§ 7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
§ The programme motion proposes that proceedings in Standing Committee be brought to a conclusion on 8 March. I consider that appropriate because it will allow up to four sittings during the week commencing 5 March. I am sure that even Conservative Members will agree that that should allow ample time to consider a Bill of this modest size and scope. Perhaps only one or two sittings will be required, but it is entirely for Opposition Members to use the time available to the best effect. Arrangements for the programming of later stages of the Bill will be decided by the House at a later time, in the light of experience in Committee.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will want to make observations on this short Bill.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)The hon. Gentleman just said that later stages will be regulated by the House at a later time. So far as I can see, paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the motion deal explicitly with Report and Third Reading.
§ Mr. LockParagraph 4 does not provide for the day on which proceedings will be brought to a conclusion. Clearly, the date for Report will be fixed later. That is what I meant. Of course, the timing of Report is provided for by the paragraphs to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, but arrangements for programming— 657 precisely when the Bill will come hack to the House—will be decided in the light of experience in Committee. I commend the motion to the House
§ Mr. GarnierThe Minister"s performance was useless. His arguments in favour of the motion suggested, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, that he had not even read it.
The programme motion demonstrates the following: we have before us a small-minded, arrogant, paranoid Government who are infected by control freakery. Why cannot they let the Committee make up its own mind about how long it is appropriate for it to sit and consider the contents of the Bill? Large parts of the Access to Justice Act 1999 were not considered in Committee because matters were brought to a premature end. I really do despair of a Government who have reached the end of this Parliament by programming everything. It is high time that the Government grew up and let Parliament decide its own affairs.
§ Mr. BurnettWe deprecate the use of programme motions. They are unnecessary and fly in the face of what should be parliamentary democracy. The Bill contains important matters which will be of interest to and have an impact on constituents of all Members of Parliament. Therefore, there should be an opportunity for the widest debate. The programme motion should be resisted, and we shall oppose it.
§ Mr. ForthWe now go through this process properly with regard to each Bill before the House. We do so properly only in the sense that the Government have decreed that that will be the way in which legislation is dealt with in this House. The Minister"s comments illustrate all too well, if somewhat embarrassingly, the fact that Ministers no longer bother to acquaint themselves with the content of motions in their name, and simply assume that such matters will be readily rubber-stamped by the House and dealt with peremptorily by the Government, with little regard to the circumstances or content of the Bill.
The Minister said that he assumes that matters can be properly dealt with. Let us remind ourselves that, at least under the terms of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, we are talking about detailed scrutiny by a Committee of this House of a Bill that is to become the law of the land. The Minister has taken it on himself, as Ministers now routinely do, to say, "We, the Government, assume that you, the House of Commons, will require only a limited amount of time properly to scrutinise this piece of legislation." That is of course before the Government have had the benefit of hearing the debate on Second Reading. It was perfectly obvious that the Minister assumed that, because the Bill is relatively short and apparently has the support of Members of all parties in the other place, it could be dealt with rather rapidly and without too much trouble by the House of Commons. The Government routinely take that approach to such matters.
The Minister should at least attempt to take some account of the views expressed on Second Reading. In my modest contribution to the debate on Second Reading,
658 I sought to raise a number of matters. Several others were raised by right hon. and learned Members who are of the legal profession and therefore able to raise much more profound and wide-ranging aspects with which we must deal.
I have some doubts about the Bill"s wording, and the Minister kindly helped with some of them. However, there are sufficient elements to it—such as those on retrospection, its wording and its relationship to the Access to Justice Act 1999, which it seeks to amend—to suggest that, once the Committee of Selection has done its work, members of the Standing Committee, especially if they are legally qualified and expert, might require considerably more time for scrutiny than the Minister seems to have believed up to this point would be necessary.
