§ 'The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions prohibiting or restricting the use of a symbol, name or emblem used to promote a tobacco product, to promote a non-tobacco product or service except where the business producing the non-tobacco product or service is totally unconnected financially with the business producing the tobacco product and where the primary purpose of which is not to promote a tobacco product.'.—[Mrs. Spelman.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
4.51 pm§ Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 51, in clause 11, page 5, leave out lines 24 to 28.
Government amendment No. 46.
§ Mrs. SpelmanWe now have a rather limited opportunity for hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee to debate the Bill. It was quite a small Committee—we discussed earlier how many people had had a chance to have an input—so this is the big opportunity for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
This is an important new clause, and I am glad that it has survived the culling of several of the important new clauses that we attempted to introduce. Indeed, it was the only one to survive. We are pleased that it has been selected, because it covers an important point.
Under the Bill, the Government are choosing that our nation will go it alone with a ban on tobacco advertising in Europe. We shall be going out on a limb by introducing such a ban. Companies that have hitherto been able to produce goods other than tobacco products—such as clothes, shoes, umbrellas, leather goods, perfumes and other cosmetics—bearing a symbol, emblem or logo similar to one connected with a tobacco product, will find that that is now illegal. That represents an important change in commercial practice, and it is right that we should take the time to debate its impact and workability, and to ask whether the drafting of the Bill is fair to those companies.
If I could characterise the Bill generally, I would say that it meant rough justice for the companies that will have to work with it. As it stands, it is an example of the rough justice dimension of the plan to ban tobacco advertising. The Bill will catch companies with household names, such as Alfred Dunhill, which has diversified substantially into a range of non-tobacco products, with which I am sure hon. Members are familiar. It will also catch companies such as Davidoff, which produces a range of products including cosmetics, luggage, eye-wear, coffee, comestibles and cigars. It began as a tobacconist, but has diversified into those other areas.
183 More worryingly, the Bill will catch companies such as Worldwide Brands International, which has diversified into a range of products that includes clothing, shoes and luggage, but not tobacco accessories. There is nothing in their palette of products that is a tobacco product, by any definition. Such a company, which is completely independent of the tobacco industry, will be caught by the Bill because its products bear an emblem that arguably resembles the logo or emblem borne by a tobacco product. I make no excuse for giving this example again, as I feel that the company is one of those to which rough justice will be meted out.
When the company started, it used the camel logo, with which I am sure Members are familiar, along with the yellow writing associated with the Camel brand of cigarettes. Even at that stage, nothing in the company's range—which included luggage, clothes, shoes and other fashion items—could possibly be described as a tobacco product. However, the company—which is based in both Germany and the United Kingdom—foresaw difficulties with the proposed European directive.
§ Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)What would happen if such an organisation, based in France or Germany, advertised in one of the international newspapers that are now printed in different centres? If it advertised in a newspaper circulating in both Paris and London, what might be the impact on the newspaper circulating in London?
§ Mrs. SpelmanWe shall discuss in detail the predicament of companies operating in more than one market when we reach the next group of amendments.
As I said at the outset, a general problem with the Bill is that the United Kingdom is going out on a limb, and as a result a large number of diverse companies will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. We tried to make the Government aware of that in Committee. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, companies might advertise in more than one market. We tabled an amendment that would remove the competitive disadvantage and make companies free to compete in a global market, and my hon. Friend will note from what the Government say on the next group of amendments that they have conceded in that regard.
I want to concentrate on the brand-sharing problem, however, because I do not think that we have been given a satisfactory answer. I have given the example of Worldwide Brands International, but there are others. When the company learned of the proposed directive banning tobacco advertising, its reaction was similar to that of the Government, who have chosen to go it alone: it made an important investment. It made a conscious decision to change its logo—to change the name from Camel to Camel Active, and to replace the familiar yellow writing that we associate with the brand of cigarettes with a black and white script in a completely different style. It is difficult to illustrate this without useful equipment such as overhead projectors, to which I fear the "mother of all Parliaments" cannot stretch, even in the 21st century.
184 A great deal of subjectivity is attached to the whole question of whether the company's activities would now be banned. The Department has given it to understand that they would, and that its investment in the change of logo will have been in vain.
§ John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland)Why would the company continue to use the name Camel? Is it because it just happened to be there at the time, or was there some other motive?
§ Mrs. SpelmanI cannot answer that question, because I do not sit on the board of the company that made the decision, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is becoming very difficult to find a name that is unique, especially with the advent of the dotcom company revolution. That will make it even more difficult for the provision to work in practice.
The company has appealed to the Government for some guidance, or some amendments to the Bill. In fact—so that companies whose products have nothing whatsoever to do with tobacco, and whose primary purpose is not to promote tobacco, could be more justly treated—the company was encouraged by the Department itself to provide its own amendments. It has made the necessary investment to change its logo from one that much more closely resembles tobacco product logos—but it is still caught by the Bill's provisions.
§ 5 pm
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)I am listening intently to the development of my hon. Friend's argument. She will be aware that, on regulations and statutory instruments, I am a procedural anorak. Can she therefore tell me whether the regulations that would flow from new clause 4 would be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure?
§ Mrs. SpelmanI am sorry to inform my hon. Friend that, although the principal statutory instruments that will flow from the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure, interestingly, an exception, and special arrangements, have been made for the sponsorship agreements—for Formula 1. Perhaps that will encourage him to stay in the Chamber until we debate that matter, if there is sufficient time to do so. The group of amendments on sponsorship is rather far down the list of amendments selected for debate.
§ Mr. BercowI know that my hon. Friend will agree that we would not want to be remiss by failing to ensure that members of the public who may be listening to the debate are aware of the meaning of the negative and the affirmative procedure. Will she therefore confirm that the Government's intention in using that procedure seems to be to avoid debate on the Floor of the House, for which the affirmative procedure provides? Is that not to enable them to save their own face?
