolitan police officer who was being attacked by a man with a knife. Both were quite seriously injured. British Transport police helped to restrain the man, who is now in custody.

No one, whatever their feelings or suspicions, would want us to constrain the ability of British Transport police to take such action; nor would they want the MOD police to be constrained if an aircraft crashed outside their jurisdiction, and they were called upon to help. Those are the terms in which we describe what we seek to do in regard to the extension of powers. There will clearly be some restraint, and some reference to the jurisdiction of either the emergency or the local police force.

I feel that, in trying to ensure that people did not go too far, the House of Lords has gone much too far itself. Let me give another example relating to parts 10 and 11. Those who have investigated these issues have no doubt that credit fraud, for instance, is a favoured method of fundraising among the terrorists groups with which we are dealing: that is a simple, known fact. Under our proposals, someone who believed that fraud had been committed at a restaurant but had no reason to connect it with terrorism would be able to share information. The enforcement agencies and security services are familiar with such activities, and with the networks involved in them, and can immediately pick up what traditional forces cannot do without the passing on of such information.

Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)

I have the impression that the Home Secretary is digging a bigger hole for himself. The security services must liaise with the police. They must be able, in camera and in confidence, to give the police information. The police will then have a suspicion—a legitimate suspicion.

Mr. Blunkett

If the amendments were passed, that would be the case if they believed there was a terrorist threat, but not if they had suspicions that led to an understanding of a terrorist threat. [Interruption.] It is no use the Liberal Democrats giggling—[Interruption.] Laughing, then. I mistook a gurgle for something else. [Interruption.]

Mr. Fisher

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Blunkett

Not for the moment.

It appears that the Liberal Democrats were not laughing, giggling or gurgling—in which case they were expressing amazement that it might actually be desirable to link one set of information with another in order to apprehend those whom we are discussing.

Simon Hughes

The Home Secretary knows that we are trying to agree on the terms of reference. We understand that credit fraud, for example, may be linked with terrorism. Our proposition is that the suspicion has to be that there is a direct or indirect link and that, provided it comes within that ambit, the amendment passed in the Lords would be sufficient. Will he consider that? We would reasonably consider the point that he has made that the Bill should not further restrict organisations such as the MOD or the transport police, although that has never been the intention. If he thought about the one, we would certainly think about the other.

7.30 pm
Mr. Blunkett

I am continuing to think. I have already indicated to both the shadow Home Secretary and to the hon. Gentleman that I will continue listening and thinking for the next 24 hours until we can secure agreement on the Bill between the two Houses, but it is not possible for someone dealing with the apprehension of and therefore the passage of information on drugs to know that there is an indirect or a direct link until that is investigated by the enforcement agencies. That is the nub. How can they have a suspicion that that particular activity leads back to the al-Qaeda, to the GIA or to one of the other major international terrorist outfits? They cannot Amendment No. 48 relates to part 13. We seek to include paragraphs (d) and (e). The convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters would be a third pillar measure under subsection (1). It is a simple facilitation of the sharing of video information, making that easier and increasing the speed with which it can be done, paragraph (e); relates to the Schengen acquis, which includes Norway and Iceland as well as the European Union. I hope that over the next 24 hours we will be able to persuade both colleagues in this House and those in the House of Lords that those two additions, together with the sunset clause at the end of June, all the provisos that we have built in and the ability to test that we are not sneaking something through, get the matter right.

Let no one misunderstand what we are doing. I have read articles and heard speeches that have linked issues that are not in the Bill with what we are debating tonight and have debated over recent weeks. I have heard people link the Bill with the European arrest warrant time and again. Even the shadow Home Secretary, for whom I have much time and who has been honest on these matters, did that in his article in The Guardian on Friday. The Daily Telegraph—God bless it; it does not normally pick things up from The Guardian—seemed to repeat the calumny, although not in his name, on Saturday. An enormous amount of suspicion has been generated about what the Government may or may not be seeking to do. What we are certainly not trying to do is delude anyone tonight.

Mr. Letwin

I unreservedly welcome the tone in which the Home Secretary has addressed the House. We started these debates with six big issues, shared between the Liberal Democrats and ourselves. On at least two and a half, arguably three, the Government have made sensible movement and we have arrived, I think, at an acceptable solution.

We have three to go. Those relate to seven of the 126 clauses of the Bill. It is important to remind ourselves that we are arguing only about seven of 126 clauses. If we continue the argument in the spirit that the Home Secretary exhibited this evening, we are likely to arrive at a resolution.