The motion states, very generously, that the Committee
shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meetIn the good old days, Madam Deputy Speaker, which will be within your recollection, Committees always sat only once on the first day—and for very good reasons. Most conventions of the House have very good reasons behind them. It was to allow Committee members to acquaint themselves with what was happening and to give them time to consider the Bill"s contents, table amendments, and so on. Programme motions routinely state that the Committee will sit twice on its first day—the assumption being that it can do its work properly at an accelerated rate.It is assumed, presumably, that in the morning of the first day, the Committee will nod through what the Programming Sub-Committee has deliberated on, and then go straight to work on the first afternoon. Such a timetable makes a series of important assumptions—not least that members of the Committee will have had time between Second Reading and the first sitting to think about the Bill"s contents and, more importantly, to listen to outside representation and table considered amendments for the Committee to debate. If we are not very careful, none of that will happen.
If, in the light of the fact that the House has just given the Bill its Second Reading, we work on the assumption that the Committee of Selection meets this Wednesday, the two days that the Minister has in mind for the Standing Committee to sit are Tuesday 6 March and Thursday 8 March. There will be two sittings on each day, but the length of those sittings is as yet unspecified—another detail that we do not know at this stage. We are told by the Government that the Committee will sit twice in one day, but we do not and cannot know how long each sitting will last, so we cannot make an informed judgment on how relevant and appropriate is the timing proposed in the motion. We are always working in the dark at this stage in our deliberations. We simply have to accept what the Minister says: "I, the Minister, decree that, in my judgment, because this is my Bill and because I, the Minister, say that it is a small, technical and uncontroversial measure and so should not need much work, the Committee will only have to sit on a certain number of occasions and I, the Minister, do not even know—or if I do know, I am not telling the House—how long it will sit on each day."
The Minister tells us that Committee stage must finish by Thursday 8 March—the day after the Budget. I mention that because it is not entirely unconnected with 659 the fact that if, as it is now widely speculated, we are to have a general election on 5 April, the House would have to be dissolved on that date, or a day or two later. That raises important questions about the next part of the motion, headed "Consideration and Third Reading". It is relevant to the debate to consider that the possible imminence of an election and the timing that will be required following Budget day raise serious questions about this part.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out in his intervention, to which the Minister was pathetically incapable of replying, the Government, not satisfied with decreeing the timing of the Standing Committee at this stage, are going on to prejudge the timing and duration of Report and Third Reading. The Government have the gall to say that they will allow until
six o"clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced".Let us suppose that that day is like today, with three ministerial statements in the House. What will happen to consideration and Third Reading on that day? Let us suppose that the business of the House is fixed, as ever, on the preceding Thursday and the day set for those stages is a Monday; let us suppose further that developments occur in respect of foot and mouth disease or Iraq and the Government feel obliged to make one or more statements on that day. Will Report stage on the Bill disappear altogether, or will it be diminished to less than an hour, or to half an hour, or to a matter of minutes? Is that what the Government are telling us in setting and predetermining the time limit for consideration and Third Reading at 6 o"clock on a certain day? In giving a waffling and ill-considered answer to my right hon. and learned Friend, the Minister stated that he did not know which day it is to be. Nevertheless, whatever day is decided upon, we are being told in all seriousness that at 6 o"clock on that day the matter will be concluded.The motion also provides that if the day chosen is a Thursday—a day on which we routinely bunk off at 7 o"clock without doing our proper work—we shall finish consideration at 4 o"clock in the afternoon. On Thursdays, we have Question Time from 11.30 to 12.30, followed by business questions, which usually run until about 1.15. There might be one or two statements on the set day—we do not know, and neither do the Government at this stage. It is entirely possible that consideration and Third Reading, having been decreed to finish at four o"clock in the afternoon, will be squeezed into less than two hours or, in some circumstances, only one hour, or, in extreme circumstances, no time at all.
It is perfectly obvious that the Government will have to give us a cast-iron guarantee that no statements will be made on the day in question, regardless of the circumstances—regardless of whether we have been invaded by the French, have to declare war that day, or any other event. All in all, the motion is even more draconian than the ones to which we have become accustomed and is therefore wholly unacceptable.
