STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (Hansard, 11 January 2001)

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, at end insert— 'the Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.'.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Many of the arguments relating to the changes proposed to the Bill were well rehearsed in this Chamber a year ago by myself and others, so I will not detain the House by repeating them, other than where it is necessary to put matters in context or to raise new matters with which I have become acquainted during the intervening period.
It has not escaped my notice that we have a different Minister on the Front Bench. I welcome the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes); no doubt she has done her homework and read the debates of a year ago. I regret that the Government have acquiesced in this repugnant situation, although I prevailed upon the Minister on the previous occasion. I am a man who always has great faith and perhaps today, with a new 1291 Minister and after 12 months' reflection, the Government may have changed their attitude to my amendments and generally to the Bill.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the Bill is that we are now into the third year of its examination? The inconsistency of representation on the Government Front Bench has meant that at different times there has been inconsistency of attitude towards the details of the Bill. Does he agree that that has been a major problem?

§ Mr. Mackinlay
That may well be. I find it deeply disappointing that a Labour Government support extending the franchise not on the basis of one person, one vote, but to property voters. I am proud that the Attlee Government and others did away with the university vote. The Wilson Government did away with the very thing that we are proposing, in Derry and Londonderry. Here we are acquiescing in it. I do not wish to delay the House and I promised you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would address my remarks to the amendments. Nevertheless because there is a new Minister present it is right to have said that.
The House will no doubt divide upon this. Although it is a charade and fiction that the Government are neutral on private Bills, we shall see whether every Minister present will support the City of London and the promoters of the Bill. No doubt they will prevail on others to join them in the Lobby and I deeply regret that.
A year ago I discovered the subject matter of my new clause while examining the Bill. I was instinctively opposed to the Bill, so scratched its surface and found that it was flawed in terms of our commitment to human rights. Either the Bill should be amended to meet our commitments under the human rights legislation or it should be rejected. If the Bill is passed, it must be improved in the way in which I have outlined in the new clause.
This is a classic example of where, rarely in this place, we can examine legislation in detail, albeit on the Floor of the House. I hope that I might persuade the few who are present in the Chamber of my case. I know from informal discussions that I have had with Ministers and Officers of the House that the point that I outlined last January is valid.
When we pass what are known as Government Bills, each one has on it a declaration headed "European Convention on Human Rights". For example, the Armed Forces Bill has printed on it: Mr. Secretary Hoon has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. We do that for Government Bills, but not for so-called private Bills, which have different Standing Orders for their consideration by this and the other House. That is clearly a deficiency. In Government circles—for example, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the office of the Leader of the House—it is accepted that this issue needs to be addressed. They have had considerable time in which to remedy it.
1292 One of the consequences of my noting this deficiency in the way in which private Bills are presented, and their deficiency in terms of human rights legislation, has been that I have applied the same objection to other private Bills, which have been frustrated. They are probably very good Bills, but I and other hon. Members have a duty as legislators to ensure that Bills that go through the House and reach the statute book are not flawed.
The promoters of those other Bills had hoped that the Government would, through the usual channels, provide a remedy to the deficiency and allow their Bills to proceed. It was also hoped that the promoters of this Bill would recognise that they should either recommend that my new clause be adopted, or find some other way of ensuring that their Bill was compliant with our human rights obligations. We might hear from my hon. Friend the Minister whether any changes are to be proposed to deal with that matter.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Just to clarify a point that I shall make at a later stage, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 clearly states that the Minister needs to make a statement with regard to the Act. That is not just a statement about compliance. A statement is also needed if the legislation does not comply, but the Minister wishes the House to proceed with it. That is the key issue. Information must be provided to the House either way—whether the Bill complies or not—which then becomes available as part of the consideration of the debate. That is not required for private Bills. The Act provides an informative power.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
My hon. Friend anticipates me to some extent. I have always felt that this Bill would not pass the litmus test of lining it up against our human rights legislation. I shall give my reasons for that. In the protocol to the convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as amended by protocol No. 11, which is appended to the convention, article 3 is headed "Right to free elections". It states: The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. This is not a subject to which I referred in the debate a year ago: it is a new point. Article 3 makes clear the obligation to hold free elections.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Before my hon. Friend leaves his examination of the convention, will he confirm that at no point does it give the right to vote either to corporations or to the buildings that house them?

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Of course it does not, because that would be alien to the concept of democracy that is implicit and explicit in all our European obligations and conventions. The promoters of the Bill dare not accept the amendment because they would find that the Bill did not comply. The Bill is anathema to all that we are committed to under the convent on and other international treaties and obligations. It would also be hypocritical of the United Kingdom, when I and other hon. Members are expected to go round the world preaching democracy and the principles of representation, to pass a Bill that takes us in the opposite direction.
1293 4.15 pm
I want to concentrate on the statement in article 3 that the elections will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. In my interpretation, the word "legislature" applies to the City of London Corporation. That is because a legislature can be construed, in this context, as any law-making body, including a subordinate law-making body. The Court of Common Council passes legislation in the form of byelaws and it controls the police force which issues summonses and fines. The court also has a quasi-judicial role in dealing with planning applications, and so on. Article 3 applies in this case and the Bill therefore contravenes article 3 of the protocol of attached to the European convention.
I reiterate a point that I made in the debate a year ago. Although the Government are not the promoters of the Bill, they ultimately have a duty to protect and defend the veracity of the United Kingdom statute book. There is no such thing in law as a private Act. Any Bill that goes through this process and receives Royal Assent becomes an Act of the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North)
Before my hon. Friend moves away from Britain's role as an exemplar in these matters, will he tell us whether there is any great move in, say, Frankfurt or Paris to adopt this peculiar British model? The model that we are considering today is clearly perceived as superior, although I am unaware of its currently being imitated anywhere else in the world. Does my hon. Friend know of any great move in that direction? Has a cry gone up in the bourse of Paris for a similar form of masonic—in the sense that it relates to masonry—representation?

§ Mr. Mackinlay
That is not my brief, because I am addressing myself specifically and precisely to the amendment. However, my answer to my hon. Friend is no.
The Attorney-General, not the City of London Corporation, would have to defend the veracity of the statute book in terms of this Bill, were it to receive Royal Assent and become an Act. I notice that article 52 of section 3 of the convention states: On receipt of a request from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe any High Contracting Party shall furnish an explanation of the manner in which its internal law ensures the effective implementation of any of the provisions of the Convention. The high contracting party is not the City of London Corporation, but the United Kingdom. We should have to explain why this Bill, after it became an Act, was compliant. The Attorney-General—who, unfortunately, is not a Member of this House—would be straining to show that the Bill was compliant.
I promised that I would not detain the House. There are sufficient anoraks in this place who will have read and absorbed last year's deliberations. I hope that the Minister has read them. She will remember that Ian Smith introduced similar legislation with regard to the franchise and the meritocracy in Rhodesia, and we found that repugnant. However, that is what the Government are proposing. They should reflect on and reconsider the matter.
1294 I am modern—

§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold)
Modern?

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I really am modern. It is not just a label—the test is in the eating.
It is deeply conservative, in every respect, to defend the existing franchise arrangements of the City of London Corporation and to compound that perversity in the Bill. I hope that the Minister wants to make a name for herself and shock us by leading us into the Division Lobby in favour of the new clause. Perhaps she will invite the promoters to pause and reflect on whether the Bill should proceed.

§ Mr. McDonnell
My hon. Friend gave us an idea that discussions might have taken place elsewhere. I do not want to compromise the confidences that he has entered into, but will there be any shift on the matter in the near future with regard to private Bills?

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I shall not betray confidences because there are none to betray. I detained the House on this matter a year ago and have had informal discussions with Ministers. As someone who is interested in the rubrics of this place, I have also talked to officials. The Human Rights Act 1998 means, for example, that Secretary of State Hoon puts his certificate on the Armed Forces Bill. However, everyone recognises that the Act is flawed and Parliament was foolish in not providing comparable arrangements for so-called private Bills.
I have been frustrating the progress of other private Bills for a narrow reason, not because I believe that the motives behind them are repugnant—I have no reason to think that—but because the promoters have told me that they have been banging on the Government's door and received assurances that the matter would be remedied "over the summer." In addition, in response to parliamentary questions that I tabled, the Minister has said that the issue was being considered.
The problem is not with me, but with the failure and lethargy of the system, and the slow way in which things crank along in Whitehall. That is why an amendment has not been proposed to our Standing Orders and/or discussions have not taken place with the Bill's promoters. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is a delightful colleague, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he will not accept the new clause, other than the fact that he and the promoters know that the Bill would have to fall because it would not be human-rights compliant.