I want to dwell on the logic that the Home Secretary was exposing and to try to demonstrate why Conservative Members are still unconvinced, but before I do so I should say that his offer to move towards the application of a proportionality test is taken in the spirit in which it was clearly intended: as a serious and constructive move. We will need to study whatever amendment is tabled to that effect in the Lords. There are present in the Lords people of great legal learning who will no doubt be able to advise that House and us about whether it will indeed have sufficient protective effects to make it an acceptable variant. If it is, we will accept it. We do not wish to press the Government to the point of breaking if we can avoid doing so.

It will help materially in advancing that debate if I expose as clearly as I can—many speaking in interventions have already begun to do so—exactly why we are unconvinced by the Home Secretary's logic. We absolutely accept that there are links between terrorism and other forms of crime. The Home Secretary has rightly quoted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's remarks about that. We also accept that when the security services, the police or both have a suspicion that someone is involved in terrorism. it may be extremely important to them to be able to trace through a daisy chain of minor circumstances patterns that will enable them to apprehend terrorist groups or particular individuals linked to terrorism.

Moreover, we accept—although this is not a point that the Home Secretary has made, it would be a legitimate one—that from time to time, the Al Capone strategy may be sensible. It may be sensible to apprehend a terrorist, a suspected terrorist or someone suspected of links to terrorism on the basis of some minor charge discovered by ferreting out some other aspect of that person's activities, even where it is not possible to prove that they are linked to terrorism. It may be possible to prove that they have engaged in some other minor felony. We accept a chain of logic that runs from the suspicion by the authorities that someone is in some way linked to terrorism to the disclosure of a wide range of information from 81 different agencies and quangos to the authorities about that person. Exceptional strains and risks demand exceptional measures.

The Lords amendments work on exactly that logic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) pointed out, the Lords amendments—I take the example of amendment No. 6 but many others are to the same purpose—say specifically that if the authorities believe or suspect that the disclosure may be of information that directly or indirectly relates to a risk to national security, the floodgates are open. They do not need to believe it. They need only to suspect it. They do not require the suspicion to be reasonable. They merely have to suspect it. They do not need to suspect that the person is a terrorist. They do not even need to suspect that the person is directly linked to terrorism. They merely need to suspect that the person is indirectly linked to terrorism. That is about as wide as their lordships could have cast the net.

I still fail to understand what must be genuine logic on the part of the Home Secretary's advisers, otherwise I cannot imagine why he would be going to an awful lot of fuss and bother to defend the proposition. I genuinely cannot understand how, if the trigger for opening the doors to such massive disclosure is merely the necessity that the authorities suspect an indirect link to terrorism, there can be any real restriction on their activities.

Denzil Davies (Llanelli)

I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is arguing, but in all fairness the Home Secretary asked a question towards the end of his speech, I think in relation to amendment No. 6 and the word "suspect". It may be difficult, or so the argument goes, for a public authority that is not involved in the murky world of pursuing terrorists and suspected terrorists. That public authority may not have any information at all on the basis of which to suspect anything. Is that not the problem that the Home Secretary was trying to point out?

Mr. Letwin

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had many arguments about constitutional points; we have mainly been on the same side. He needs to look at the next passage of amendment No. 6. It does not require the authority that holds the information to engage in the disclosure voluntarily. It rightly permits relevant authorities—the security services and the police—if they have such a suspicion, to request the information; indeed, it gives them the right to demand that information in circumstances in which they have that suspicion. Whereas the Home Secretary would be right if only the first part of Lords amendment No. 6 existed, the argument does not run in the light of the second part.

I do not make that argument in an attempt to create a confrontation where one may no longer exist. If the Home Secretary, regardless of the validity or otherwise of his logic, can produce a proportionality test that fully convinces their lordships and ourselves that no individual will suffer a trawling exercise by the authorities when he or she is being pursued for a minor offence, possibly committed in another country, we may be willing to accept the clause—despite not understanding the logic. However, it would be helpful if between now and tomorrow the Government could for the first time explain why the logic that I have just exposed is not fallacious.

The Home Secretary made the argument that the amendments made by the Lords to part 10 would have the effect of restricting the powers of the Ministry of Defence and British Transport police more than was the case before the Bill was introduced. If that is so, it is unintentional and I accept that it is not something that we wish to legislate to do at present. I hope that over the next 24 or 36 hours we will find a solution to that problem.