That is bad enough, but paragraphs 6 and 7 make matters materially worse. The Government are saying that there is to be no scope for reconsideration in the light of known circumstances—matters that have arisen in 660 Committee, amendments that have or have not been made in Committee, representations received, and so on. We heard on Second Reading that a considerable number of representations have already been made to Members of Parliament and that there is widespread concern in the legal profession and among those involved in court work about the implications of the Bill. We must assume that provision will have to be made for substantial outside representations to be made during the course of our consideration.
The motion would disapply the provisions of Sessional Orders A and B. Those orders were bad enough when they were introduced, but the Government now propose routinely not to bother any more with those new procedures, which were touted as being part of so-called modernisation, but which are already being swept aside, disregarded and disapplied by motions such as the one before us because the Government are in such a rush to complete their business and want less and less to give the House of Commons the scope to make its own decisions on how to conduct its business. Under the heading "Lords messages", Sessional Order A is disapplied and the time limits for dealing with those matters are to be predetermined—again, regardless of what might arise between this House and another place.
We can now see the sequence of events. The Government lay the programme motion before they have even heard the debate on Second Reading and so before they can gauge the level of interest in the House. They seek to predetermine when the Standing Committee will sit without even knowing the duration of each sitting, and they complicate matters further by allowing consideration and Third Reading to be jeopardised by the tightness of the provision made. I hope that my brief remarks have illustrated the nonsense of setting a time limit of 6 o"clock for the conclusion of proceedings on a certain day when we cannot possibly know what other business will be before the House on that day.
I have mentioned only statements, but leave to ask a private notice question may well be granted by the Speaker on the day set. Who knows? Any number of procedural possibilities could arise. On the previous day, the Speaker may well have granted an emergency debate. Such matters are unusual, but not unknown, and should certainly not be assumed to be an impossibility. Several procedural possibilities could arise so that, if one took the motion literally, the consideration and Third Reading could be squeezed out almost entirely.
Is that what the Government intend? It may well be that they have such arrogance and such contempt for the proceedings of the House that they do not care if we find ourselves diminished almost to nothing. As for the complex and delicate relationship between the House and another place, the Government seem to believe that we do not need to bother with it much; it can be brushed aside, everything can be rushed through, and that will be acceptable. All in all the motion may well be the worst example of a series of so-called programme motions which, of course, should be called guillotines, as that is what they are.
Is the Minister prepared to give us a much fuller explanation? He barely bothered to explain why the matter should be dealt with in this way. I will not labour a point I made on Second Reading, except to mention in passing that the entire Bill is in jeopardy, as it could well be overtaken by much larger events. That would be the 661 Government"s fault, and may be the result of incompetence or because they think that they can use the motion to blackmail Members by saying that people outside will not have proper legal representation unless the parliamentary process is accelerated to ensure that the Bill will receive Royal Assent according to a timetable which, ironically, will be dictated by the Prime Minister himself. That is the circular argument in which we are now engaged.
All in all, the motion is probably the most unsatisfactory programme or guillotine motion with which we have had to deal. Unless the Minister does an awful lot better to persuade me, I shall oppose this outrageous measure when I have the opportunity to do so.
§ Mr. HoggThis is a bad day for parliamentary democracy. There are two bad things about it: the motion, to which I shall speak at some length, and the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in which he made it plain that he resented coming to the House on Wednesday to debate foot and mouth disease, on the ground that he had better things to do.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the scope of this debate is very limited indeed. I ask him to confine his remarks to that.
§ Mr. HoggAbsolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I said that two bad things had happened today, and I am now coming to the second—the programme motion. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). You may know, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have had the misfortune to be in the Chair when I have addressed the House on previous programme or guillotine motions, that I have spoken against such motions, which I oppose on principle, six or seven times in the past two months.