§ Mr. Pound
While my hon. Friend is in such a henotic mood, will he allow me to imply a slight note of criticism of his use of the word "anoraks"?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not relevant to what we are discussing.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I think that it was taken in the spirit in which it was meant. Anoraks, train-spotters or people who stand outside Heathrow airport to watch planes—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to compound the felony.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
1295 Some people are interested in the way in which Parliament is run, and they have turned up today. Some people who watch us on television are also enthusiastic about our proceedings. That was the parallel.
I have finished. My case is made. I want to hear the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who speaks for the Bill's promoters, say whether he will accept the new clause, and if not, why not. I also look forward to hearing the Government justify their deeply conservative attitude to the Bill.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I hope that the failure of Opposition Members to rise to speak means that they accept the principle of the matter.
I should explain that I have just returned from visiting my family in Tanzania. I received a message a short time ago that my father-in-law has gone down with malaria, the symptoms of which are a cold, aching bones with the flu and the shakes. I feel a cold coming on and have aching bones, but I do not have the shakes. However, if I do get them, you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I might withdraw from the debate. [Interruption.] It is not contagious.
Let me be clear about the new clause. Concern—almost anger—was expressed when we discussed the issue previously. I have raised the matter on, I think, eight separate occasions as points of order or in debate. The Human Rights Act should be acknowledged as the determinant of our practices in the House. That is why we debated it in November 1997. The discussion ensured that, by endorsing the Act, every aspect of our governance, in terms of legislation and administration, would be compliant with it; otherwise, we would seek the necessary derogations to ensure that we could justify, at least with our international partners, any variation.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Before my hon. Friend finishes his point on derogations, is he aware of whether any such application was made during the negotiations either for establishing the European convention on human rights in the first place or, more recently, for introducing it to British law in respect of local government?

§ Mr. McDonnell
I expected the promoters of the Bill at least to indicate that there might be a need, if the Bill is enacted, for a derogation to be sought in the future. Since the Human Rights Act has been implemented, the Government have made no attempt to seek a derogation under the convention in local government legislation, statutory instruments or administrative orders. That puts this legislative proposal in context.
When we debated the Act, it was clear—I remember the ministerial statements—that we wanted to find a mechanism that would allow us to advise others in our society about human rights abuse and adherence to human rights measures, and to ensure that Parliament, as a legislative body, complies with it. That is how section 19 of the Act came about.
4.30 pm
Section 19 was debated, and the Government and others made the obvious point that when legislation comes 1296 before the House someone should make it clear that it is compliant. I remember that debate clearly, and it was pointed out that legislation might not be compliant for a number of justifiable reasons. There might be conflicts with individual national sovereignties or a conflict within the hierarchy of human tan rights. I believe that this is such an instance, which is why the new clause is so important. Section 19 was drafted in such a way as to enable a Minister to come to the House and say either, "The legislation is compliant," or "The legislation is not compliant, but we would like you to proceed with it and enact it for the following reasons."
I have not been party to any private discussions or confidences, as hon. Friends may have been. At no stage during the debate or section 19 was the view expressed that not all legislation should be covered by the Human Rights Act. If that had been an issue at the time, specific reference would have been made to it in that debate, and the Act would have excluded individual elements of the legislative process. The issue was never raised in any of the debates or during any of the consultative processes. I shall give way to any Member or Minister who wants to point out any reference in a public debate or a consultative paper to the need for legislative exclusions from the Human Rights Act.
At an early stage the possibility of a problem with private Bills was identified, for which I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). However, by that time the Human Rights Act had been passed and it would have been difficult to amend it or to introduce further such legislation, but that will have to happen. We have said that we will ensure that all our legislation and administrative practices are compliant with the convention rights. We have taken on responsibility for enforcing human rights, which means dealing with people who abuse those rights—through physical or administrative abuse —yet we have failed to ensure that all our own practices are compliant. Previous debates have highlighted that issue and I am deeply disappointed that the Government have made no proposals for private Bills. More specifically, I am disappointed that they have not taken action on this Bill to enable it to be amended so that it would comply with the Human Rights Act before it was enacted.
Despite everything that my hon. Friend has said, I have problems with the new clause. Although I support its spirit, in practice it is faulty and I regret that I may have to vote against it. My arguments concern the importance of legislation being compliant. I have previously raised the question—I have not laboured the point—of Members' liability in failing to comply. I do not believe that we are covered by privilege in the case of human rights legislation, as the Pinochet case has made clear.
We are now into the third year of proceedings on the Bill, and having raised these points for two and a half years I would like clear answers from the Minister or the sponsor. Why are private Bills, and this Bill in particular, different from other legislation? Why are they not covered by the Human Rights Act? A similar new clause was tabled at an earlier stage. The case for it was eloquently made, and it gave the Government a way forward. In some way, it would have made the Bill comply with the Human Rights Act just before its enactment or, at least, before its implementation.
1297 The case for that new clause was that section 19 of the Human Rights Act refers to a Minister being responsible for legislation and making a statement about its compliance, and in the earlier debate it was argued—these proceedings descend into farce at times—that no Minister is responsible for a private Bill. That is ludicrous because at every stage of the proceedings on the Bill, a Minister has led for the Government and advised the House on the Government's attitude to the Bill. That can be construed as a Minister being responsible for a Bill. If that is not the case, why are Ministers present during the debate at all?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising an interesting point, but it is completely outside the scope of the new clause before us, and I would be obliged if he returned to that subject.

§ Mr. Corbyn
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the argument about human rights legislation is relevant because the Government's Law Officers are responsible for the passage—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to challenge my ruling.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I do not seek to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to clarify why I am making this point. The new clause is important because it would mean that a Minister would become responsible for the Bill. It says: Section 3 of the Act shall not have force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to the effect that it is compliant with human rights legislation. There is a contradiction between the Government's attitude in the past and the appropriate practice I believe that there has been ministerial responsibility for private Bills, because the House has been advised by Ministers. However, the new clause would make it clear that the Secretary of State would eventually have responsibility, if only in the narrow matter of advising on enactment.
I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I abide by it, but I simply make the point that if we passed the new clause Ministers would have to be responsible for private Bills, and that would make them liable for their advice. The Secretary of State would be responsible for making a formal statement, but to whom would he make it? Where would he make it? What purpose would it serve? What responsibility would the House then have to act? Who, at that stage, would have any opportunity to do anything? Or is the advice to the Crown? Would the statement constitute advice to Her Majesty not to sign the Act because it was not compliant?

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and he has invited us to consider a scenario. If my new clause was agreed to, and if the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General or the Law Officers considered the Bill not to be consistent and compliant with our human rights legislation, that would be communicated to Parliament, presumably through a statement in the Bill, as with Government Bills. The high contracting party—the United Kingdom Government—would then have to use their payroll vote to defeat the Bill, should the promoters persist. That is the point: Her Majesty's Government would have to say where they stood.

§ Mr. McDonnell
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, although I agree with the principle that he has 1298 established—at some stage, a Minister would become responsible and, under section 19 of the Human Rights Act, make a statement—such a statement should have been made when the Bill was published. I shall come to that point later. A Minister would make a statement, but the House could not then consider the Bill and there would be no procedure whereby it could be republished, considered in Committee, amended and ratified. I am willing to be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any other Member on that.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Such a Bill would be defeated.

§ Mr. McDonnell
From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend says that the Bill would be defeated. My view all along has been that the House should either amend it to make it workable or defeat it and throw the thing out. I still think that we have to try to make it workable and I am willing to accept compromises over the role of the City Corporation.

§ Mr. Robert Syms (Poole)
The hon. Gentleman said that the City offered him a meeting. Has he taken up that offer?

§ Mr. McDonnell
That is a difficult question.

§ Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)
It is a straightforward question.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I cannot tell hon. Members why it is a difficult question because it is a matter for advice. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and I met the City Corporation to discuss an appropriate amendment, but I do not want to take the discussion beyond the new clause.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
We should consider the point raised by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), my way. I would not discuss those matters outside the House with the promoters, other than to make clear what I said a year ago. This year, however, I was not invited to the Lord Mayor's show.

§ Mr. McDonnell
We have all been regularly invited to the Lord Mayor's show. However, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, I should confirm to my hon. Friend that I met the City Corporation to consider an appropriate compromise amendment. At that stage, it was not acceptable to me. I was extremely concerned about elements of the discussion, but I shall deal with that elsewhere and perhaps in private.
I support the principle in the new clause, but my main argument concerns process. The Secretary of State's responsibility would be established, but there would be no procedure to enable the Bill to be considered on the Floor of the House. I am willing to take advice on that at any stage. I say to the promoters that I would support such a new clause if they made proposals that would enable us to undertake such consideration.
I move on to the other arguments, one of which I want to place on the record. The debate is intensely frustrating because the matter could have been resolved so long ago. The Minister argued that the Bill is a private Bill and therefore not subject to consideration by the House in 1299 respect of the Human Rights Act. That is ludicrous. The Bill is printed under the auspices of the House and is being considered by the House.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. McDonnell
My hon. Friend shakes his head. The printing may have been paid for, but the Bill is printed on House of Commons paper and under the auspices of the regulations of the House. It is being considered in the Chamber. It may be a private Bill, but as soon as it becomes a matter for debate it is our Bill. That point was made earlier, but not sufficiently clearly. We have ownership of the Bill. It is no longer the City of London Corporation's Bill, but ours. We debate it here. Should we enact it, it would become legislation signed up to by the House. Therefore, it is ludicrous to say that it is nothing to do with us, but is some private matter to which the human rights convention cannot apply.
4.45 pm
It was also argued that, to comply with the principle of the new clause, the private promoter could make a statement guaranteeing or assuring the House that the Bill is compliant. During a previous debate, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that the City Corporation had taken advice and considered the Bill to be compliant. He also assured the House that, because the Attorney-General had not made a statement, the Bill was compliant. I am afraid that the tacit consent of the Attorney-General is not good enough. As far as I am concerned, a statement has to be made. It is noticeable that that legal advice has not been published. During the previous debate, which informs this debate, I made the specific point that any legal advice should be published in order to stand up.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has reminded us of that, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) can clarify the point. During our debate a year ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the corporation had taken legal advice and that the Bill was compliant. We pressed him on the nature of that advice. Will he publish it, as my hon. Friend asks, and was it the advice of counsel? I think that it was the advice of the corporation's jobbing solicitor. I have great respect for that good person, but his advice is not exactly that of counsel.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I shall make no reference to jobbing solicitors, but let me say that I did not make the point about publication to challenge in any way the veracity, honesty or integrity of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—far from it. Under section 19 of the Human Rights Act, a written statement—not just a statement to the House—must be made and must be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate. We asked for the promoters' statement to be put in writing to enable us, in a considered fashion, to take our time and receive advice on it. In my view, a ministerial statement, a signature and a sentence in a Bill is inadequate. That happens for other Bills, but the arguments should be made and the justifications set out.
1300 The promoters made it clear that they had taken legal advice. My understanding was that it was detailed and that we could consider it closely and, if necessary, hold discussions with them. That takes me to the other point about meeting the corporation. If that advice had been published, I would have been happy to meet it to consider the details and, if necessary, lose the argument. However, it has never been published. That is why I believe that it is not acceptable to allow the individual promoter to be responsible for publishing the statement on compliance. Such a statement should be detailed.
The argument about the statement itself is that a Minister makes a statement about compliance and is then accountable to the House for the office that he or she holds and the advice that he or she then receives from the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor or whoever. Not agreeing to the new clause and leaving it to the promoters to say yea or nay on compliance may be acceptable to the consciences of some of us and may be perfectly practical.

§ Mr. Corbyn
If the Bill goes through in its current form, with an enormous unresolved question about compliance with the convention, at what point, in my hon. Friend's view, will it be in conflict with our Standing Orders?

§ Mr. McDonnell
Given the complexity of the Standing Orders of the House, I do not completely understand what point we have reached in the procedure. If the Bill is enacted and its legality in relation to the European convention on human rights is challenged, who will contest the challenge? Obviously, it must be the United Kingdom Government, even though the Minister never accepted responsibility for the Bill. What would our role be at that point? We would have abided by our Standing Orders, followed our existing procedure and complied with the human rights legislation that we had enacted, but we would have erred in the result.
We produce a result in legislation that is not compliant with human rights legislation because we are hidebound by our own Standing Orders, and the Government will not shift and will not amend human rights legislation to apply to private Acts. Although the new clause is ingenious, it still does not resolve the situation concerning the responsibilities of the House.
I return to the matter of accountability, to make it clear why I consider it so important. The promoters may well make a statement on compliance, but they are not in the House. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster may be their advocate on earth, but he is not formally the promoter of the Bill. I am open to advice on the matter, but the promoters are not accountable to the House for the Bill, and are not accountable for the advice that they provide. Only a Secretary of State advised by the Government legal officers can be responsible. That is why the new clause is key.

§ Mr. Corbyn
In the case of normal Government Bills, the speech made by the Minister promoting the Bill on Second Reading can be quoted in a court of law, as my hon. Friend knows. If a case were taken through the British courts and ultimately the European Court of Human Rights against the City of London Corporation because of its failure to comply with the European 1301 convention on human rights, it is unclear who would be quoted as the authentic voice of Parliament's wishes in the matter.

§ Mr. McDonnell
We are getting ourselves into a state of total confusion about responsibilities. The matter could easily be resolved by the new clause, slightly amended, but it is too late in the game for that. We may have to return to it on another day.
The entire process has been frustrating. I have raised the matter eight times on a point of order, so there has been time to address it. It was not for the Chair, but for the Government, to undertake that.
The other argument advanced was that compliance with human rights legislation did not seem particularly important in the case of this Bill. At one point—I will defer to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is present—the statement was made that the human rights aspect of the Bill was not considered by the Committee because that was not a matter raised for the Committee. However, as I demonstrated in previous debates, the issue of compliance was part of a petition, so it is relevant to the residents of the City of London, who raised it in their petition to the Committee.
I am concerned that the Committee, having received such a petition, at a time when the human rights legislation had just been enacted, was never advised that it should consider the matter. That did not reflect a lack of responsibility on the part of the Committee. I attended a number of its sittings, and at no stage was the Committee advised by the relevant officers.
Who was there to advise the Committee? The only people who seemed to take an interest were the promoters. We are told that there was no Minister responsible, so the Committee worked in the dark. If a petition challenges the proposed legislation's compliance with the Human Rights Act, I would expect the Committee to consider the matter.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for having had to dart out of the Chamber for a moment. I was at the Vote Office, because my attention was drawn to two Bills that have recently been deposited in another place, which are relevant. They are the Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill and the National Australia Group Europe Bill. The first of those Bills, under the heading European Convention on Human Rights, states: In the view of Barclays Bank PLC the provisions of the Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. The second Bill goes further. Again, under the heading European Convention on Human Rights, the Bill states: Jane L. Shirran, Senior General Counsel to National Australia Group Europe Limited, the promoter of the Bill, has made the following statement on behalf of the company: In my view, the provisions of the National Australia Group Europe Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. I intervene for two reasons. First, those examples show that promoters are making such statements—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister knew that—and, secondly, they emphasise why the promoters of this Bill should do so.

§ Mr. McDonnell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a point that I had intended to raise later. In 1302 virtually every other sphere of operation of private legislation—private Members' Bills or those of private promoters—we adhere voluntarily to section 19 of the Human Rights Act, but the promoters of the present Bill have not done so. That strengthens the argument for the new clause.
If voluntary approaches to compliance with section 19 are not made in a form that is open to examination—that is, in the Bill as published—which allows dialogue after publication, there must be some force of legislation to ensure compliance. That is why the new clause, in principle, meets the objective of a longstop.
I do not want to use cricket metaphors while you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the new clause contains a proposal for some form of longstop for legislation going through the net if the other promoters—Members or promoters outside the House—refuse to comply.
That applies not just to the Bill under discussion, but much more widely. A Member whose name comes up in the ballot will choose the legislation that he wishes to promote, then seek a meeting with the Clerk of the House and the legal officers to see whether the legislation will comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 because, in the spirit of the legislation that we endorsed in November 1998, section 19 should apply.
It would be useful to have an undertaking from the promoters that they will publish such a statement. I should also like to see the legal argument that backs it up.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wantage has left the Chamber. When he chaired the Committee, he contested the assertion that the issue of human rights was a key issue. The matter was forcefully raised by Mr. Malcolm Matson in his petition. He argued very coherently that in his view the proposals effectively disfranchised a number of residents and would therefore not comply with human rights legislation. Mr. Matson continued: Your Petitioner and his rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 95.] At that stage, the Committee should have sought a statement from the promoters on compliance with human rights. It failed to do that and failed to address the issue. There was then a debate on the Floor of the House and, again, all that we had was a oral statement from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster.
5 pm
I am concerned, as we are dealing not with minor legislation but an issue that goes to the heart of the Human Rights Act. The new clause, faulty though it is, is about the only the chance that we have to ensure that we abide by our human rights responsibilities. I shall not go through it in detail but, as hon. Members have said, article 3 of the European convention on human rights made it clear that there should be free and fair elections. How would individual Members debate, discuss and identify whether the Bill complies with legislation on free and fair elections?
Obviously, we would do that as part of the process of debate, but we would also want to be informed by the Law Officers of the Government, and perhaps other specialists who deal in democratic procedures—especially 1303 in local government—whether or not the proposals in the Bill afford free and fair elections. In normal circumstances, I would expect that point to be addressed early in Committee, based on the advice both of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which, with the Home Office, is responsible for electoral arrangements, and of the Law Officers of the Government. At no stage in any discussion before the Bill was introduced was any advice offered on whether it would result in free and fair elections.
There is therefore now a new clause that, as I said, will provide the longstop of having the Secretary of State at the end of the process—not during it—to say whether the Bill will result in free and fair elections. I have to say that, throughout the debate, the Government response to that proposal has been embarrassing and, at times, farcical. First, we were told that there were no powers in the legislation to ensure compliance with human rights legislation. We have tabled an amendment to enable those powers to be introduced, but still the Government cannot support it. We were told that section 19 of the Human Rights Act was a right, not a requirement on the Government to challenge interpretation of compliance in a private Bill. Fair enough: section 19 excludes private Bills. Again, in the past, the Minister tried to tell us that the Government would intervene as of right, not as a requirement.
At no stage have we been told that the Government will intervene. We have not been told that the Government will look at the Bill and, if necessary, will intervene if they find that it does not comply with human rights legislation. We have never been given that assurance, although we have asked different Ministers and Law Officers for assurances that the Government should act, identify the problem and suggest the remedy. I do not understand what is so complex about assessing the Bill against the conditions of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, which we endorsed. If the new clause is not acceptable when, possibly, we debate the Bill further, that may give the Government an opportunity to introduce their own proposal.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am now getting the very clear impression that the hon. Gentleman is repeating himself. I put him on warning; otherwise I shall apply Standing Order No. 42.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am trying to argue that the new clause has been tabled because there has been a negation of the Government's duty to act in relation to compliance with human rights legislation. There is a duty to ensure that all legislation and, indeed all actions within the state, are compliant. That duty falls on the House and the Government as well as the promoters. Unless we accept the amendment, we shall be conspiring to make sure that we avoid our obligations under human rights legislation. It is interesting that, at various times, the Government have said that there should be a have-a-go morality: when we see a potential illegality, we should have a go. I am not arguing that the Government's Law Officers should wrestle the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to the ground or anything like that. However, the Government should at least take the responsibility proposed in the 1304 amendment to ensure that, at some stage, they can intercede. At this point, I believe that there is also a duty on the House, which we cannot avoid.
Finally, I agree with the amendment in principle, but I find it difficult to support it. The statement in the Bill is meant to assure Members that it complies with human rights legislation. If that assurance comes after the debate, but before enactment, the House will not have been informed and it will be too late to amend the Bill. The House could be led into illegality, and what would happen then? Would the Bill be enacted, and would we be liable? Would Royal Assent be an illegal act? I am not asking for the Queen to be banged up, or anything like that. However, we are reading ourselves into a situation where, even if we accept the amendment, we will have gone through a process that concludes with a Bill that is not compliant with human rights legislation.
If the amendment is put to the vote, I do not think that I can support it. Again, I ask the Government at least to reconsider the principle of the matter and, before the end of the passage of the Bill—if it is enacted at all—introduce a practical proposal that ensures that the Bill and all private Bills, all private Members' Bills and all privately promoted legislation comply with the Human Rights Act; otherwise, we will be forced to redress the matter at a later date, possibly after the general election. Even if the amendment is carried, I still worry that we will not have acted reasonably. I want to put it on record that, at every stage of debate on the Bill, I have made it clear that it is an abuse of the Human Rights Act. I accept no responsibility for the Bill if it is enacted. Therefore, if at any point in time, others are held liable, I will not be.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes)
I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in our interesting debate. I was a little crestfallen at the lack of a wholehearted welcome from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) earlier. He and I share a particular political interest, and we are both working hard on it in our respective positions. I have great regard for the work that he is doing. I know that his comments were not meant personally; none the less, he knows me well enough now to know that I would not come to the Dispatch Box unless I was on top of the issue. I am not sure whether that means that he will get the shift in position that he wants, and I hope that he accepts that.
I am speaking earlier than I had intended because it is clear from listening to my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that they are not aware of a Government statement made earlier today. It may be helpful if I inform all Members in the Chamber of the current position. Today, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council answered a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), in which he asked what arrangements she intends to make to inform the House of the compatibility of private Bills with the European convention on human rights. I should like to give the House my right hon. Friend's answer in full: Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to Private Bills. However, like all legislation, any Act resulting from the passage of such a Bill can be judged in the courts, either in the UK or in Strasbourg, for its compatibility with the ECHR. In future when Private Bills are deposited, promoters will be asked to 1305 undertake a full assessment of the compatibility of their proposals with the ECHR and to make a statement setting out their conclusion as to whether the Bill is compatible or not. A Minister in the Government department within whose policy responsibilities the subject matter of the Bill falls will make a formal statement saying that he believes that the promoters have undertaken a full assessment and that he does not (or, if necessary, that he does) see any need to dispute their conclusions. That does not, of course, mean that Ministers are accepting responsibility for private Bills, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. My hon. Friend's argument about that was spurious and flawed, as the Government are not accepting responsibility for private Bills.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I welcome the news given by the Under-Secretary and am grateful for her kind words, which I reciprocate. The announcement is a major step forward and, to a large extent, I have been asking for such an announcement for the past 12 months. She rightly stressed that the arrangement was for the future and that only legislation deposited in either House in future would be dealt with in the manner described. In that spirit, it would be fair and, more important, prudent for the Government to discuss with the promoter of the Bill whether the arrangement could be applied now. It is the Bill before us that is contentious, so perhaps the test should be applied now, even though the current process is under way.

§ Ms Hughes
If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall deal with his point in a moment.

§ Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)
I echo the welcome given by the hon. Member for Thurrock to the written answer. I hope that it can be repeated in the House, so that more hon. Members will be aware of it. Many hon. Members of all parties have argued for the sort of change that it announced. However, I seek some clarification. Was the President of the Council speaking only about guidance that will bind members of the current Government, or will the Government seek to introduce the arrangement as legislation?

§ Ms Hughes
I shall have to leave it to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to give greater clarity on the detail of her statement and on how the arrangements will work. I have at my disposal only the text of her answer. I hope that both the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will understand that I cannot pre-empt the further details that my right hon. Friend may want to give.

§ Mr. McDonnell
My hon. Friend is superb in dealing with her briefings and I understand her difficulty. We are discussing a major statement that was made at a late stage in the Bill's passage, so I understand her problems. However, I have a question that I should like her to take on board, although I do not expect her to respond today. When the Secretary of State or relevant Minister makes it clear that he or she has no dispute—that is the word that was used—with regard to the advice given by the promoter to the general public and the House, what element of liability for that advice will fall to the Government? Will the Government be taking 1306 responsibility for compliance in respect of such legislation? I do not expect an answer today, but at least to consider the point, so it can be addressed later.

§ Ms Hughes
As I have made clear, the question of liability and compliance is ultimately for the courts. I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition that I cannot deal any further with that question today.
I should like to proceed with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.

§ Mr. Davey
Before the Under-Secretary proceeds, will she answer another question about her previous comments? She told us that she was not sure whether the arrangements described in the written answer would be introduced in legislation. Will she ask the President of the Council whether she will make a full statement to House about the matter? I believe that it is of such substance that it is worthy to be the subject of such a statement.

§ Ms Hughes
I am sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Council will be drawn to the comments made during today's debate. I shall undertake to ensure that she is aware of them.
Hon. Members who have been present at the Bill's other stages will know that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) assured the House that it is the promoters' opinion that no contravention of the European convention on human rights arises from the Bill. My right hon. Friend the President of the Council made it clear in her written answer that the requirement for a Minister to give a formal statement to the House in the light of the promoters' assessment applies only to Bills to be introduced in future.
5.15 pm
If, however, the promoter and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster wish to submit the assessment to me, I shall, in the spirit of the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and of the Government's clear future direction on the matter, be happy to consider the assessment with a view to making a statement on Third Reading. The statement would deal with whether it had been properly carried out, in my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Subject to the views of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, that should not further delay today's business, which is to consider the amendments and to make more progress on the Bill.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome news about the future compatibility of private legislation. I imagine that such an arrangement must be introduced through a change in our Standing Orders. She seemed to say just now that she had received advice on the Bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights and with primary legislation. She appeared to think that there was no variance in that respect. Will she confirm that impression, or have I misunderstood her words? I believe that there is a clear distinction between the right to independent, free and fair elections and the proposals in the Bill.

§ Ms Hughes
I welcome the opportunity to put on record my hon. Friend's misunderstanding of my 1307 comments. I have received no such advice. I have read the Hansard record of previous debates on the Bill and the comments of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, as well as the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is present today.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Again, I do not seek a response today, but I should like my point to be considered and dealt with in a further statement, perhaps on Third Reading. Will my hon. Friend assure hon. Members that any statement by the promoter on human rights compliance will be published, made public and made available for examination by all hon. Members? Of course, hon. Members may themselves want to seek legal opinions. If such an assurance cannot be given now, will my hon. Friend ensure that the matter is considered by the President of the Council?

§ Ms Hughes
I am sure that that is part of the detail in respect of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Council will want to consider the need for further explanation in the House. I do not feel that I can go further. I have made the Government's position clear in relation to future private Bills. In the spirit of my right hon. Friend's answer, I have made an offer to the promoters; if they want to make their assessment available to me and to the Department, we will make a statement on Third Reading.

§ Mr. McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are in the Chair, and are therefore responsible for protecting the rights and role of the House, I ask you to ensure that the statement made by the President of the Council in her answer is examined. I believe that a statement of such importance for the Bill should have been circulated previously, and made orally to the House, so that we could have taken it into account.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is not for the Chair to determine how information is imparted to the House.

§ Ms Hughes
My right hon. Friend has made the position on future Bills clear in the proper manner, in answer to a question asked by an hon. Member. That information was put in the public domain before the start of the debate. My reference to it today was not intended to be a statement and did make the information available for the first time. It has been in the public domain for some time today.

§ Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)
The debate on human rights in relation to the Bill has already been the subject of a three-hour debate, almost a year ago, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said when the House divided on a new clause that he had tabled. I do not propose to repeat all that I said then in response, but I can provide the Official Report references. Given the level of interest that this issue has generated, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the actions taken by the promoters following last January's debate, and in response to the speech that the Minister has just made.
1308 As hon. Members would expect, the promoters reviewed the issue of human rights in the light of the debate a year ago. In addition, they referred the Bill, the text of the debate and a copy of the Home Office's guidance to Government Departments on the Human Rights Act 1998 to specialist leading counsel for an opinion. That opinion confirms that the Bill's provisions are compatible with the convention.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Brooke
I shall give way, but I do not guarantee that I will answer the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Corbyn
The right hon. Gentleman does not know what I am about to say.

§ Mr. Brooke
That is why I put in that caveat.

§ Mr. Corbyn
It is called getting one's rebuttal in first.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill has been referred to leading counsel, and that they have examined and considered the applicability of the Bill to the convention and the legislation. He has just made an important and significant statement. Would he undertake to publish that advice and to place it in the Library of the House?

§ Mr. Brooke
I can answer that question. I have not made an important statement, and I referred to the City as having taken legal opinion in the debate a year ago as well. I shall respond to the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question in my speech.
It is for Parliament to decide the procedural requirements for the disclosure of working papers. In respect of Government Bills, the requirement of section 19 of the 1998 Act is for a statement of compatibility. In her written reply to the hon. Member for Thurrock on last Session's Local Government Bill, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions stated that the Government do not normally publish their legal advice. That has a certain resonance for the question that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) just asked me.
The City would be hesitant to embark on a course of action that would take its approach out of line with that adopted for the mainstream of business brought before the House.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Even though the legal advice by Government Officers, which supports ministerial statements, has not been published, when a Minister makes a statement there is confidence that the legal advice is based on relatively sound advice that has been generated over a period. However, the non-publication of legal advice by a private promoter of a Bill, whom we can have no knowledge edge of or confidence in, is in a different category. We can have no full understanding of the depth of that advice. It behoves the promoters to publish the advice that they have received openly and transparently.

§ Mr. Brooke
I shall repeat what I said a moment ago. The normal provisions have been set out by the 1309 Government, and it is not for the Corporation of London to be involved in expanding the law of the land beyond where it currently reaches.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Was the advice given to the Corporation of London from counsel or was it obtained in-house—I do not mean that disrespectfully? May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, during the long summer recess, the promoters of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill and the Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury PLC (Transfer) Bill approached me and begged me to let their Bill advance. They offered to provide counsel's opinion and to publish it. That is the point. Other promoters are quite willing to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has asked, unlike the promoters of this Bill.

§ Mr. Brooke
On this occasion, as on a previous occasion, I use the words "leading counsel" to mean what they say. The City of London consulted leading counsel. In one of the hon. Gentleman's interventions, he referred to a common or garden local solicitor, which is somewhat derogatory to leading counsel, if I may say so. It is not for me to cast aspersions on other promoters of other Bills who have decided to be trailblazing and go beyond the requirements of the 1998 Act. That is for them. That was an act of generosity on their part, but it was voluntary, and in the process they were trailblazing.

§ Mr. Corbyn
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying no to the yes or no question that I put to him a few minutes ago. Will he explain to the House what on earth the Corporation of London wants to protect or hide by not publishing the advice it has been given on the human rights compatibility of this legislation? Anyone outside would find this legislation odd, if not peculiar, to put it at its politest. Why on earth will the corporation not publish the advice that it has received?

§ Mr. Brooke
I have already said that the promoters will be happy to fall in with what becomes the convention, and I am sure will be happy to participate in the dialogue that the Minister is offering. The Bill was deposited—to go back to the words used in the statement—long before the Human Rights Act was on the statute book. When it was deposited there was no such obligation on the promoters, and everything that has been done since has been done in the spirit of the Act.
I shall not prolong my speech by reiterating what I said at column 93 of Hansard on 24 January 2000 about the role of the Attorney-General in this process, which the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Thurrock will be perfectly well aware of because they took part in that debate. The Attorney-General did not choose to intervene in the Committee when suggestions were made that the Bill may not be compatible with the Human Rights Act. He assented, by silence, that it was compatible.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he be clear with the House? Is his 1310 advice that the Bill is totally in line with human rights legislation, or at variance with it, or are there questions surrounding it?

§ Mr. Brooke
I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical statement that leading counsel, having examined the Bill and the convention, said that it was fully compatible with the convention.
I hope that the three hon. Gentlemen will give me credit for my position. I should emphasise that everything I have said up to this point was prepared prior to the Minister's announcement, of which I had no prior knowledge; nor, I suppose, did the corporation. We have therefore had no opportunity to consider the consequences of the Minister's statement, but I will draw her comments to the promoters' attention—they are within earshot of our debate—and ask them to take stock, in the light of today's news. It would be unreasonable of hon. Gentlemen to press me further on the next steps that may be taken, for the same reason as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was prepared to give the Minister the benefit of not answering any question on the spur of the moment. I say diffidently that the Minister had the advantage of knowing about the statement, which I did not.

§ Mr. McDonnell
At the risk of being unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, which I do not want to be, may I ask him whether, as the Member identified with the Bill—I shall put it no stronger than that—he will advise the corporation to comply with the procedure suggested by the Government, and if necessary go further and publish the legal opinion?

§ Mr. Brooke
As the Member in charge of the Bill, I shall continue to advise the promoters on the state of play in Parliament, exactly as I have done throughout.
The promoters have sought to replicate the requirements of section 19 so far as practicable by placing on record their considered opinion and that of leading counsel that the Bill complies with convention rights. Members will have seen on today's Order Paper the motion on Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights. The promoter will of course co-operate fully with the Committee in any inquiries that it may wish to pursue relating to procedures for private business.
The hon. Member for Thurrock, who added to what he said a year ago—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—alluded to article 3 of protocol 1 of the European declaration of human rights, which states
: The High Contracting parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. The City's franchise is not in breach of that. Elections take place annually, and a secret ballot is in operation.
5.30 pm
If I am to be intellectually honest, I must say that the corporation might have been vulnerable in this regard before the changes to the alderman system. Aldermen were entitled to sit for life, but that is no longer the case, and the corporation is satisfied that the franchise reforms are wholly in keeping with the requirements of the convention.
1311 Article 14 of the declaration states: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
I may refer to the news that the Minister has given us later, but let me say this now.
No doubt the Attorney-General and others will read the report of our deliberations in Hansard. Let me respond to what the right hon. Gentleman has said by pointing out that the legislation would be tested against European norms, and that European norms mean one person, one vote—unimpeded by a property franchise. That is where the legislation is flawed, and I think that the Attorney-General, or whoever else is involved, will note the new test announced by Ministers today.

§ Mr. Brooke
As there appears to be no evidence of the corporation's discriminating against the various groups named in the declaration, it would appear that what opponents are getting at is the property qualification—as the hon. Gentleman suggested—and the award of additional votes to properties with high rateable values.
It should be noted, however, that the entitlement is awarded to the company, and that any one individual will be allowed to vote only once. No extra power accrues to any one individual as a consequence of these reforms. Of course individuals will have the power to appoint voters, but the manner in which they do so will be governed by the Bill, which will ensure that votes are allocated so that the electorate reflects the work force of the company rather than individuals who can be trusted to vote in the way preferred by the owners. In any case, all City elections are conducted by secret ballot, and there would be no way for the company owner to check how his work force has voted.
I have referred to the opinion of leading counsel on this matter. The hon. Member for Thurrock said that the promoters would not dare to accept the new clause, because the Bill would not meet the human rights obligations. That statement conflicts with the fact that the City obtained an opinion from leading counsel—whose credentials I have described to the hon. Gentleman—which confirmed that the Bill is compatible with convention rights. I stress that that was said by leading counsel, not a common-or-garden solicitor.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of rights of voting for people in the City of London, may I make this point? He is talking, in effect, about people having a second vote. The vast majority will not be resident in the City of London. The equivalent does not apply to other people in the country. Somebody who lives in my constituency and works at Ford in Dagenham has no right to vote in local elections in Dagenham; that person can vote only in local elections where he or she lives. What provision in line with the convention allows superior participation for a certain number of people who happen to work in companies based in the City of London?

§ Mr. Brooke
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman absorbed my observation that no one would have more 1312 than one vote. The fact that the Corporation of London still has a business vote was determined by the Labour Government of 1969, which granted a particular status to the City when they abolished the business vote elsewhere.
This Bill is not the only private measure in regard to which the question of compatibility with the Human Rights Act has been raised. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will recall having raised it in the last session, on Second Reading of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill. The promoters of that Bill provided an assurance through a statement by its sponsor, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), on the Floor of the House, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington accepted, withdrawing his objection in the process. That assurance was not stated to have the backing of leading counsel's opinion.
I simply observe that, given that the promoters have secured that backing there is even greater reason for hon. Members to take the same approach this time, and to accept the assurance that I have given.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Brooke
I will, because I quoted the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. McDonnell
My reason for withdrawing my objection was based not just on an assurance, but on the fact that I had examined the Bill in detail myself, and had no doubts about compliance. Now, not only do I have doubts about compliance; I am certain that the Bill does not comply with human rights legislation. That is why I want written assurances that at least advice has been given to the corporation, and some written advice from the Government. Perhaps the new procedure will make that possible.

§ Mr. Brooke
The hon. Gentleman has one view; leading counsel has another. There is however still time for the practice that we are discussing to be pursued.
I know the hon. Gentleman to be a pure-minded and open-minded man. When it is proved to him that this is compatible with human rights legislation, I am sure that he will accept that.
I am aware that there is some discourtesy to the hon. Member for Thurrock, but I think we have covered the business encompassed by the proposal. I beg to move that the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)
Will the Serjeant-at-Arms investigate the No Lobby? It has been 14 minutes since the start of the Division.

§ Mr. McDonnell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the debate will now continue, would it be possible for the statement made by the Government earlier today by means of a parliamentary answer to be copied and circulated to all hon. Members engaged in the debate?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
That is unnecessary. The statement will be available in the Library.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have been a victim of the closure motion had the Bill's sponsor been able to muster 100 people to vote, because I would then have been unable to reply to the debate. I am grateful to the House.
The House's disinterest in this matter was reflected in the Division on the closure motion. Bearing in mind the fact that a coalition that included the Deputy Prime Minister, the shadow Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman did not succeed in stopping my right to free speech, is it not time that the Bill's promoters got the message that there is no mandate for this legislation in the House?

Madam. Deputy Speaker
That was not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that all hon. Members will have heard it. The debate will now continue.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I am pleased that the House has decided to allow the debate to continue, particularly as I was one of the two signatories to new clause 2 and amendment No. 11. The fact that I am now able to contribute to the debate leaves me a much happier Member than I was a few moments ago.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Perhaps my hon. Friend would expand on why so few Members were willing to turn up to support the Bill, thus giving him an opportunity to continue the debate.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I have had an interesting few minutes standing outside the No Lobby considering such matters. It seems to me that the Bill has run its course and run out of time. This is the third time this Parliament that we have discussed the Bill and, on the human rights issue alone, the sponsor is unable to convince the House of its compatibility with human rights legislation. That seems to me to send a clear message. If only 99 hon. Members can find their way into the Aye Lobby to vote for a closure motion when there is an all-party coalition in support of a Bill, that Bill has clearly run out of time and run out of supporters. I hope that the Bill's promoters will think about that and about the sense of promoting legislation about which many people have the deepest possible misgivings.
The new clause and the amendment deal with the Bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights and the legislation that has been passed by the House to enshrine it in United Kingdom law. I invite the House to think about that for a moment. We passed the Human Rights Act 1998 because we believe in the rights of people to enjoy free elections, to have independent access to judicial decisions and to enjoy their rights as citizens. Yet the House is proposing to pass legislation which, in effect, runs against the spirit of everything that we understand as free, fair and independent elections. It is promoting the idea of election by corporation, by big business, by buildings and, to some extent, by the persons who happen to live and work in those buildings.
The sponsor of the Bill was questioned quite closely on this matter in his contribution: it seems strange that the Labour party, having for its entire existence campaigned against the business vote and the way in which the business men of yesteryear could vote at their home and place of business, is promoting that principle in the Bill.
1315 The promoters' statement says that considerably more people will be entitled to take part in elections in the City of London. That may be true, but the principle is fundamentally flawed and undermined—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing the debate on new clause 2. He is straying rather wide of that.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I understand your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but new clause 2 is about the compatibility of the Bill with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, passed by this Parliament. The convention clearly states that the principle of independent, free and fair elections based on the principle of one person, one vote, is to be the norm for legislative authorities throughout the contracting countries, of which this country is one. The Bill is fundamentally flawed in that respect. It runs contrary to that principle by providing votes for people at a place of business, and for businesses themselves, rather than for those who are ordinarily resident in the area.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Will my hon. Friend address what is at issue with regard to the new clause? Is he arguing that if the clause is not adopted and at no stage is there a statement by a Minister about compliance with the European convention on human rights, that will be taken as the Government's tacit support for the Bill? The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) has argued that the lack of a statement by the Attorney-General in Committee means that there is tacit support for the belief that this legislation does not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998.

§ Mr. Corbyn
My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. We are considering a Bill which, to be fair to the promoter, was introduced before the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed by Parliament.

§ Mr. McDonnell
With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it has been argued time and again that the Bill was introduced before the 1998 Act was enacted. It has been two years since that enactment; we are now into the third year of the legislation. At no stage has the Corporation of London given any indication that it would comply with section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

§ Mr. Corbyn
My hon. Friend outspeeds me in thought in this matter, and I congratulate him. I know that he has doubts about the new clause. My point was that, at the time of the Bill's deposition, the 1998 Act had not been passed—it was not part of British law. It now is part of British law. My hon. Friend is right that there has been ample opportunity for the Bill's promoters to come up with a definitive statement. The Bill's sponsor gave an oral statement this evening but has unfortunately declined to publish the evidence on the basis of which he made that statement. Therefore, the debate is still on.

§ Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon)
I take my hon. Friend's point, but at the time when the Bill was promoted we were signatories to the European convention on human rights. Although there may have been no formal legal 1316 obligation to have a certificate under the European convention, surely that issue should be addressed when considering important legislation of this nature.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Absolutely. The matter must be addressed. This country has been a signatory to the convention from its inception, so the convention has been part of British law in the sense that British citizens have ultimately had the right to go to the European Court if they want to do so. The convention is now part of British law and all legislation must be compatible with it, as the Minister has confirmed today. The question is: why on earth are the promoters not prepared to publish that evidence? What is the Government's responsibility in the matter? In the event of citizens taking out an action against the City of London Corporation—because they believe, for example, that its electoral procedures are incompatible with European law, the case would ultimately end up in Strasbourg. What would be the position of the British Government then?

§ Mr. McDonnell
May I take my hon. Friend back to his previous statement? He alleged that the City of London Corporation had not published the evidence on the basis of which an oral statement was made in the House to the effect that the Bill complies with the ECHR. The argument in the clause is extremely specific: the Government should make that statement. Under the new procedure suggested by the Government in their parliamentary answer, the onus is still on the promoters of the Bill to make the statement—a written statement. So far, we have been given only an oral statement, with no evidence to back it up. The Government's procedure would at least elicit a written statement; at some stage, I hope that the procedure will elicit the publication of the legal advice endorsing the statement.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The Minister made a series of important points in her speech. She pointed out that the rule that, in future, compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 has to apply to all Bills, including private Bills such as this, was an important and welcome step forward. My hon. Friend may recall that, when I intervened on the Minister, I had misunderstood her statement. I thought that she had said that the Government had examined the Bill, and that their Law Officers had okayed it in respect of human rights legislation. However, she specifically and categorically said that that was not the case, and that the Government had not necessarily endorsed the Bill as compatible with the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. It is therefore important that the House should reconsider the Bill's compatibility. As we continue our debate on new clause 2 and on amendment No. 11—

§ Mr. McDonnell
I apologise for again referring to an earlier statement made by my hon. Friend, but we should not exaggerate the import of the Minister's statement. Of course, I welcome it but the written answer itself—which I have only just gratefully received from the Minister— states: In future when Private Bills are deposited, promoters will be asked— there is no duty: promoters will be asked— to undertake a full assessment. 1317 A Minister will then make a statement. The promoters will be asked to make a statement; there seems to be no legal duty—unless the Minister wants to intervene on that point. Private Bills will continue to fall outside the procedure.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I understand that point. However, in the Minister's defence, I imagine that she would reply that the Government could do no more than ask the promoters to provide a certificate of compatibility because at that stage Ministers would have no power to secure compliance. I believe that the procedures of the House will have to be changed to ensure compatibility with the convention. Those who have been Members of this place for longer than me may confirm this: it could not be done by ministerial request, because then is a separation of ministerial and parliamentary powers. Although I welcome the Minister's view and her intention, one would assume that the Government's support for a private Bill would be dependent on that request having been met. That is all that the Government would ha re the power to do; they would have no power to enforce the request or to require it as a duty—only to make it. It would be incumbent on the House to alter its own procedures in that matter.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Before anyone is misled on this point, let us be clear about the fact that the Government are asking the promoter to comply. If the promoter does not comply, there is no power of enforcement—no action can be taken to prevent the promotion of legislation in the House; it would still be for the House to decide whether it went ahead. All that we shall receive is a statement from a Minister to the effect that the promoters have refused to adhere to the procedure; there is no duty—it is only a request.

§ Mr. Corbyn
As the Minister would be making a request—I take the burden of the parliamentary answer that we have received to be that the Government are now making that request of the promoters—in the event of the promoters' not acceding to that request, it seems to me incumbent on the House to refuse the Bill and to support the new clause, which would require that degree of compatibility.
I return to the point that I was trying to make earlier. There is a problem in relation to the compliance of the Bill with the human rights legislation. That problem arises from the proposed electoral system and method of voting proposed. The Bill would give corporate entities an unfair advantage over individual citizens, whereas the convention specifically says that the basis of any democratic process must be the individual person, voting secretly in a free and fair election. I am not convinced that a vote given to a corporation, albeit in some cases shared among the head office employees of that corporation, amounts to what one would consider to be a normal free and fair election.
Many of us who live in the boroughs surrounding the City of London believe that it would be much better if the whole thing was run in the same way as a normal local government body.
The Bill is a throwback—

§ Mr. McDonnell
Does my hon. Friend agree, as someone who represents a constituency on the borders of, 1318 or in close proximity to the City, that at each stage the City has rejected amendments that would have enabled the citizens of the surrounding boroughs to vote—even though the City has an influence on some of the services that those boroughs provide?

§ Mr. Corbyn
Not only does the City have an influence on local services by virtue of its proximity, its planning decisions and all that goes with them, such as traffic generation and employment, but, following the break-up of the Greater London council, the City has enormous influence on large parts of London through its housing policy and the estates that it owns or the large areas of open space—such as Hampstead heath—that it manages on behalf of the people of London. There is a question there of wider accountability.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed. In a sense, the House has already expressed a view on the question of compatibility with human rights legislation because, by refusing to pass a closure motion, it has enabled the debate to continue. Thus it is essential that the debate go its full course; that we hear from the promoter of the Bill, if he may speak again, about the concerns about applicability; and, above all, that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock should have an opportunity to address the House once again in reply to the debate.
The House has had a long record of electoral reform. The great Reform Act of 1832 was designed to get rid of the non-existent voters. Subsequent pieces of legislation all moved in the direction of the individual secret ballot. We have here the opposite of that: the canonisation of the idea of the business vote. I am worried that, if we pass the Bill in its current form, we shall end up promoting the idea of a business vote in future. Any other local government area that had a mind to do so could then promote that principle by means of the private legislation procedure.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
I hope that my hon. Friend is not naive enough—I know that he is not—to believe that it is possible that this gang of people in the City will accept the idea that the Bill has got to be compatible with the human rights legislation, and will say, "Oh dear, oh dear; we have just heard that we must make it fit and proper and in accordance with human rights." The last thing that these people, who are fiddling the vote left, right and centre, will do is say, "We had better incorporate human rights legislation." It will be done only by getting rid of the Bill and telling them exactly what they have to do.

§ Mr. Corbyn
In my view, the compatibility of the Bill with the human rights principle of one member, one vote would be as extraordinary as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. The suggestion that there is anything democratic about the proposals is ludicrous. I say to my hon. Friend that the convention is our defence of free and fair elections, as it is a way of trying to change the Bill. I am sure that he would agree that it is important that the House look again at the principles behind the Bill, and that new clause 2, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and I tabled, gives us the opportunity to do so.
1319 I do not want to detain the House too long on this matter, because other hon. Members have spoken at some length on it, and the Bill's sponsor made an lengthy intervention.

§ Mr. Skinner
In trying to get the question of the human rights compatibility within the ambit of the Bill, my hon. Friend has not mentioned that there is a body of people—I think it is called the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—whose job it is to spend a lot of taxpayers' money trotting around the world, telling eastern European countries how to get democracy in the future. Has he told any of its members that their work is being undermined? Has he called on them to say, "Look here, this Bill is not compatible with human rights, but you're going across there, telling them what a wonderful set-up we've got in Britain."? We have got democracy coming out of our earholes in the House of Commons; we have got none in the Lords, and we have now got the business vote in the City of London. Frankly, I am not against undermining the foundation's work, because it is a great big junket, but how on earth can the Government say that they are teaching the east Europeans how to be democratic, while pushing through this tinpot Bill, which is not even compatible with human rights legislation? There are four questions to answer.

§ Mr. Corbyn
I understood that there were rather more than four questions to answer. I am sure that my hon. Friend is not trying to undermine the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—nothing could be further from his mind than that. However, for £1.80, it could go to the City of London and examine the process, or it could come into the Chamber to do so. That would represent the cheapest possible examination of democratic procedures anywhere in the world.
There are some important points in what my hon. Friend says, one of which is that if the House were to pass the Bill and if it were enacted, any citizen could object and take out a case concerning his or her denial of human rights or the discrimination in favour of corporations under the Bill. They would take their case through the British courts and, ultimately, to Strasbourg. At that point, the Attorney-General, as the Government's chief Law Officer, would have to decide the Government's position because he or she would have to represent the British Government in that process. What possible defence could they offer for the Bill? How would they explain the curious nature of events in which, as a result of an accident of dates, even though this country was a signatory to the convention, because the Human Rights Act 1998 had not been passed, no statement of compatibility was proposed? The Government have said that they will request compatibility in future. It is presumably up to the House to change its Standing Orders to ensure that all legislation, including private Bills, must be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The Bill's sponsor said in an intervention that he was confident that the leading counsel's opinion he had received was that the Bill was compatible. I do not know who that leading counsel was. I have no idea what were the terms of the request made to the leading counsel. Apparently, we shall not be told of the content of leading 1320 counsel's opinion. The very least that the House can do is to support the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and I tabled, perhaps for no other reason than that those hon. Members who support the Bill are not prepared to explain in detail in the House how they can say that they believe the Bill to be compatible with the convention.

§ Mr. McDonnell
The reason for supporting the new clause is surely that it would place the onus on the Government; it involves a requirement, not a request. All we have been offered so far is a simple request to the promoters—a feeble solution. The new clause would specifically place a requirement on the Government's broad shoulders.

§ Mr. Corbyn
It would indeed put the requirement on the Government, but it would also provide them with a defence for the future. If they were called to Strasbourg to defend the Bill in future, they would at least know what they were defending. At the moment, they do not know that, because we have no idea how on earth the sponsor manages to conclude that the Bill is compatible.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover intervened earlier, he made the serious point that we are keen on sending delegations all around the world to talk about democracy and independent, free and fair elections. How on earth do we explain to an audience in the Czech Republic that this is the mother of Parliaments and the centre of democracy if we pass legislation that represents the opposite of those principles?

§ Mr. Skinner
I am trying my best to fathom why the promoters have not seized on the incorporation of this new Human Rights Act. Is it perhaps because this Bill started on its journey before that legislation was passed?

§ Mr. Corbyn
No.

§ Mr. Skinner
My hon. Friend says no. Is it possible that it would be better for the Bill to be dropped completely? Then, if it did come back incorporating the human rights aspect—none of us wants it to come back—at least the promoters would be on firmer ground? I do not want to give them any opportunity to do that, but what does my hon. Friend think? Is that part of the explanation?

§ Mr. Corbyn
My hon. Friend has put several points to me. I recall his Herculean efforts over the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Bill. There is a strange procedure in the House that if Government legislation has not passed through all its stages by the end of a parliamentary Session, it is lost. If by the end of a Parliament, and surely we are moving towards one, all legislation has not been passed, that is the end of it until it is reintroduced. We lost the Criminal Justice Bill before the 1992 general election and then it came back. I rather wish that it had not, but it did. The peculiarity is that private Bills, provided that they have had a successful carry-over motion before the dissolution of the Parliament or the end of a Session may continue. That seems absolutely bizarre. This Bill has life after death.

§ Mr. Dismore
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Corbyn
I will give way in a moment.
1321 My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bolsover asked why there was no compatibility certificate. A year ago there was a whole day debate, which I did not attend, on the compatibility or otherwise of this legislation with the convention and the Human Rights Act. So the promoters have had fully one year to examine its compatibility and return with an appropriate certificate.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Mr. Corbyn
I give way to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have to report that on the Division on the closure the numbers reported in the Aye Lobby should have been 100, not 99. May I personally say that I am sorry for the mistake? The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has kindly said that he joins me in my apologies?

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will deal with the point of order first. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to continue?

§ Mr. Bottomley
No, I have concluded.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
May I ask the Tellers please to resume their places?
In the circumstances reported by the Tellers for the Ayes I now direct in accordance with precedent that the numbers be corrected in the Votes and Proceedings. Furthermore, I now have no alternative but to put the question.

Several hon. Members
rose—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will understand my dismay and irritation. I explained earlier that I would be one of those who would suffer if the closure motion was passed. Ninety-nine people were reported to the House as having voted Aye, but you have just had a further report from the Tellers. May I draw your attention to the fact that during the Maastricht debate there was a reported drawn vote? On that occasion, the Government Whip was subsequently found to have erred, but that was or the following day and that fact allowed people to examine the written word. That is what I would call a Florida ballot. We have not been able to do that in this case, and I think that this Division is premature. I want to place on record my view that there should have been, at the very least, a re-calling of that disputed Division. We have here a travesty of a Parliament that has been rumbled by the inefficiencies of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I have no alternative but to take the word of the Tellers on this matter. Despite the 1322 precedent to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the precedent that I am using has been used on many occasions.

§ Mr. Skinner
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It should be placed on record that there were 99 Aye votes in the first Division—then there was either a hand recount or something else. It sounds to me as though those votes represented 99 bodies and a dimpled chad.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
That may be the hon. Gentleman's view, but I am accepting the comments of the Tellers.
May I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

§ Mr. McDonnell
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the events of the 25 minutes since the previous vote was recounted, may I ask that some formal report be given to the House on the events that took place, how they occurred and how the situation can be rectified in future? I believe that yet another discrepancy has occurred: 99 or 100 hon. Members voted for closure, and suddenly the number voting has dropped to 90. There should be a precise analysis of what occurred today.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The explanation is that I made a mistake.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has had the answer to his point of order.

§ Mr. Pound
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I associate myself with the comment of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley)? There were two of us telling. If mistakes were made, they were made by both of us.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Thank you.

§ Mr. McDonnell
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps when we undertake an investigation into the events that occurred tonight, we should consider how we can overcome the levels of fallibility that have been identified and what mechanism we can put in place to address the problem.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We have heard from both hon. Members who were Tellers, and they have explained to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington how the mistake occurred.

§ Mr. Mackinlay
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard from the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who confessed to having made a mistake. In fact, 100 hon. Members made a mistake. When we count the Division list tomorrow, as I intend to do, line by line, Florida-style, we will see all those on the payroll, all those on the Opposition Front Bench, all the people who line up with the undemocratic Corporation of the—

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman may hold that view, but I and the House have accepted the verdict of the tellers.

§ Mr. Corbyn
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An interesting situation has developed. The House 1324 heard from the Minister that the Government would in future request certification under the Human Rights Act, yet the House has specifically rejected consideration of the applicability of the Act to the Bill. Where does the Bill stand in respect of legislation already passed by the House—the Human Rights Act?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate on new clause 2 has been concluded and a vote taken. We must now proceed to the rest of the business of the House.

Division No. 49]	[5.36 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Beggs, Roy
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Bercow, John
Baldry, Tony	Blunt, Crispin
Beard, Nigel	Boswell, Tim
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Brady, Graham	Lansley, Andrew
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Leigh, Edward
Burstow, Paul	Letwin, Oliver
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Clappison, James	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	McLoughlin, Patrick
Collins, Tim	McNulty, Tony
Colman, Tony	MacShane, Denis
Cotter, Brian	Maples, John
Cran, James	Merron, Gillian
Cranston, Ross	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Moss, Malcolm
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Ottaway, Richard
Dowd, Jim	Page, Richard
Duncan, Alan	Paice, James
Emery Rt Hon Sir Peter	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, Nigel	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Flight, Howard	Prior, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Randall, John
Foster, Don (Bath)	Robathan, Andrew
Fowler Rt Hon Sir Norman	Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Gale Roger	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
	St Aubyn, Nick
Garnier, Edward	Spicer, Sir Michael
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Green, Damian	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Greenway, John	Swayne, Desmond
Grieve, Dominic	Syms, Robert
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Hammond, Philip	Temple-Morris, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Touhig, Don
Heppell, John	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Tyrie, Andrew
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)	Walter, Robert
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Waterson, Nigel
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Whittingdale, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Jenkin, Bernard	Wilkinson, John
Jenkins, Brian	Willetts, David
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Wilshire, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Khabra, Piara S	Mr. Peter Bottomley and
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Mr. Divid Amess.
NOES
Allan, Richard	McWalter, Tony
Banks, Tony	Pike, Peter L
Barnes, Harry	Savidge, Malcolm
Connarty, Michael	Skinner, Dennis
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Dismore, Andrew	Stunell, Andrew
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Vis, Dr Rudi
Iddon, Dr Brian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)	Tellers for the Noes:
McDonnell, John	Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and
Mackinlay, Andrew	Mr. Stephen Pound.

Division No. 50]	[6.18 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard	Iddon, Dr Brian
Banks, Tony	Linton, Martin
Barnes, Harry	McDonnell, John
Burstow, Paul	Mackinlay, Andrew
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)	McWalter, Tony
	Pound, Stephen
Chidgey, David	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Cotter, Brian	Skinner, Dennis
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Stunell, Andrew
Dismore, Andrew
Foster, Don (Bath)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Gerrard, Neil	Mr. John Cryer and
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.
NOES
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Heppell, John
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Baldry, Tony	Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Beggs, Roy	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Bercow, John	Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Boswell, Tim	Jenkin, Bernard
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia	Jenkins, Brian
Brady, Graham	Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Lansley, Andrew
Collins, Tim	Letwin, Oliver
Colman, Tony	Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Cran, James	Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Cranston, Ross	Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Dowd, Jim	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Duncan, Alan	McLoughlin, Patrick
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	McNulty, Tony
Evans, Nigel	MacShane, Denis
Flight, Howard	Maples, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	May, Mrs Theresa
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Merron, Gillian
Fox, Dr Liam	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Gale, Roger	Moss, Malcolm
Garnier, Edward	Norman, Archie
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)	O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda	Paice, James
Green, Damian	Pike, Peter L
Greenway, John	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic	Prior, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Randall, John
Hammond, Philip	Robathan, Andrew

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff	Tyrie, Andrew
St Aubyn, Nick	Walter, Robert
Soley, Clive	Waterson, Nigel
Spicer, Sir Michael	Wells, Bowen
Spring, Richard	Whittingdale, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Straw, Rt Hon Jack	Wilkinson, John
Swayne, Desmond	Willetts, David
Syms, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter	Tellers for the Noes:
Touhig, Don	Mr. Peter Bottomley and
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Mr. David Amess.