The Home Secretary did not rehearse the history, which is well known to him, of how we came to this set of amendments on part 13. I shall briefly rehearse it, in order to explain our current position. We began with a proposition that any decision reached at intergovernmental level on criminal justice under the framework of the third pillar of the EU could be enacted in British law through an order subject to a 90-minute debate in Committee. The Home Secretary is right to say that I have argued in public that that could have meant that the European arrest warrant was adopted by those means. I have always tried to acknowledge that the Home Secretary gave us an assurance that the European arrest warrant would not suffer that fate, because it would be introduced in the extradition Bill. What concerned my colleagues and me was that the Home Secretary would have taken a reserve power under this Bill and, if we were to seek—as we will—to amend the extradition Bill to restrict greatly the scope of the European arrest warrant, he could have told us that we were being naive because he had that reserve power to enact it in a 90-minute debate and that, if necessary, he would use it. That position would have been intolerable. Luckily, the Attorney-General has now given an assurance from the Dispatch Box in the House of Lords—which is as binding and solemn an assurance as one can get from the Government—that that will not happen. As the Home Secretary said, clauses 110 and 111—as they appeared in the Lords—have been limited to June 2002 and our fears about the future are removed. That is a major step forward.

Since that time, the Government have introduced amendments to Lords amendment No. 48 that would have the odd effect of reintroducing, in paragraphs (d) and (e), the convention on mutual assistance and certain of the Schengen acquis provisions. I was not sure that I fully grasped the full implications of the Home Secretary's statement, although on the basis of intimations in the other place I hope that I have rightly discerned that when the Bill returns to the Lords we may see paragraph (e) removed and/or some firm assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Schengen acquis will also be brought in through the extradition Bill instead of by order and a 90-minute debate. If that assurance is given, we would not seek to overturn the amendment in the other place. If that assurance is given tonight, we would not seek to overturn it tonight—not that I suffer from any illusion that we could overturn any amendment in this House—so we would not seek to vote against it.

7.45 pm

It is critical that we should have an equal assurance on the question of the Schengen acquis to the one we have had on the European arrest warrant and on all decisions that may be made under the third pillar beyond June 2002. If we can rest easy on that point, we will have achieved a major improvement in British law from the position we faced on Second Reading. I hope that we will also be able to achieve such improvement in relation to the disclosure provisions. I do not want to have been part of a Parliament that brought about a situation in which a British policeman had the capacity to obtain every record on an individual because of a traffic offence that could have been committed in Baltimore, Ohio. That would not be tolerable and we need to change it. If the Home Secretary finds a way to change that, we will accept it.

Norman Baker

I, too, welcome the Home Secretary's constructive comments and the approach that the Government have taken to the Bill in the past 48 hours. It is welcome that he wishes to find common ground and we and, I believe, the Conservatives share that aspiration. The Home Secretary said that he has tried to be helpful and I hope that he will feel that we are also trying.

The Government are entitled to respond to the international situation and to introduce legislation to deal with unexpected and emergency threats from terrorism. That is common ground. If the Home Secretary can achieve a Bill that will do that, he will have the support of the House and the country. The dispute, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out, is on a relatively small area of the Bill. The question is whether in the legitimate and correct pursuit of legislation to deal with terrorism it is appropriate to include provisions that would effectively give a green light to excessive state interference in the lives of ordinary citizens. Seeking to suspend some of them is an odd way in which to seek to protect our civil liberties. I ask the Home Secretary to reflect on that paradox. The drugs taken to cure an illness sometimes cause complications worse than the original illness. Reactions must be proportionate—and the Home Secretary used that word himself tonight.

I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and the hon. Member for West Dorset a failure to understand why the Home Secretary is determined to introduce measures that do not deal with terrorism or the threat to national security directly or indirectly—which is a wide target—but would address any criminal activity. For example, clause 102 states that the code of practice could contain provision for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime". It does not refer to terrorism or threats to national security, or even to serious crime, which might deal with people who smuggle cigarettes.

Mr. Blunkett

I have two questions for the hon. Gentleman. Have we not now agreed to the code being made on an affirmative order so that it can be examined automatically by both Houses? Secondly, have we not tried to show that data cannot be held—held, rather than just exposed—on the presumption of the holders that they can distinguish whether it will be required for terrorism or for crime? The provision is as broad as it is because the data have to be accessed when there is a suspicion of terrorism. If the data were not held, access would not be possible.

Norman Baker

We welcome the Home Secretary's approach with regard to the affirmative order, as I hope I made clear earlier. However, in respect of the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the Bill states that part of its purpose is the detection of crime. The use of the word "purpose" has wide connotations.

I thought that the Bill's purpose was to deal with the terrorist threat, not the threat of crime. That is the difference that divides Government and Opposition Members. The Government want to reverse amendments made in the Lords, but there are serious worries that the Bill would place us in contravention of article 8 of the European convention because of the range of offences covered and the lack of statutory criteria to guide decisions. Another problem is the lack of procedural safeguards.