I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been chary of introducing this programme motion in the House, as the Bill to which it applies makes good a defect in a previous Bill. If the earlier measure had been properly discussed at the time, it might not have resulted in the current Bill. I should have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have been chary of asking the House to timetable a Bill, the object of which is to correct his own error. However, he has done so, and I am against that.
In his opening remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary said that four sittings in Committee were sufficient. Splendid, but whose business is it? It is not his business, but that of the Committee. I hope that the House finds it offensive that the Parliamentary Secretary—who has been in the House but a short time—comes here and says that four sittings are sufficient. That may be the advice of his officials, but the House and the Committee should determine how long they wish to spend on a Bill. That period will depend, at least partly, on amendments that are tabled by Members and representations that they receive from those outside the House. That will not be done properly, because the Parliamentary Secretary, from his short experience of political business, thinks that four sittings are enough. Indeed, he even suggested that two sittings may be enough, which raises the interesting 662 possibility that he could use his substantial majority on the Committee to ensure that the sittings are abbreviated; perhaps some of the tiresome and difficult things that Members of Parliament want to say to him would not be articulated.
One important aspect of the Committee stage is the fact that it enables Back-Bench Members to table amendments articulating the concerns and anxieties of constituents and interested bodies who write to them. The process of curtailing debate curtails the representation of grievances.
§ Mr. ForthDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree it is highly likely that the volume and complexity of representations on the Bill will be unusually large because of the nature of the legal profession and the implications for court proceedings that the Bill undoubtedly will have? Does he agree that peculiarly in this instance outside representations will be of particular importance?
§ Mr. HoggYes, I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is highly probable that outside representations will be both numerous and extensive. They will reflect also the fact that the legal profession throughout the country has lost confidence in the Government. The Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary have forfeited the confidence of much of the profession. Therefore, it will be examining the Bill with an extremely critical eye. I should be surprised if substantial amendments were not tabled at the suggestion of the profession.
My right hon. Friend has identified the problems that are associated with Report stage. On an ordinary calculation, we shall be lucky to have more than an hour to an hour and a half; we might have substantially less. If the Bill had come forward for Report today, for example, it would not have been debated. That is unsatisfactory.
Report provides the one opportunity for Members as a whole to consider the detail of a Bill and to table detailed amendments, and that is important for at least two reasons. First, the Bill might be improved by the tabling of amendments. Secondly, Members can articulate in the Chamber, before other Members who choose to attend, anxieties that reflect the concerns of their constituents.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this is only the second time that a programme motion has been applied to consideration in Committee, on Third Reading and on Report. The first such motion concerned the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill. The Standing Order that was passed by the House on 7 November 2000 provides in paragraph (1)(b) that
an allocation of time to proceedings in committee on the bill"—I move on to paragraph (7), shall—add to the proceedings to which a programme order applies.Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not far fetched to envisage a programme motion for Committee, Report and Third Reading, but one, given the way in which the Government are going—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. I remind the hon. Gentleman and anyone else who wishes to participate in the debate that we are confined to discussing the programme motion for the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill.
§ Mr. HoggI shall deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I 663 was aware that this is the second programme motion to apply to consideration in Committee, on Third Reading and on Report, partly owing to the assiduousness of my hon. Friend. I deprecate the process, largely for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We cannot tell now how long will be required for consideration in Committee, on Report or on Third Reading.
As I have said, Report provides the opportunity for the House as a whole to address the detail of the Bill. The House will approach the Bill with the benefit of representations that have been made from outside. The idea that the House can either amend or intelligently discuss a Bill on Report for an hour or an hour and a half is preposterous—or in any event, we cannot say now whether it would be preposterous.