§ Mrs. SpelmanThere is a great deal of face saving in the Bill, which kicks decisions on many difficult issues into the long grass. Those issues will be subject to regulations that we have not seen, and will not be able to see while debating those issues. Even now, on Report, we cannot properly anticipate many of the difficulties and controversies surrounding the issues that will be dealt 185 with by regulation. That is a fundamental weakness in the way in which the Bill is constructed. The Bill is effectively an empty box, and we are being asked to sign up as supporters of its contents without knowing what they are.
§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to mislead the House. Does she remember that the Minister told us that the Government would not introduce regulations under various parts of the Bill that provide for regulation? Therefore, in some cases people will have to guess what they might be doing wrong—for which they might subsequently be caught by regulation if a future Government decided to introduce such regulation.
§ Mrs. SpelmanI thank my hon. Friend, with whom I spent many hours in Committee. Perhaps I could give hon. Members a flavour of the way in which the regulations will work. Although the power to make regulations has, in some cases, been provided in the Bill, a warning has been given that if everyone behaves and complies with the spirit of the Bill, it will not be necessary to make those regulations. The provision will hang over those who have to operate under the Bill as an incentive to get it right first time. If they do not, they risk a rap on the knuckles, or perhaps being taken to court, so that the meaning of the regulations can be clarified. That is a very strange way of regulating businesses that, until now, have been able to advertise legally. They will suddenly discover that some of the things that they have been doing, quite legally, have become illegal. The threat of regulation will hang over such companies if they get it wrong. The Bill places business in a very difficult position.
I want to return to questions about brand sharing that were not answered adequately in Committee, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to answer a very important question. The UK has decided to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising ahead of other European Union member states. Legal professionals advised the Commission and other interested parties when the intention at a European level was to proceed to a directive regarding the ban on tobacco advertising. Does the Minister agree that their comments might have some relevance today? The conclusions reached about brand sharing at the time are relevant to what the UK is about to do unilaterally.
The Advocate-General's opinion is important in this respect. The Advocate-General held that the restrictions then proposed on
brand diversification advertising violated the right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights".Does the Minister think that the Bill as drafted is in contravention of the same article? We did not get an answer to that in Committee, yet it would be relevant to our debate this evening. I, for one, would like to know the answer.186 The Advocate-General also held that
the Community legislator had not presented any evidence to suggest a link between brand diversification advertising, and overall tobacco consumption and that there were therefore no reasonable grounds to justify the restrictions on freedom of speech provided for in the Directive".
§ Mr. BercowMy hon. Friend has made an important and salutary point, but is she referring to the Advocate-General in the European Court, or to the Advocate-General for Scotland, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark)?
§ Mrs. SpelmanI am referring to the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice.
§ Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)I have been listening closely, but will the hon. Lady confirm that she is saying that if the makers of Silk Cut, a brand-named cigarette in the United Kingdom, decided to sell trousers, they could erect, at every football ground in the country, huge signs with the words "Silk Cut" on them? Is not the presumption in the defence of the new clause being offered by the hon. Lady, that the words would not be identified with cigarettes because they were being used in relation to trousers? Does that not appear to the hon. Lady somewhat nonsensical? Would not anyone seeing a sign that says "Silk Cut" think of cigarettes rather than trousers?
§ Mrs. SpelmanWith respect, if he reads the new clause, the hon. Gentleman will see that it covers non-tobacco products or services from companies that are
totally unconnected financially with the business producing the tobacco product".That is an important distinction.
§ Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley)I shall put the question another way. For the sake of argument, let us say that the manufacturer of Clarks shoes has no connection with any tobacco company, in this country or any other. Under the new clause, would it be acceptable for that company to call a range of shoes the "Silk Cut" range?
§ Mrs. SpelmanCommon sense tells me that people wanting to buy shoes would be far more attracted by the good reputation of Clarks as a manufacturer than by any name chosen for a particular style of shoe.
§ Mr. BarronThe hon. Lady is avoiding the issue.
§ Mrs. SpelmanI am not; it is Labour Members who are avoiding an issue that is uncomfortable for them. The Government have chosen to go ahead with a ban on tobacco advertising, but at one time there was a Europe-wide attempt to introduce a directive with the same objective. The view of legal professionals at a European level was that banning advertising through brand sharing represented a contravention of article 10 of the European convention on human rights. It is legitimate for the Opposition to ask the Government, who intend to go down that road, whether they are satisfied with the procedure, although their opinion on that issue is different from that of the Advocate-General in Europe.
187 We did not get an answer from the Minister in Committee, and it is important to come back to the question today. Worldwide Brands International is, quite legitimately, asking me, as a representative of the Opposition, to put that question to the Government, as it cannot get an adequate reply. Of course the issue is important to such a company; it may wish to go to the European Court for a ruling on whether this piece of British legislation, which will affect it significantly, represents a contravention of article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
It stands to reason that if the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice was giving that advice not so long ago, the issue has already been considered at a high level. That is a good reason for bringing the question to the debate. Of course we do not want to pass legislation that is promptly found to contravene the European convention on human rights.
Things are particularly difficult for our legislature at present, as we have incorporated the convention into British law only very recently. This issue has to be worked through. I should have thought, however, that the Government would have anticipated the problem, which has already arisen at a European level, and that they would be ready to answer the question today. That is why it is important to return to the point, which was debated in Committee. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members understand our rationale in coming back to it, because we need to find the answer.