The Home Secretary mentioned the proportionality test. It was a helpful suggestion, and shows that he recognises that proportionality has to apply in these matters. However, the human rights legislation already contains the necessary proportionality, so with the best will in the world, I cannot believe that the Home Secretary is adding much to the existing arrangements. At best, he is spelling them out.

It has already been said that the Lords amendments are quite wide ranging. Amendment No. 6 states that the information may relate directly or indirectly to any risk of national security or to a terrorist. In an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked what reason there might be for taking advantage of the measures that the Home Secretary wants in the Bill if there is no suspicion.

Mr. Michael Weir (Angus)

I am confused by the argument about disclosure. If there is no question of suspicion of terrorism, what is the trigger for disclosure of information? If organisations and people properly investigating terrorism act on the precautionary principle, might not they be unnecessarily swamped by disclosures if the trigger is not inserted in the Bill?

Norman Baker

I absolutely agree. The Home Secretary should be seeking a rapier, but he appears to want a blunderbuss. That may lead to the intelligence services being swamped, and require them to undertake inquiries with police forces that will detract from their proper work of dealing with terrorism. The proposal may therefore be counterproductive and ineffective.

Last week, the Home Secretary challenged the police service to improve its performance and raise detection rates. The worry is that the police, in looking for every means to do that and ensure that criminals are brought to justice, will be tempted to fish for information from various authorities if they do not have enough evidence otherwise. No hon. Member would support such fishing expeditions. Moreover, there is a possibility that other authorities, including the security services, will be asked for data without much justification.

Simon Hughes

Last year, when we debated the Bill that became the Terrorism Act 2000, we agreed to give the authorities much wider powers than normal to deal with serious activity. Many people outside the House are worried that it would be unhelpful and invasive of citizens' liberty to equate serious crime that is terrorism-linked with the motoring offences referred to by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), or with sex offences or public drunkenness. All such matters are subsumed under one head, but does my hon. Friend not agree that they should be distinguished one from another and placed into categories such as "serious", "terrorist-related", and so on?

Norman Baker

My hon. Friend is right. Everyone wants to deal with the threat of terrorism. People are prepared to accept that that may require measures whose impact on civil liberties is in excess of what we would normally condone, but they are not prepared to accept measures which go far further and which might impact on people with no connection with terrorism whatever.

The Home Secretary must find a way to ensure that people who need to be apprehended and prevented from carrying out acts of terrorism or from posing a threat to national security are dealt with effectively. However, he must do so without infringing those civil liberties that the House is seeking to defend by introducing the Bill in the first place. I do not think that the Home Secretary has got that balance right yet.

Mr. Allan

I am very interested in my hon. Friend's argument, but the question of workability was raised earlier and it is important. Does my hon. Friend share the concerns about clause 102 that have been raised by communication service providers? They fear that the Government will end up with legislation that will be unworkable for the security forces, as it would require very close co-operation between technicians and Government in dealing with large amounts of data. Under the present proposals, that co-operative spirit does not exist.

Norman Baker

The Government have proposed a code of practice and changed the terminology used in the Bill. It is sensible to produce a draft code of practice in advance, and I give the Home Secretary credit for that. However, it is worth noting the many objections expressed by the communications industry, and the Confederation of British Industry. The CBI is normally the Government's best friend, but it objects to some parts of the Bill. It is unusual to receive representations from the CBI in connection with a Home Office Bill, so it is clear that the matter is one for business as well as for the civil liberties groups that have contacted us at great length.

The worry is that, without any suggestion that national security or terrorism is involved, almost anyone suspected of any activity can trigger the type of investigations involving data sharing that more properly relate to national security and terrorism.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Beverley Hughes)

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully, but will he confirm that he realises that we are talking not about the power to access information, but about clarifying the legal position of the communication service providers in retaining data? As for workability from the point of view of the communication service providers, will the hon. Gentleman explain how the link with national security will work to help those providers decide to retain certain data? How will they distinguish data that might be shown to be linked to a national security inquiry, and other data that might be shown not to be so linked?

Norman Baker

Opposition Members do not draft legislation. We draft amendments and point out faults in the Government's proposals. It is for the Government to produce measures that are proportionate and meet the objectives that they have set out. Opposition Members' duty is to point out disproportionate measures that could have a huge impact on civil liberties. It is up to the Government to respond to the concerns expressed in this debate, among Labour Back-Benchers, in the other place and elsewhere that the Bill is disproportionate and could have deleterious effects.

Beverley Hughes

I should like to press the hon. Gentleman a little further on the second question that I put to him. Representations received by the Home Office from communication service providers deal with the question of how they could make work measures that are limited only to national security. The Bill gives service providers a legal power to retain data, but their problem is how to distinguish data that might be shown to be linked to national security from data that are not. The providers say the amendment is not workable.

Norman Baker

The Minister advances an odd proposition. The Government must produce a code, and they must consult to ensure that it meets the objections that the Minister has expressed. She proposes that, because one person may be caught in a particular net, we should catch all information relating to any person who happens to be near that net because that person may fall into the category that the she has set out. That is an odd suggestion. It confirms the unease felt by many hon. Members that the Government are less than focused when it comes to the question of who should be caught by the Bill.

Simon Hughes

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I am a lay person on this issue. However, if I were a user and transferrer of data, I might one day send entirely innocent communications that were totally unrelated to crime and the next day send information that might be related to crime. How would the providers be able to distinguish between what I do today and what I do tomorrow? It is not a practical proposition to expect them to be able to do that. The burden on the Government is to show that their proposal is practical, but we have not been persuaded that it is.

8 pm

Norman Baker

My hon. Friend makes the point very well, and the Government have to respond to it over the next 24 hours or so if they are to convince us and others that theirs is the right way forward.

I do not wish to take much more of the House's time, because I know that other Members wish to speak. However, the House of Lords has done us a favour by considering the Bill in rather more detail than we have had the time for. If the House authorities had provided more time for Second Reading and the Committee stage in this House, we would not have had to consider the range of amendments that the Lords have made to the Bill. I hope that the Government will learn the lesson that they should give the Commons more time for Second Readings and Committee stages and should not rely on the House of Lords to do the work that should be done initially in this place.

I hope that the Government will also reflect on the fact that the new and modified House of Lords, which is the Prime Minister's own creation, has inflicted a huge number of defeats on the Government in relation to this Bill. Even though there was agreement on the principle as to where we want to get to, it inflicted those defeats by very large majorities. I hope that the Government are listening to that—I think they are—and will reflect on the specific, focused points that the House of Lords has made. We are not convinced that it is appropriate to have such a wide-ranging definition in the Bill. We therefore support the Lords amendments and we hope that the Government see their merit.

We welcome the movement that the Government made in the House of Lords on third-pillar matters and particularly on sunset provisions and on the improved and more specific wording. We, too, are at loss as to why the Government have tabled amendments to the Lords amendments and, in particular, want to insert paragraph (e) to Lords amendment No. 48. Such provisions are too far reaching and are not merited under the emergency provisions in the Bill. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, I hope that the Government will consider withdrawing that provision.

We support the Lords amendments. We hope that the Government will take a few more steps towards making the Bill the one that we all want it to be—one that deals effectively with terrorism, but without taking away our civil liberties.

Mr. Fisher

I join others in thanking the Home Secretary for his constructive and courteous attitude. It set a helpful tone for the debate and recognises that both sides of the House agree with his objective, which is to get at terrorists and ensure that they do not go undetected. That aim unites us all.

When the Minister responds to the debate, will she say something more about the relationship between suspicion and disclosure? Surely, for a variety of reasons, if suspicion is to be targeted on the objective that we all share, it has to be based on evidence. If it is not, it will be a loose and free-ranging suspicion that will lead to many of the unfortunate and ineffective consequences that other hon. Members have described.

Such an approach involves not only a good principle of legal practice but, as Opposition Members have said, makes good practical sense. Of course, the Home Secretary made the perfectly fair point that the relationship between crime—and sometimes even misdemeanour—and terrorism is complicated and that the one may lead to the other. We all agree that there is a link that may be helpful in detecting terrorism and in bringing terrorists to justice.

When the Home Secretary gave the example of credit card fraud, he appeared to encourage the idea that anyone who identified such fraud should bring it to the attention of the security forces. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out, that would lead to the most absurd situation in which the police and the security forces would be deluged with unhelpful and unfocused information that would all have to be sifted just in case those committing fraud were involved in terrorism.

Surely, to provide practical help to the security forces and to the police, there must be a more evidential base to suspicion than simply the existence of a misdemeanour or crime. Unless we support the Lords amendment and focus more on the problem than the Bill's wording does, we will not assist the security forces and the police to focus their concerns on the things that matter and not on generalised suspicions.

I may have misunderstood the position. As the Home Secretary knows, I am not a lawyer. However, because of that real danger, I intend to support the Lords amendment unless he can reassure the House and those of us who still have reservations about, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, relatively few aspects of the Bill. We need to be reassured that the provisions for suspicion focus on the main objectives and will not lead to a trawl through many types of crime in a way that will not help the security forces to achieve the aim that we all share of identifying terrorists and bringing them to justice.

Mr. Burnett

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we cannot live in a Stalinist world in which every Tom, Dick and Harry reports this, that or the other? Something must precipitate the inquiries. There must be suspicion and that suspicion will almost always be related by the security forces to the police, who will then be able to act according to the terms of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Fisher

I concur entirely with the hon. Gentleman. However, as I have nothing more to add, I shall draw my remarks to a close.

Beverley Hughes

I wish to reply to some of the points that hon. Members have raised. Clearly the common thread in these Lords amendments is the extent to which there is a link between terrorism and non-terrorist crime. However, the fettering of the proposed powers in the Bill to deal with only those crimes that relate to national security or terrorism would be a serious impediment to the police and the other law enforcement agencies getting at terrorists.

Simon Hughes

We just do not accept that the current terms of the Bill, with the width of the door through which people can go, can be fettered in the way that the Minister suggests. When we considered the Terrorism Act 2000, the Government never made the case that any crime could be linked to terrorism. It is a totally new argument that does not appear to be supported by the facts.

Beverley Hughes

The Government disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that. The key issue is the point at which public authorities, communication service providers or the police have to make the decision about using the powers in the Bill. They will or will not be able to foresee a link between terrorism and crime. The point that the law enforcement agencies strongly stress is that, at that stage, faced with information or a body of evidence, an assessment is often extremely difficult, until pieces of information from different sources start to be put together and the picture of the jigsaw that might point to terrorism can emerge.

Simon Hughes

indicated dissent.

Beverley Hughes

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the amendments would prevent the pieces of that jigsaw from being put together. They would prevent the accumulation of data that would allow the authorities to begin to see a link with terrorism.

Mr. Fisher

Surely the Minister is simply describing good police detective practice—something that already happens in criminal law and in the detection of other terrorist acts. It happened throughout our attempts to prevent terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. It is good detective practice to bring together disparate pieces of information. From what the Government have said, they have not demonstrated that new powers are necessary.

Beverley Hughes

My hon. Friend is correct: that is the premise of good detective work. However, without access to the information—or if the information is not volunteered, as many of these provisions would allow—the piecing together of that information and the execution of that detective work cannot take place, or cannot do so within a time scale that would be beneficial in the investigation of terrorism.

In relation to the disclosure powers in part 3, I remind Members that the provision merely harmonises existing provisions in the Acts listed in schedule 4. Some of the provisions relating to three particular Acts already allow for disclosure for criminal investigations: the Utilities Act 2000, and two measures passed under Conservative Governments—the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. Those measures already allow for disclosure at the investigative stage for criminal investigations.

The provision is not new; it merely provides that the measure will pertain throughout those gateways. Instead of having to wait for the start of proceedings—as is the case with some of the other provisions in the schedule—it will be possible for information to be passed throughout all the gateways. The matter will already have been debated by the House and agreed procedures will already have been laid down in statute for the passage of that information. There will be a process of harmonisation, enabling those Acts to be used to share information—not necessarily at the proceedings stage, but at the investigation stage.

Mr. Letwin

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government's proposed paragraph (e) to Lords amendment No. 48 on the Schengen acquis will be removed to the extradition Bill?

Beverley Hughes

We have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are considering it carefully, and we may be able to make some progress on that point that we can announce tomorrow.

In relation to parts 10 and 11, I refer again to some of the points I made to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and remind Members that we are not talking about access to communications data but the power of the providers to retain that data and—

Mr. Allan

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Beverley Hughes

I am sorry I cannot; I have only one minute to conclude my remarks.

Providers need the assurance that if they decide to retain data, the data will be legally retained, so the Lords amendment is not workable because it will create confusion, and communication service providers will not have the legal assurance that they need and that the clause is designed to give them.

In relation to part 10, we want the police to have the judgment of hindsight. It is not possible for them always to know where something will lead, so it is important that they have powers to investigate and identify criminals even when they cannot be absolutely certain that there is a terrorist link.

It being fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [19 November and this day].

Lords amendment disagreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 48 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment No. 6:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 213.

Division No. 107] [8.16 pm
Abbott, Ms Diane Barron, Kevin
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Battle, John
Ainger, Nick Bayley, Hugh
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE) Begg, Miss Anne
Alexander, Douglas Beggs, Roy
Allen, Graham Benton, Joe
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald Berry, Roger
(Swansea E) Best, Harold
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) Betts, Clive
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Blackman, Liz
Atherton, Ms Candy Blears, Ms Hazel
Atkins, Charlotte Blizzard, Bob
Austin, John Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Bailey, Adrian Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Baird, Vera Borrow, David
Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington) Foster, Michael (Worcester)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Bradshaw, Ben Foulkes, George
Brennan, Kevin Francis, Dr Hywel
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon Gapes, Mike
(Dunfermline E) Gardiner, Barry
Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
(Newcastle ES Wallsend) Gerrard, Neil
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Gibson, Dr Ian
Bryant, Chris Gilroy, Linda
Buck, Ms Karen Godsiff, Roger
Burden, Richard Goggins, Paul
Burnham, Andy Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Burnside, David Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard Grogan, John
Cairns, David Hain, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Caplin, Ivor Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Casale, Roger Hanson, David
Caton, Martin Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Cawsey, Ian Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)
Challen, Colin Havard, Dai
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) Healey, John
Chaytor, David Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough) Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Clark, Dr Lynda Hendrick, Mark
(Edinburgh Pentlands) Hepburn, Stephen
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Heppell, John
Clarke, Rt Hon Charles Hermon, Lady
(Norwich S) Heyes, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) Hill, Keith
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) Hodge, Margaret
Clelland, David Hoey, Kate
Clwyd, Ann Hood, Jimmy
Coaker, Vernon Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Coffey, Ms Ann Hope, Phil
Coleman, Iain Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Colman, Tony Howells, Dr Kim
Connarty, Michael Hoyle, Lindsay
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)
Corston, Jean Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cousins, Jim Humble, Mrs Joan
Cox, Tom Hutton, Rt Hon John
Crausby, David Illsley, Eric
Cruddas, Jon Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)
Cummings, John Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Jenkins, Brian
Cunningham, Tony (Workington) Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Dalyell, Tam Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Jones, Kevan (N Durham)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dawson, Hilton Joyce, Eric
Dean, Mrs Janet Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Denham, Rt Hon John Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dhanda, Parmjit Kelly, Ruth
Dismore, Andrew Khabra, Piara S
Dobbin, Jim Kidney, David
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank Kilfoyle, Peter
Donohoe, Brian H King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Doran, Frank King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Dowd, Jim Knight, Jim (S Dorset)
Drew, David Kumar, Dr Ashok
Drown, Ms Julia Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Lammy, David
Edwards, Huw Laxton, Bob
Ellman, Mrs Louise Lazarowicz, Mark
Ennis, Jeff Lepper, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead) Leslie, Christopher
Fitzpatrick, Jim Levitt, Tom
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Flint, Caroline Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek Linton, Martin
Love, Andrew Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Lucas, Ian Roche, Mrs Barbara
Luke, Iain Rooney, Terry
Lyons, John Ross, Ernie
McAvoy, Thomas Roy, Frank
McCabe, Stephen Ruane, Chris
McCafferty, Chris Ruddock, Joan
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian Ryan, Joan
McDonagh, Siobhain Salter, Martin
MacDonald, Calum Sarwar, Mohammad
MacDougall, John Savidge, Malcolm
McFall, John Sawford, Phil
McGuire, Mrs Anne Shaw, Jonathan
McIsaac, Shona Sheridan, Jim
McKechin, Ann Short, Rt Hon Clare
McKenna, Rosemary Simon Siôn,
Mackinlay, Andrew Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Mactaggart, Fiona Smith, Angela (Basildon)
McWalter, Tony Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
McWilliam, John Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)
Mahmood, Khalid Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mallaber, Judy Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mann, John Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) Soley, Clive
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Spellar, Rt Hon John
Merron, Gillian Squire, Rachel
Michael, Rt Hon Alun Starkey Dr Phyllis
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan Steinberg,Gerry
Miliband, David Stevenson, George
Miller, Andrew Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Moffatt, Laura Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mole, Chris Stinchcombe, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Moran, Margaret Straw Rt Hon Jack
Morgan, Julie Stringer, Graham
Morris, Rt Hon Estelle Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mountford, Kali Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mullin, Chris Sutcliffe, Gerry
Munn, Ms Meg Tami, Mark
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)
Naysmith, Dr Doug Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) Timms, Stephen
O'Hara, Edward Todd, MarK
Olner, Bill Touhig, Don
O'Neill, Martin Trickett, Jon
Organ, Diana Truswell, Paul
Osborne, Sandra (Ayr) Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Owen, Albert Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Palmer, Dr Nick Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Pearson, Ian Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Perham, Linda Tynan, Bill
Picking, Anne Vis, Dr Rudi
Pickthall, Colin Walley, Ms Joan
Pike, Peter Ward, Ms Claire
Plaskitt, James Watts, David
Pollard, Kerry Whitehead, Dr Alan
Pond, Chris Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Pope, Greg (Swansea W)
Pound, Stephen Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) Winnick, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) Wood, Mike
Prescott, Rt Hon John Woodward, Shaun
Prosser, Gwyn Woolas, Phil
Purchase, Ken Worthington, Tony
Purnell, James Wray, James
Quin, Rt Hon Joyce Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Quinn, Lawrie Wright, David (Telford)
Rammell, Bill Wyatt, Derek
Rapson, Syd
Reed, Andy (Loughborough) Tellers for the Ayes:
Robertson, John Mr. Fraser Kemp and
(Glasgow Anniesland) Mr. Tony McNulty.
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) Gidley, Sandra
Allan, Richard Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Amess, David Goodman, Paul
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael Gray, James
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James Grayling, Chris
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Green, Damian (Ashford)
Bacon, Richard Green, Matthew (Ludlow)
Baker, Norman Greenway, John
Baldry, Tony Grieve, Dominic
Barnes, Harry Gummer, Rt Hon John
Baron, John Hammond, Philip
Barrett, John Harvey, Nick
Beith, Rt Hon A J Hawkins, Nick
Bellingham, Henry Hayes, John
Bennett, Andrew Heald, Oliver
Bercow, John Heath, David
Beresford, Sir Paul Hoban, Mark
Blunt, Crispin Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Boswell, Tim Holmes, Paul
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Horam, John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Brazier, Julian Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Breed, Colin Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Brooke, Mrs Annette L Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Browning, Mrs Angela Jenkin, Bernard
Bruce, Malcolm Johnson, Boris (Henley)
Burnett, John Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)
Burns, Simon Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Burstow, Paul Keetch, Paul
Burt, Alistair Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Butterfill, John (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Cable, Dr Vincent Key, Robert
Calton, Mrs Patsy Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Cameron, David Kirkwood, Archy
Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y) Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies Laing, Mrs Eleanor
(NE Fife) Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Carmichael, Alistair Lamb, Norman
Cash, William Lansley, Andrew
Chidgey, David Laws, David
Chope, Christopher Leigh, Edward
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth Letwin, Oliver
(Rushcliffe) Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Liddell-Grainger, Ian
Collins, Tim Lidington, David
Conway, Derek Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy Llwyd, Elfyn
Cotter, Brian Loughton, Tim
Cran, James Luff, Peter
Davey, Edward (Kingston) McDonnell, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) McIntosh, Miss Anne
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) Maclean, Rt Hon David
Djanogly, Jonathan McLoughlin, Patrick
Dodds, Nigel Malins, Humfrey
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Doughty, Sue Mates, Michael
Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton) Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Duncan, Peter (Galloway) Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Evans, Nigel May, Mrs Theresa
Fabricant, Michael Mercer, Patrick
Fallon, Michael Moore, Michael
Field, Mark (Cities of London) Moss, Malcolm
Fisher, Mark Murrison, Dr Andrew
Flight, Howard Norman, Archie
Flook, Adrian Oaten, Mark
Forth, Rt Hon Eric O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Foster, Don (Bath) Öpik, Lembit
Francois, Mark Osborne, George (Tatton)
Gale, Roger Ottaway, Richard
Galloway, George Page, Richard
Garnier, Edward Paice, James
George, Andrew (St Ives) Paisley, Rev Ian
Gibb, Nick Paterson, Owen
Pickles, Eric Swire, Hugo
Price, Adam Syms, Robert
Prisk, Mark Tapsell, Sir Peter
Pugh, Dr John Taylor, John (Solihull)
Redwood, Rt Hon John Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute) Taylor, Sir Teddy
Rendel, David Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Robathan, Andrew Thurso, John
Robertson, Angus (Moray) Tonge, Dr Jenny
Robertson, Hugh (Faversham) Trend, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)
Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford) Tyler, Paul
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) Tyrie, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion Viggers, Peter
Ruffley, David Walter, Robert
Russell, Bob (Colchester) Watkinson, Angela
Salmond, Alex Webb, Steve
Sanders, Adrian Weir, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan Whittingdale, John
Sedgemore, Brian Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Selous, Andrew Wiggin, Bill
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Shepherd, Richard Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Simmonds, Mark Willis, Phil
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) Wilshire, David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk) Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Skinner, Dennis Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) Wishart, Pete
Spicer, Sir Michael Yeo, Tim
Spink, Bob Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Spring, Richard Younger-Ross, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Steen, Anthony Tellers for the Noes:
Streeter, Gary Mr. Andrew Stunell and Mr. Charles Hendry.
Swayne, Desmond

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8, 38, 40 and 44 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 7, 39, 41 to 43, 45 to 47 and 49 to 64 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Forward to