A further point is that we are undermining the basis of democracy, as I have said in previous debates. The country believes that legislation is properly scrutinised. That, at least in part, is why people are prepared to put up with laws, even bad laws. However, what happens when the truth is that a Bill is not scrutinised properly, or at all? The bargain into which people enter as part of a political commonwealth is being stripped away. Bills cannot be debated properly in an hour and a half. If they are not debated properly, where is the legitimacy of what we do? We are profoundly undermining the respect that people will have for the House, and therefore for the authority of Parliament.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownMy remarks are general, but they do apply to the timetable motion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the motion an affront to democracy? No one knows what might be discussed in Committee or what amendments might be tabled. Until such amendments are tabled and discussed in Committee, no one knows how much time should be allocated for Report and Third Reading.
§ Mr. HoggMy hon. Friend is entirely right. Why on earth should we limit the debate to one and a half hours, which will effectively be the time allowed? Why should the debate on Report be brought to a conclusion at 6 o"clock? Why should we suppose that there is other pressing business that day? It might be convenient for the House to discuss the Bill until the ordinary time, without any inconvenience to anyone. We are assuming that one and a half hours is appropriate, and that is that.
Very soon we will be deprived of timetable motion debates, because the Government are uncomfortable with such debates and will do away with them, as happened with money resolutions, or, worse still, there will be a five-minute debate. We have been degrading the process.
When I first entered the House many years ago, timetable motions were generally moved by the Leader of the House. When they were not moved by the Leader of the House, they were moved by the Leader"s deputy, or sometimes by the Minister at the head of the Department responsible for the Bill. Now, as a matter of course, the timetable motion is moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, who in this case manifestly had not read paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the motion.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. Once again, I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the limitations of the debate. Will he please confine his remarks to the programme motion relating to the Bill?
§ Mr. HoggWith respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was directing my remarks to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the motion when you called me to order.
The point that I was making was that the Parliamentary Secretary, who presented the motion to the House, manifestly had not read paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, or if he had, he had not understood them. That is a lamentable state of affairs. It suggests a contempt for Parliament and the parliamentary process which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I believe to be wholly wrong.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me in the Division Lobby in saying no to the motion, and that we will go on doing so to motion after motion of this kind as it is laid before the House.
§ Question put:—
§ The House proceeded to a Division.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
§ The House having divided: Ayes 255, Noes 47.
666| Division No. 129] | [8.43 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) | Clapham, Michael |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE) | Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) |
| Allen, Graham | Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) |
| Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E) | |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | |
| Ashton, Joe | Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) |
| Austin, John | Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) |
| Bailey, Adrian | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Banks, Tony | Clelland, David |
| Battle, John | Clwyd, Ann |
| Bayley, Hugh | Coffey, Ms Ann |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Cohen, Harry |
| Bell, Stuart, (Middlesbrough) | Coleman, Iain |
| Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) | Colman, Tony |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield) | Cooper, Yvette |
| Benton, Joe | Corbett, Robin |
| Berry, Roger | Cousins, Jim |
| Best, Harold | Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) |
| Betts, Clive | Cummings, John |
| Blackman, Liz | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland) |
| Blizzard, Bob | |
| Boateng, Rt Hon Paul | Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S) |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Dalyell, Tam |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Darling, Rt Hon Alistair |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) |
| Brinton, Mrs Helen | Davidson, Ian |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Browne, Desmond | Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Dean, Mrs Janet |
| Burden, Richard | Denham, Rt Hon John |
| Burgon, Colin | Dobbin, Jim |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Doran, Frank |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Drew, David |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Eagle, Maria (L"pool Garston) |
| Cann, Jamie | Efford, Clive |
| Casale, Roger | Fisher, Mark |
| Caton, Martin | Fitzpatrick, Jim |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma |
| Chaytor, David | Flint, Caroline |
| Flynn, Paul | Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Foulkes, George | Marshall-Andrews, Robert |
| George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S) | Martlew, Eric |
| Gerrard, Neil | Meacher, Rt Hon Michael |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | Merron, Gillian |