I find it difficult to understand why there is such strong opposition to legitimate diversification by companies that have nothing to do with the tobacco industry. Why do we want to make it so difficult for companies to diversify? Surely, with our shared public health agenda of trying to reduce the prevalence of smoking—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) gives me rather a contemptuous look, but I assure her that we share the Government's desire for a reduction in smoking. I do not know how many times I have to say that to get my point across. Perhaps this will be the last time this evening.
It is surely desirable for tobacco companies to produce other products if possible. I confidently predict that a consequence of depriving companies of the opportunity of brand sharing will be to weaken their competitiveness. I am confident that the legislation will lead to the ascendancy of foreign brands of tobacco coming into this country. That is already a feature of the flow of illegally imported tobacco.
I referred in the programme motion debate to students being offered £25 to promote tobacco brands on university campuses. The brand of tobacco in question was, in fact, foreign. That is the tip of the iceberg. We will see foreign brands coming into this country, and we will have shackled our own tobacco companies so that they have no way out.
§ Mr. AtkinsonOn the impact of illegally imported tobacco and tobacco products, is it not true that although the most popular rolling tobacco in this country is Drum, it is not legally available anywhere in this country? If a 188 legitimate business—unconnected with tobacco—was also called Drum, what would happen to it? Such a business could be caught by the measure.
§ Mrs. SpelmanI thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am not the ideal person to answer it—that is for the Government. However, as the Minister is engaged in another conversation at present, she will be unable to answer my hon. Friend's question, unless someone can give her a note of it.
My hon. Friend's point is important. There will be many more such examples. Surely we should encourage tobacco companies to diversify—possibly by making a new name for themselves in completely different markets.
Through amendment No. 46, the Government are trying to come some way towards meeting the Opposition on the matter. However, that amendment falls far short of the assurances that we seek from them. It reads like wishful thinking. It says that the Government "may" make an exception for companies as regards brand sharing. That will not be good enough for companies such as I have described. Those companies have already made a significant investment in changing their names and symbols, only to be told that that will not protect them.
The amendment does not offer sufficient assurances to such companies. They would prefer provisions such as our new clause, which would redress the balance by moving away from the rough justice that would be meted out under the Government's brand-sharing proposals and their rather weak effort to provide scope for exceptions, if they are so minded. There is no clear statement in the Bill of the circumstances in which the Government might be prepared to grant such exemptions. That will be subject, once again, to regulation. Yet again, a controversial aspect of the Bill is being kicked off into the long grass. The matter will be subject to regulations. When? We do not know—at some point in the future.
Meanwhile, the harsh reality is that a company such as Worldwide Brands International has to carry on its business. Will it be guilty of an offence? Will it have to go to court to prove that it has made an effort to alter its logo, and that the new logo is no longer similar to the original logo associated with tobacco products? Will such a company have to go to all that expense while the Government make up their mind whether to make an exception for it?
The amendment is far too vague. It offers insufficient reassurance to companies that have made a real effort to comply with the original European directive. They have followed to the letter the advice of the Advocate General; they believed that such advice might logically apply if a member state decided to go it alone down the road originally intended for the directive. Instead, however, those companies have been left confused. It is that confusion and lack of clarity that our new clause attempts to address. That is why I commend it to my hon. Friends.
§ The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper)I begin by responding to some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). She referred 189 to some of the broader issues that arise on brand sharing—a matter on which we held a detailed discussion in Standing Committee.
§ Mr. Ian BruceThe detailed discussion consisted of exchanges between the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that lasted less than 15 minutes.
§ Yvette CooperI have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government offered more time for debate in Committee, and if the Opposition had wanted to, they could have taken up that offer. The point that he makes about the time that was available in Committee is, frankly, inappropriate.
If brands are distinct, they will not be covered by the regulations on brand sharing. We have made it clear that our intention is not to catch all products that share the same name, and we are certainly very sympathetic to the need to support business diversification. If the intention is not to promote a tobacco product, the firm involved should have no problem with distinct branding. We have declared our intention to consult in detail on the regulations, because this a complex subject and the companies involved will want time to make representations. That is important.
The wording of new clause 4 would create all kinds of problems. It would exclude from the scope of the regulations on brand sharing arrangements in which no financial link existed between the brand company and the tobacco company, and in which the primary purpose of the new branded goods was not to promote a tobacco product. A company could easily argue that its primary purpose was not to promote a tobacco product; it would argue that its primary purpose was to promote a product—trousers, boots, or whatever—but its secondary or alternative purpose might include promoting tobacco products. It would certainly be inappropriate if the Bill were to state that a company would be covered by the provisions on brand sharing only if its primary purpose was to promote tobacco products.
Another problem with new clause 4 is that the Opposition insist that the companies must be "totally unconnected financially", but it is not clear what that phrase means. For example, would a wholly owned subsidiary be included? Would it include arrangements in which no corporate links existed between companies but directors from, for example, BAT were shared or sat on the board of another company in a non-executive capacity? Would it include a publicly quoted company with a tobacco company as a major shareholder?
I ask all those questions because of the evidence that has emerged, especially in litigation in the United States, from tobacco companies about their attempts to use brand sharing as an alternative way to promote tobacco products and, where necessary, to try to create different legal and perhaps corporate separation between the companies, but where the aim is still to promote tobacco products. For example, a document from RJ Reynolds that emerged during the US litigation states:
In the context of a total advertising ban on direct and indirect advertising as of January 1993, communication continuity is undoubtedly 'The' issue to be solved during the plan period. 190 The only remaining tool is logo license activities provided they are marketed by a company financially and legally distinct from a tobacco company".In another document, RJR states:In order to fulfil its mission, logo licence will be operated as diversification business in line with the respective brand positioning statement. This will be achieved a) through a separate legal entity, b) with consumer relevant products/services/events, c) owning registrations of international trademarks in pertinent categories d) being profitable within an economically reasonable period and"—this is critical—
e) attracting the cigarette brand's target group.There is plenty of evidence to show that brand sharing has been used abroad and in this country to promote tobacco products. I am extremely concerned that new clause 4 and the consequential amendment—amendment No. 51—could introduce a major loophole in the ban on tobacco advertising and allow considerable advertising to continue through indirect means.
The hon. Member for Meriden referred to the European convention on human rights. We have made it clear that the Bill is compatible with the convention. The Advocate General did not consider the Bill or evidence on brand sharing when he pronounced on the European directive. He did not make a decision on a point of principle and concluded that there was sufficient evidence on direct advertising to justify the directive, which he did not think was in conflict with article 10. There is enough evidence, especially on children's familiarity with brand sharing products and the links between brands, for it to be clear that the Bill is also compatible with the convention.
Government amendment No. 46 will clarify the Bill so that firms that comply with, and trade their products under, brand sharing regulations do not get caught by any of the Bill's other provisions, such as those in clause 2. That is not the intention of the regulations. If a company's products—whatever they might be—are acceptable under the regulations, the amendment ensures that they will not unintentionally be affected by the provisions on advertising. It will make the arrangements easier for businesses.
We have set out our intention to consult on the regulations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that we want to do that as soon as possible and to begin the process during the Bill's passage through Parliament. We also want to consult our European partners because European issues, too, are relevant. We will also discuss the appropriate time scales for the introduction of the regulations.
§ Yvette CooperThe draft regulations have not been published for consultation, but they will be produced at the earliest possible opportunity, as we have made clear several times.
There are plenty examples of business diversification. For example, Philip Morris owns Miller beer. Those are distinct brands and it is clear that there is no brand sharing. We are keen to promote brand sharing, but we also want to ban tobacco advertising and prevent companies from using brand sharing as a way round the ban.
191 The regulations will be subject to detailed consultation. We have made it clear that we do not intend to cause problems for brands that are distinct from tobacco brands. I urge the House to accept Government amendment No. 46 and reject new clause 4 and amendment No. 51.
§ Mr. Peter AtkinsonI apologise if I cover ground that was dealt with by the Committee, but I was fortunate enough not to have to serve on it.
The Minister says, "Trust us. We will get this right and send out some regulations", and we have had to accept a debate on Report that is truncated and disgracefully short; but brand sharing is a key problem for the industry to face, and the regulations have not even been written. The House is having to decide crucial issues when we know nothing about the Government's proposals.
§ Mr. BruceSurely the point is that no one has been able to produce a sensible response to the problem of brand sharing. The Government have not provided draft regulations because that is an almost impossible task, but the House is being asked to agree the Bill tonight.
§ Mr. AtkinsonMy hon. Friend makes my point for me. The problem is that a key piece of the Bill is missing, yet we are asked to nod it through tonight on the basis that the Government have said, "Trust us, we don't want to stop companies brand sharing."
The Bill is to be enforced by the weights and measures authorities. Are we to trust the same people who prosecuted a market trader in Sunderland for selling goods in pounds and ounces? Hon. Members have raised several problems related to brand sharing. I am concerned about the illegal rolling tobacco, Drum, which is available in this country. What would happen if a perfectly legal company in this country had the same name? Would the weights and measures people arrest its proprietors? A European brand of cigarettes, called Olympia or Olympic—I cannot remember which—is available in this country. What would happen if a business in this country shared that name? Those will be concerns for large companies, and we are making decisions without even knowing what the regulations will say.
Earlier, I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) a point about newspapers and other publications that are printed simultaneously in different countries. The International Herald Tribune is printed in a number of centres in Europe at the same time, and the Financial Times is printed simultaneously in Frankfurt and London. A newspaper's editorial office in Paris might insert an advertisement for a brand of Camel boot or the "Silk Cut" trousers to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred. Pages are sent from one country to another, and there may be no editorial interference in the printing process in this country. Presumably, then, international newspapers that sell copies in the United Kingdom will have to refuse all such advertisements. A French newspaper might have refuse advertisements from a French business.
§ Mr. BercowThis is a thorny area. Would it not be helpful if the Under-Secretary were to indicate, if she has not already done so, that she intends to provide a minimum of three months for consultation on the 192 regulations? In the light of the likely burden that the regulations, be they desirable or undesirable, will impose on businesses, especially small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a minimum of three months' notice of the requirement to implement the regulations?
§ Mr. AtkinsonI agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I would welcome a reply from the Under-Secretary. A minimum of three months' notice would be extremely helpful.
I want to pursue the question of publications. It is very easy to buy foreign language magazines in this country. I think of French and German magazines that are printed abroad and shipped here, which will of course carry tobacco advertisements. I did not attend the Committee, but from a brief reading of the Bill I can see nothing that would protect those companies. A German company could be prosecuted in this country because it sold a magazine containing a cigarette advert in the UK.
Does that mean that special UK editions of those magazines would have to be printed, which would hardly be economic, or would they have to be withdrawn from sale in this country? That question demonstrates the idiocy of proceeding with the Bill without the consent of fellow members of the European Union, who are moving towards a ban on tobacco advertising. It would be helpful if the ban were imposed Europe wide, instead of the Government going it alone.
I hope that by the end of the debate this difficult issue will have been clarified. Even if the Minister for Public Health will not produce the regulations or give us any idea of their contents, perhaps she will address our concerns when she winds up.
§ Mr. Ian BruceIn Committee, I was prevented from making the speech that I am about to make because the Opposition were trying to help the Government to get the Bill through Committee in the limited time available in a way that allowed the maximum discussion of items on which we had to make a decision. The issue that we are debating, brand sharing, is important because it might affect companies that have nothing to do with tobacco. We can all argue about whether we want to reduce tobacco consumption—although everyone on the Committee was in favour of that—but no one intends to damage companies that have never been involved in tobacco.
Throughout the Committee proceedings, I trailed the fact that I intended to speak about the brand that is in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: the portcullis. It appears on my cufflinks, and Members of Parliament are proud of the fact that it appears on our letterhead. You might not realise this, but in the House of Commons bars and the Gift Shop it is possible to buy House of Commons branded cigarettes, which carry the portcullis logo. Cigarettes are not the only product that the House of Commons sells: we sell water, teddy bears and whisky and we provide services through our Banqueting Department. The House of Commons is engaged in a commercial business, and I suppose that we should all declare an interest in that respect. We might all be prosecuted when the Bill is passed.
I meant to begin my speech by declaring an interest: my wife and I are beneficial owners of a few shares in Imperial Tobacco. We never bought the shares, but the 193 demerger of a company in which we had bought shares resulted in our becoming the owners of the Imperial Tobacco shares.
The example I give, however silly it might appear, illustrates the fact that people brand share. The Houses of Parliament or House of Commons brand is a brand share. Were I advising the House authorities, I should immediately tell them that they must stop selling cigarettes carrying the House of Commons brand; either that, or Members of Parliament should stop using the portcullis or even the name of this place to ensure that we do not break the law as it will be when the Bill is passed.
§ Mr. Peter AtkinsonMy hon. Friend raises an interesting question of parliamentary sovereignty. Would parliamentary sovereignty apply and thus enable us to ignore the legislation and continue to sell the cigarettes?
§ Mr. BruceWhen my hon. Friend and I became Members of Parliament, parliamentary sovereignty existed, but new Labour does not care about such things. The current Government continually undermine the rights and privileges of the House of Commons—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) wish to intervene? He is always chuntering—oh, he has risen to his feet, just to show that he is here. I give way to him.
§ Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire)The hon. Gentleman refers, tangentially, to the loss of parliamentary sovereignty in terms that suggest that most of that loss has occurred since 1997. However, I do not believe that Labour was in government when the Maastricht treaty was signed. Will he confirm that?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) returned to the new clause that is the subject of our debate.
§ Mr. BruceI had not left that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, as you rightly say, I could not possibly respond to that intervention. I was foolish and over-generous to give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire.
In tabling the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is attempting to help the Government not to fall into a gaping hole. One might say that it does not matter if House of Commons branded cigarettes cease to be. I should prefer that we did not have such cigarettes—indeed, under the previous Government, the Refreshment Department announced that it had decided not to have the cigarettes any more and that it would phase them out by selling whatever stocks it held. There must have been about 10 years of stock because packets are still being sold. It may be nice to have them, but why do we not set an example and say that we shall not share our brands with tobacco? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am glad that I have some support for that.
I hope that the House will listen to what I have to say about brand sharing. We are all aware of Imperial Tobacco. The word "imperial" is a brand share with many other companies. For example, there is Imperial Chemical 194 Industries. There must be thousands of companies that have "imperial" in their names. Imperial mints is a generic term.
§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)There is the Imperial war museum.
§ Mr. BruceIt shares a name with tobacco. Once we have seen the regulations, will we be able to attach "imperial" to any product, company or anything else, given that that is brand sharing? The Minister does not have an answer, but perhaps she will surprise us later.
What about Marlboro? The Marlboro cafe in my constituency serves some of the best fish and chips in the country. I do not know why it is called the Marlboro cafe, but it is. It is advertising the well known name of a tobacco product. Is the cafe to change its name? Is it to be prosecuted? I need to know.
There is Embassy, and hundreds if not thousands of companies use that name at the beginning of their—
§ Mr. TaylorSo what?
§ Mr. BruceIf the hon. Gentleman owned Embassy Cars, which I think is a company in my constituency, he would be concerned. He would have to ensure that all his advertisements were changed. He would have to ensure that they referred to cars and not to the tobacco company. That sharing of a brand name has nothing to do with the ownership or the promotion of tobacco. That was never thought about. That is an example of what we must be worried about.
There are other examples. Dunhill is a brand of lighters as well as cigarettes. It might be said that brand sharing is taking place, but I think that Dunhill—
§ Mr. BruceI wish that I had asked my hon. Friend to write my speech in advance. If he had done so, I would not have to keep referring to him. I know that there are many products with the name Dunhill. They may originally have been attached to tobacco, or they may have been completely independent, in common with the examples that I have already given.
What about Lambert and Butler? Will it be necessary for people to change their name by deed poll if it is either Lambert or Butler, especially if someone wants to start a business? I suspect that there are a few Rothmans floating around. Superking is a nice brand name. An enormous number of products use "super" and "king" in their names. There is St. Bruno rolling tobacco. Are we not to have Bruno Brookes on the radio any more? Will the boxer no longer be able to fight?
There is Golden Virginia—[Interruption.] Members laugh, but I am giving examples of people who will have to ask, "Is this brand sharing?" The Government and the Minister have not given us an inkling of what the regulations will provide. What is the point? The Government are trying to ensure that, come the general election, they can say that they have done the business and introduced an Act. If they have not published the draft regulations by then, they certainly will have not done the business.
195 What will happen if the Bill succeeds in stopping advertising? The tobacco industry often wants to launch new products, sometimes ones that are less lethal than others currently on the market. We should necessarily encourage that, but what will a company do when it names its product? It will almost certainly use a generic name—a household word—associated with other products that already share the brand. Why should a British company be attacked by a tobacco company—with the tobacco company, in effect, stealing a generic name that it cannot patent or copyright—and be caught by the Bill when it has never had anything to do with the tobacco industry?
§ Brand sharing is about trying to link qualities that people associate with the word "king", "golden" or "Golden Virginia" with the quality of the product that a company is trying to sell. Its product may kill people more quickly, but it is trying to shift that perception towards something that we automatically think is good. The Minister said that that was brand sharing. She cannot therefore ask Parliament, sight unseen, to pass the Government amendment without accepting the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has tabled, or explaining how companies unrelated to tobacco activities will not be affected by the regulations.
Parliament has waited for the Government to introduce something that they said they were going to introduce four years ago. The European Union introduced regulations that were found to be illegal. I do not believe that the Government have done their homework and got this right. We should not accept the Bill without new clause 4.
§ Mr. BarronI rise, not to speak too long on the matter, but to say that there is a bit of history behind it which Opposition Members seem to have forgotten. I know that they have been told before that brand sharing is one way in which tobacco companies have got around tobacco advertising Bills. On Second Reading, I mentioned what happened when the Italian Government introduced a ban on tobacco advertising. There were brand names on children's toys and all sorts of things were advertised on television, so it was clear what the ban was designed for.
In view of my criticism of the Conservative party over the years, I should not be surprised at the fact that not only was it addicted to tobacco companies for a long time, but it is still addicted to them. I should have thought that it would take up one of the cessation programmes that the Government have been making available for the past four years to try to get people off their unhealthy addictions.
§ Mr. BarronIn a few minutes; I just want to get on to some of the surrounding issues.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) seemed to think that the Government do not want tobacco companies to diversify. Of course, we do; that is exactly it. However, by presenting her publication at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Lady was trying to defend a company that came into being when tobacco advertising bans started to appear around the world. She must ask herself whether a brand like Camel, which has been advertised across the world, would allow somebody to come along, take its 196 copyright and use that word to sell another product. It is not believable that there was not, and is not, a connection between that publication, which sells clothing, and Camel's advertising and organisation.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) ought to ask whether the Marlboro cafe in his constituency, the Marlboro Classics shop in Covent Garden and Marlboro coffee are connected with Marlboro tobacco and Philip Morris. They are connected, and were brought into being to brand-stretch and brand share because of public health decisions that were taken to stop the promotion of tobacco products around the world. When the hon. Member for Meriden says from the Dispatch Box that the Government's decision today will mean that Britain is the first country to ban tobacco advertising, after previous attempts resulted in losing cases in the European Court and defeat by the tobacco companies, she is wrong. Many countries have banned tobacco advertising for many years.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to that fact that, when I tried to promote a Bill not dissimilar to this under the private Members' Bill procedure back in 1994, there was one company that stood out. One could honestly say that it was using a name that was now on a tobacco product, but which had not initially been associated with the promotion of tobacco. That firm was Alfred Dunhill. I do not believe that it is a front for a tobacco company to get round a ban on tobacco advertising.
I shall be interested to see what regulations are drawn up. They are necessary, whatever the Opposition may say. The reason for sports sponsorship in the UK is that the advertising of cigarettes on television was banned in 1965. That is why tobacco firms started to sponsor cricket and Formula 1. They do it throughout the world.
My hon. Friend the Minister quoted documents arising from the litigation of RJ Reynolds, an American tobacco company, in the United States. The documents show what such companies do when they brand share or brand-stretch: they promote tobacco products. That is what Marlboro Classics is about, and in my view, the same applies to the Camel company. I hope that the Government will come down hard on that. It makes no sense to ban tobacco advertising if the companies are allowed to spend their hundreds of millions in other ways to promote tobacco in this country or any other.
§ Yvette CooperI shall respond briefly to the points raised. We will be happy to have a considerable period of consultation on the regulations. We are sympathetic to appropriate transitional periods for the implementation of the regulations, as we have demonstrated with regard to other aspects of the Bill.
International publications are dealt with in clause 4(1)(c). Publications whose principal market is not the UK are excluded. The intention of the Bill and the brand-sharing regulations is to prevent the promotion of tobacco products. That will be the test. It is not our intention to prevent diversification, or to catch companies or products just because they bear the same name.
New clause 4 would introduce a substantial loophole. That is why we are opposing both it and amendment No. 51.
§ Mr. BruceThe hon. Lady cannot get away with saying that the regulations will protect firms that have 197 nothing to do with tobacco. Can she describe to the House how the regulations will be phrased?
§ Yvette CooperWe will publish the regulations for full consultation. We have made clear in this debate and in Committee our intention with regard to brand sharing, and the clear intention of the Bill to prevent the promotion of tobacco products.
§ Mrs. SpelmanI hate to inform the House that we have got to exactly the point that we reached in Committee. We did not run out of time on the brand-sharing clause, but we could not usefully proceed in Committee. The Government said that they would undertake a huge consultation exercise, and we cannot get a clear idea of what will be in the regulations until that consultation has taken place. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
The consultation exercise should surely occur before the draft regulations are issued. We would be in a far better position to decide whether they would be excessively punitive if we knew what was in the regulations. The Minister said in Committee:
We certainly recognise the need for proper and thorough consultation. We are also keen to consult with the European Commission on its proposals. We recognise that this is a complex area and we are keen to have a thorough and effective consultation process"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 February 2001; c. 152.]We cannot accept the vague commitment in the Government amendment, when the consultation exercise has still to take place. That is why we sought through our new clause to clarify the situation. It is a feature of the Bill that so much is being left to subsequent regulations, and this is a particularly bad example of that. Companies will be put in an impossible position.
§ Mr. BruceWill my hon. Friend make it clear that we totally reject the remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)? Under our Government, tobacco consumption was falling, whereas under this Government, it is going up. We are attempting to help this miserable Government to do something sensible, for a change.
§ Mrs. SpelmanI should have tried at the beginning, as we have tried so many times, to make it clear to the hon. Member for Rother Valley that it is not our purpose to take up the cause of tobacco companies, as he continually implies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said on Second Reading, we have no love for tobacco companies. I hope that, having been present in Committee, the hon. Member for Rother Valley will recognise how carefully we have striven to uphold the public health agenda throughout the debate. We have not departed from that.
§ Mr. BarronWill the hon. Lady give way?
§ Mrs. SpelmanNo. I am rather tired of accusations being made about a position that we do not defend.
I shall comment on some of the specific points made by the Minister. She said that the Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. It seems that companies such as Worldwide Brands International 198 will have no alternative but to slug it out in the courts. It will be one lawyer's opinion against another. If the Advocate-General was willing to put on record his view that the brand-sharing advertising restriction was not compatible with article 10 of the convention, it is perfectly legitimate for the company to pursue the matter in the courts, to see whose legal opinion will win the day. I am not qualified to give advice, but it seemed a rather sweeping statement to say that the Bill was indeed compatible.
§ Mr. Peter AtkinsonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I do not want to interrupt her train of thought. When the Minister replied in double-quick time and covered some of the points that I had raised about newspapers and publications, she did not deal with the point that some of the foreign publications are printed in the UK. According to the Bill, a publication is exempt if it is printed outside the UK and its principal market is not the UK, but what happens if it is printed in the UK, even if its principal market is not the United Kingdom? I was hoping that the Minister would answer that.
§ Mrs. SpelmanI thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he will make all those important points again on the next group of amendments.
The Minister asked how I would define a company that was totally unconnected with a tobacco company. I am a health spokesman, not a DTI spokesman. The issues of company law and the Minister's questions to me demonstrate the extent to which the Bill is wide of being a health Bill. It deals with international competition and the way in which companies are structured.
Surely the Minister understands the spirit behind our new clause, which was intended to take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. Of course we do not want to create a massive loophole through which tobacco promotion is allowed to accelerate, or to fuel the prevalence of smoking. That is the spirit of our new clause. If the hon. Gentleman needs yet more proof—
§ Mr. BarronWill the hon. Lady give way?
§ Mrs. SpelmanNo, I am not prepared to give way. The hon. Gentleman simply will not believe our party's stance. He refuses to believe that we share the public health agenda and the aim of reducing smoking. I have grown weary of telling him that in different ways on different occasions. I am sure that the House does not want to hear it again.
We shall press our new clause because the Government amendment will not provide assurances to the companies that will have to work with the Bill. The promises of regulations in the future, which are to be preceded by a massive exercise in consultation, are a further reason why we consider it important to bring clarity to the debate on brand sharing and advertising, for the sake of all those who will have to work with the Bill. We have heard no clarification from the Minister today, and we find it difficult to accept that the Government amendment would be adequate.
Our new clause would be a great deal more successful in bringing clarity to the Bill concerning the exception that could be made for a brand-sharing arrangement by a company that has carried out its business legitimately up 199 to now and whose primary purpose is not to promote tobacco. That is why I commend our new clause to the House.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House proceeded to Division.
Mr. Duputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. Would the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Lobby?
§ The House having divided: Ayes 122, Noes 345.
202| Division No. 118] | [6 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Amess, David | |
| Ancram, Rt Hon Michael | Key, Robert |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Baldry, Tony | Kirkbride, Miss Julie |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Laing, Mrs Eleanor |
| Blunt, Crispin | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
| Body, Sir Richard | Lansley, Andrew |
| Boswell, Tim | Leigh, Edward |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Letwin, Oliver |
| Brady, Graham | Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) |
| Brazier, Julian | Lidington, David |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Loughton, Tim |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Luff, Peter |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas |
| Burns, Simon | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Butterfill, John | MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew |
| Cash, William | Maclean, Rt Hon David |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Madel, Sir David | |
| Chope, Christopher | Major, Rt Hon John |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Maples, John |
| Mates, Michael | |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Maude, Rt Hon Francis |
| Collins, Tim | Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian |
| Cormack, Sir Patrick | Moss, Malcolm |
| Cran, James | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Davies, Quentin (Grantham) | Norman, Archie |
| O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) | |
| Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) | Ottaway, Richard |
| Day, Stephen | Page, Richard |
| Duncan, Alan | Raice, James |
| Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Pickles, Eric |
| Evans, Nigel | Portillo, Rt Hon Michael |
| Fabricant, Michael | Prior, David |
| Flight, Howard | Randall, John |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) |
| Fox, Dr Liam | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Garnier, Edward | Ross, William (E Lond'y) |
| Gibb, Nick | Ruffley, David |
| Gill, Christopher | St Aubyn, Nick |
| Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Greenway, John | Soames, Nicholas |
| Grieve, Dominic | Spelman, Mrs Caroline |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John | Spring, Richard |
| Hague, Rt Hon William | Steen, Anthony |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie | Swayne, Desmond |
| Hammond, Philip | Syms, Robert |
| Tapsell, Sir Peter | |
| Hawkins, Nick | Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) |
| Hayes, John | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Heald, Oliver | Taylor, Sir Teddy |
| Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David | Tredinnick, David |
| Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas | Trend, Michael |
| Horam, John | Viggers, Peter |
| Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) | Walter, Robert |
| Hunter, Andrew | Waterson, Nigel |
| Jackson, Robert (Wantage) | Whitney, Sir Raymond |
| Jenkin, Bernard | Whittingdale, John |
| Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann | Yeo, Tim |
| Wilkinson, John | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Willetts, David | |
| Wilshire, David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) | Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. James Gray |
| Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) | |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Ainger, Nick | Cohen, Harry |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Coleman, Iain |
| Allan, Richard | Colman, Tony |
| Allen, Graham | Connarty, Michael |
| Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E) | Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) |
| Cooper, Yvette | |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Corbett, Robin |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Cotter, Brian |
| Ashton, Joe | Cousins, Jim |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Cox, Tom |
| Austin, John | Cranston, Ross |
| Bailey, Adrian | Crausby, David |
| Banks, Tony | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Barnes, Harry | Cummings, John |
| Barron, Kevin | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) |
| Battle, John | |
| Bayley, Hugh | Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth) |
| Beggs, Roy | |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Dalyell, Tam |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Darvill, Keith |
| Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | Davidson, Ian |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Benton, Joe | Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | |
| Berry, Roger | Denham, Rt Hon John |
| Betts, Clive | Dobbin, Jim |
| Blackman, Liz | Dobson, Rt Hon Frank |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Donaldson, Jeffrey |
| Blizzard, Bob | Donohoe, Brian H |
| Body, Sir Richard | Doran, Frank |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Dowd, Jim |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Drew, David |
| Brake, Tom | Drown, Ms Julia |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth |
| Breed, Colin | Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) |
| Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) | Edwards, Huw |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Efford, Clive |
| Browne, Desmond | Ellman, Mrs Louise |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Ennis, Jeff |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Etherington, Bill |
| Burgon, Colin | Feam, Ronnie |
| Burnett, John | Field, Rt Hon Frank |
| Burstow, Paul | Fitzpatrick, Jim |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna |
| Byers, Rt Hon Stephen | Flint, Caroline |
| Caborn, Rt Hon Richard | Flynn, Paul |
| Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) | Follett, Barbara |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Foster, Rt Hon Derek |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Gapes, Mike |
| Caplin, Ivor | George, Andrew (St Ives) |
| Caton, Martin | Gerrard, Neil |
| Cawsey, Ian | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Gidley, Sandra |
| Chaytor, David | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Chidgey, David | Godman, Dr Norman A |
| Clapham, Michael | Godsiff, Roger |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Goggins, Paul |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Grocott, Bruce | McNulty, Tony |
| Grogan, John | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Gunnell, John | McWilliam, John |
| Hain, Peter | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter |
| Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Hancock, Mike | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Hanson, David | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Harris, Dr Evan | Martlew, Eric |
| Harvey, Nick | Maxton, John |
| Healey, John | Meacher, Rt Hon Michael |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Merron, Gillian |
| Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Michael, Rt Hon Alun |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley) |
| Hendrick, Mark | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Milburn, Rt Hon Alan |
| Heppell, John | Moffatt, Laura |
| Hesford, Stephen | Moore, Michael |
| Hill, Keith | Moran, Ms Margaret |
| Hinchliffe, David | Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway) |
| Hodge, Ms Margaret | Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) |
| Hoey, Kate | Morley, Elliot |
| Hood, Jimmy | Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | |
| Howells, Dr Kim | Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon) |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | |
| Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) | Mudie, George |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Mullin, Chris |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen) |
| Hurst, Alan | Naysmith, Dr Doug |
| Hutton, John | O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| Illsley, Eric | O'Hara, Eddie |
| Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) | Olner, Bill |
| Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Jenkins, Brian | Organ, Mrs Diana |
| Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) | Osborne, Ms Sandra |
| Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) | Paisley, Rev Ian |
| Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark) | Palmer, Dr Nick |
| Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW) | Pearson, Ian |
| Pendry, Rt Hon Tom | |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | Pickthall, Colin |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) | Pike, Peter L |
| Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa | Pond, Chris |
| Joyce, Eric | Pound, Stephen |
| Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) | Powell, Sir Raymond |
| Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
| Keetch, Paul | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Kelly, Ms Ruth | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Kemp, Fraser | Prosser, Gwyn |
| Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) | Purchase, Ken |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Quinn, Lawrie |
| Kumar, Dr Ashok | Radice, Rt Hon Giles |
| Ladyman, Dr Stephen | Raynsford, Nick |
| Lammy, David | Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) |
| Lawrence, Mrs Jackie | Rendel, David |
| Leslie, Christopher | Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland) |
| Levitt, Tom | |
| Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) | Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) |
| Linton, Martin | Roche, Mrs Barbara |
| Livsey, Richard | Rogers, Allan |
| Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) | Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff |
| Llwyd, Elfyn | Rooney, Terry |
| Lock, David | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Love, Andrew | Rowlands, Ted |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Ruane, Chris |
| Macdonald, Calum | Ruddock, Joan |
| McDonnell, John | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| McFall, John | Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Salmond, Alex |
| McIsaac, Shona | Salter, Martin |
| McKenna, Mrs Rosemary | Sanders, Adrian |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| McNamara, Kevin | Savidge, Malcolm |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Sheerman, Barry | Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion) |
| Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert | Thompson, William |
| Shipley, Ms Debra | Tipping, Paddy |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Singh, Marsha | Touhig, Don |
| Skinner, Dennis | Trickett, Jon |
| Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) | Truswell, Paul |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Turner, Neil (Wigan) | |
| Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Smith, John (Glamorgan) | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Tyler, Paul |
| Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) | Tynan, Bill |
| Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Soley, Clive | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Southworth, Ms Helen | Wareing, Robert N |
| Spellar, John | Watts, David |
| Squire, Ms Rachel | Webb, Steve |
| Starkey, Gerry | White, Brian |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Stewart, David (Inverness E) | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Stewart, Ian (Eccles) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Stoate, Dr Howard | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Straw, Rt Hon Jack | Winnick, David |
| Stuart, Ms Gisela | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Stunell, Andrew | Wood, Mike |
| Sutcliffe, Gerry | Woodward, Shaun |
| Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) | Woolas, Phil |
| Wray, James | |
| Taylor, David (NW Leics) | |
| Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. David Clelland |
| Temple-Morris, Peter |
§ Question accordingly negatived.