| Godsiff, Roger | Michael, Rt Hon Alun |
| Goggins, Paul | Michie, Bill (Shef"ld Heeley) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Milburn, Rt Hon Alan |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | Miller, Andrew |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Mitchell, Austin |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Moffatt, Laura |
| Grocott, Bruce | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Grogan, John | Moran, Ms Margaret |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | Morley, Elliot |
| Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) | Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle |
| Hanson, David | (B'ham Yardley) |
| Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet | Morris, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Healey, John | (Aberavon) |
| Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Mudie, George |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Heppell, John | Norris, Dan |
| Hill, Keith | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| Hoey, Kate | O'Neill, Martin |
| Hood, Jimmy | Pearson, Ian |
| Hope, Phil | Pickthall, Colin |
| Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E) | Plaskitt, James |
| Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) | Pollard, Kerry |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Pond, Chris |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Pope, Greg |
| Hurst, Alan | Pound, Stephen |
| Hutton, John | Powell, Sir Raymond |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) |
| Illsley, Eric | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Jamieson, David | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Johnson, Miss Melanie | Prosser, Gwyn |
| (Welwyn Hatfield) | Purchase, Ken |
| Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn) | Quinn, Lawrie |
| Jones, Helen (Warrington N) | Radice, Rt Hon Giles |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Raynsford, Nick |
| Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) | Reed, Andrew (Loughborough) |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) | Robertsor, John |
| Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa | (Glasgow Anniesland) |
| Joyce, Eric | Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Rogers, Allan |
| Keeble, Ms Sally | Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff |
| Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) | Rooney, Terry |
| Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Kemp, Fraser | Rowlands, Ted |
| Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) | Roy, Frank |
| Khabra, Piara S | Ruane, Chris |
| Kidney, David | Salter, Martin |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Sarwar, Mohammad |
| King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) | Shaw, Jonathan |
| Ladyman, Dr Stephen | Sheerman, Barry |
| Lammy, David | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Laxton, Bob | Short, Rt Hon Clare |
| Leslie, Christopher | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
| Levitt, Tom | Singh, Marsha |
| Lewis, Terry (Worsley) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Linton, Martin | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Lock, David | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Soley, Clive |
| McCabe, Steve | Southworth, Ms Helen |
| Macdonald, Calum | Spellar, John |
| McFall, John | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Steinberg Gerry |
| McIsaac, Shona | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| McKenna, Mrs Rosemary | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| MacShane, Denis | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Mactaggart, Fiona | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| McWalter, Tony | Stringer, Graham |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Mallaber, Judy | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann | White, Brian |
| (Dewsbury) | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Taylor, David (NW Leics) | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Timms, Stephen | (Swansea W) |
| Tipping, Paddy | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Todd, Mark | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Trickett, Jon | Wills, Michael |
| Truswell, Paul | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) | Woodward, Shaun |
| Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) | Woolas, Phil |
| Turner, Neil (Wigan) | Worthington, Tony |
| Twigg, Derek (Halton) | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Tynan, Bill | Wright, Tony (Cannock) |
| Vaz, Keith | |
| Walley, Ms Joan | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Ward, Ms Claire | Mr. Jim Dowd and |
| Wareing, Robert N | Mr. Don Touhig. |
| NOES | |
| Amess, David | Maclean, Rt Hon David |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Bell, Martin (Tatton) | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Bercow, John | Moore, Michael |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Robathan, Andrew |
| Burnett John | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| (NE Fife) | St Aubyn, Nick |
| Collins, Tim | Sanders, Adrian |
| Cotter, Brian | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd"ns) |
| Cran, James | Spicer, Sir Michael |
| Fabricant, Michael | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Steen, Anthony | |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Stunell, Andrew |
| Garnier, Edward | Swayne Desmond |
| Gray, James | Syms Robert |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) | Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion) |
| Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas | Tyler, Paul |
| Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) | |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Letwin, Oliver | Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown |
| Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) | and |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Mr. Owen Paterson. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords]: