§ Lords amendment: No. 2.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this we may also consider amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
§ Ms KeebleAgain, this is a small but important amendment that ensures that people understand the consequences when they are offered accommodation.
At Committee stage in another place, concern was expressed that local housing authorities should not be able to bring the main homelessness duty to an end with a qualifying offer of an assured shorthold tenancy with a private landlord before it was absolutely clear that the applicant had understood the written statement that explains that that person has no obligation to accept the offer and that, if they do accept it, the homelessness duty will end.
The Government had a lot of sympathy with that concern. I think that hon. Members will agree that the crucial point is that the applicant must confirm that he or she has understood the statement. That may involve the person reading the statement themselves or someone else reading it to them. However, it may involve translating the statement into another language, or explaining to the applicant step by step what the effect of accepting an offer would be.
The Government are therefore of the view that it is unnecessary for the Bill to refer to the means by which an applicant must come to understand the content of the statement. All that is needed is the central requirement that the person has understood it.
Amendment No. 2 would achieve that and simplify the Bill. It would have the benefit of emphasising the key requirement that the applicant has understood the statement. I therefore commend amendment No. 2 to the House.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownI suspect that we all agree with the Government's aspiration. It is a question of how it is done and what may happen if it is not done correctly, which is why we have tabled an amendment in lieu.
The to-ing and fro-ing that took place in the Lords is very interesting but perhaps I should explain what is in the Government's mind and what is in our mind. New subsection (7B) in clause 7 states:
The authority shall also cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant accepts a qualifying offer of an assured shorthold tenancy",It is an important part of the Bill's operation. The moment the applicant has accepted the offer, the local authority will not be under any of the obligations that we have 472 talked about: to give advice, assistance and everything else. So it is important that the applicant has read and understood it. For some reason the Government want to take out the words in new subsection (7E) "read and understood". To the contrary, we would like to strengthen this whole matter and insert the words:the statement mentioned in subsection (7D), or that it has been read to him, and that he understands it.We want to be crystal clear that, in accepting the offer, the applicant, who may not be able to read or may be of limited learning, understands what is being put in front of him. We all have constituents who come to our surgeries and articulate what their fear or their particular problem is, but who, if we asked them to put it down in a letter, would not be able to do it. It is thus an important matter.In supporting the amendment in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Hanham said:
On amendment No. 15, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville has already said, there should be no question that somebody has understood the words relating to the qualifying offer.Those are important words. My noble Friend continued:I know it is common practice in Parliament to suggest that somebody should sign in relation to what they have read and understood. In relation to the world in which we are trespassing at the moment—those who are homeless and many of whom are vulnerable—it would be correct not to assume that they could have read. Indeed, somebody should have ensured that they understood the matter and that, if they could not read, it was read to them",We all agree with that, and our fear is that it will not happen.I do not understand why the Government want to take the words out. One would expect that when an offer was put in front of somebody, he would be asked—in a non-intimidatory way—whether he could read it and understand it. If there was any doubt whatever about whether he could read or understand it, he should have it explained to him—with patience, and for as long as it took.
In replying to my noble Friend Baroness Hanham, the Minister, Lord Falconer, said:
Finally, Amendment No. 15 seeks to protect the position of applicants who, for whatever reason, would be unable to read a statement from the local housing authority about the qualifying offer. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. I give an undertaking to consider it and come back with some form of solution to the problem at Report stage because a solution is clearly required."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 30–32.]What is the Government's solution? To take out the words "read and"—in other words, to weaken the provisions. Later, on Report in the House of Lords, Lord Falconer moved amendment No. 12, to leave out the words "read and", so the amendment was agreed to in another place. I cannot understand why the Government want to take those words out. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) or the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) wish to intervene? Apparently not.
It is extraordinary that the Government now want to weaken the clause. It is a serious matter when a qualifying person is made such an offer, because he could lose all his existing rights. If he has not properly understood that, the situation is serious. I look to the Minister to provide us with a real explanation of why the Government are doing this, so that we can consider whether we want to vote on the amendment.
§ Mr. Don FosterI am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for having spent a few 473 minutes with me before our deliberations explaining his and his party's thinking on this issue. I listened with great care to what he said, and I note with considerable interest that he shares my concern that the important factor is the understanding. It is vital that the person concerned has understood the question on which he has to make a decision.
I also note, however, that the hon. Gentleman's proposed amendment in lieu would make no change whatever concerning understanding. The words
and that he understands itappear in his amendment, just as the words "and understood" appear in the wording proposed by the Minister. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the crucial word is "understands", neither his amendment nor the Minister's proposed wording gives full details of how it is to be checked that the person has understood, so that is the issue that the Minister must deal with in responding to the debate. I shall listen with great interest to the assurances that she can give the hon. Gentleman and me that procedures will be in place to ensure that the applicant has understood the issue before him.Inevitably, as one might expect, I have had discussions with Shelter. As I am sure that the whole House is aware, Shelter has played a valuable role in determining on and proposing amendments. I am delighted that on many occasions—sometimes after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing—those amendments have been accepted by the Government.
There is no doubt whatever of Shelter's view: "understanding" is the crucial word. Shelter's briefing makes the point succinctly and clearly:
By omitting the requirement to read the statement, the amendment will ensure that those who are unable to read it are given a proper opportunity to fully understand it by having it translated or read to them.Those are almost the same words as the Minister used in her introductory remarks, so it is clearly the Government's intention that alternative procedures will be set up to ensure that translation is available and that there are opportunities for someone to read the documentation to the applicant.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownI should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman explained one simple point: how is a person supposed to understand the offer if he has not read it? Without the amendment, the Bill makes it clear that he has both to read and understand the offer. He should then be asked whether he has read and understood it.
§ Mr. FosterThe hon. Gentleman and I agree that the crucial issue is understanding. Various mechanisms can help someone to understand: the individual could read the document himself; a translation could be prepared for him to read; or the document could be read to him. The amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman suggests that the person would have read the offer or would have had it read to him.
The Minister went further. She said that a translation would be made available and that there would be an explanatory discussion. That strikes me as a better way of proceeding. All those points will pale into insignificance, 474 however, unless we make it clear that a variety of strategies will be offered to ensure that the person has understood.
The hon. Gentleman asks me how we shall know for certain that a person really has understood. His amendment does not address that question any more than the Government's proposals. Let us hear what the Minister has to say to reassure us. If we can be assured that there will be strategies to ensure that people understand, we may be able to make some progress.
§ Chris GraylingI want to say a few words in support of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He has articulately set out the problems as regards literacy and the implications for someone who is illiterate or not fully literate in understanding often complex matters. Two further points need to be addressed. Before I do so, I should point out that—as we have been discussing private lettings—I am a small-scale private landlord, as listed in the Register of Members' Interests, although that is not specifically relevant to the detail of this debate.
In the few months I have been a Member of Parliament, my experience—like that of many hon. Members—is that at constituency level housing issues are much more complex to deal with than they first appear. There are always two sides to every argument, debate and discussion: for example, whether someone was allocated an appropriate property; or whether a housing application has been dealt with appropriately.
A stipulation that relies entirely on the use of the word "understand" leaves open a broad area for debate and discussion if things go wrong. Who said what to whom? Was something fully explained? Did the person read the documentation or not? If something goes wrong with a private letting after a few months and the tenant seeks additional help from the authority, matters of dispute in the initial discussion—for example, what was communicated to whom and when, or what was read or not read—could have significant implications for future housing. The Lords amendment, residing as it does entirely in the word "understood", leaves too much room for dispute at a later stage. It would not be prudent or sensible for the House to go forward on that basis.
5.45 pm
The second point is fundamentally important. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) touched on it. It relates to the ethnic community, either people already in this country or those who come to the UK seeking accommodation. Anyone who has been involved with local authorities knows that nowadays they often have to produce documentation in a considerable number of languages.
As many people with housing problems have little or no knowledge of English, how can we be sure that an applicant who does not have a first-rate command of English and is dealing with an English-speaking housing officer is able fully to understand the legal implications of what they are doing? In those circumstances, if the legislation relies only on the use of the word "understood", it will open up a mine field at a later date.
§ Mr. Don FosterThe hon. Gentleman may have a valid point about relying only on the word "understood",
475 but his amendment relies entirely on the use of that word. He rightly stresses the importance of translation for ethnic minority groups. Incidentally, such groups include not only people who come to this country from elsewhere, but many people born in this country for whom English is not their first language. That is crucial. After further reflection on that point, does he want to say anything about the new burdens principle and the cost of that translation service to some authorities, including his own?
§ Chris GraylingI thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Perhaps he did not hear me say that I was not talking only about those people who come to this country but also about people who are English nationals. There is no automatic assumption that people who are either naturalised Britons or who were born in this country have an excellent understanding, knowledge and use of the English language.
It is entirely appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the new burdens principle. As I said during our discussion of the previous group of amendments, the Government need constantly to be mindful of new burdens. Whether we like it or not, it is certainly true that local authorities already carry a burden of translation as regards vast amounts, if not all, of their official documentation. There would be no exception in the circumstances that we are discussing.
I would like to correct the hon. Gentleman in his remarks on the use of the word "understand". Understanding is part of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and his colleagues. The amendment still specifically provides either for someone to read or to have read to them the documentation relating to their case. There are thus three dimensions, not one.
The Government's amendment relies specifically on understanding alone and casts aside the issue of reading. Surely it is right and proper that anyone entering into a legal agreement should have read it or have had it read to them, and should have clearly understood it. If that is not the case, far too many grey areas will be left open.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownNo doubt my hon. Friend, with his local government experience, knows what will happen. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society will be wheeled in and given an offer. According to the terms of the Bill, they will have to sign a statement acknowledging that they have read and understood the offer. By its nature, that whole process is intimidatory. Housing officers are busy people. They are not likely to give the applicant much time, so we need to take the greatest possible care in respect of these provisions.
§ Chris GraylingI thank my hon. Friend for that cogent point on which the Minister would do well to reflect.
There are important issues as regards literacy and the grey areas that frequently exist in debates over individual housing problems.
§ Mr. LoveI thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is the second Member to speak in favour of the amendment, but unfortunately I am still having some difficulty in understanding it. Even if I asked him to read it out I am not sure whether that would help me to understand it any better.
476 Surely the crucial point is whether the person has understood the contents of the letter. It is not explanation that is important, as has been suggested. The issue is not about reading but about understanding. If people understand the letter, surely they will be able to make a decision.
§ Chris GraylingI should point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the vast majority of cases in our daily lives when we encounter a terms and conditions document, we are supposed to tick a box to indicate that we have read and understood it. I suspect that, like me, he probably never bothers to read the terms and conditions document, and checks the box at the bottom of the page to move on. However, that document has legal force. If it says that one has no right to expect any service whatever from the person with whom one contracts, the law will fall on the side of that person. That is a fundamental issue in relation to the housing of people who are homeless or who are on the verge of becoming homeless. Very often, such people will not have a full grasp of the legal and regulatory issues, and it is surely right and proper that the law should at least ensure that they have read the terms and conditions document, or that it has been read to them, so that they know exactly what they are letting themselves in for.
§ Mr. Bill Wiggin (Leominster)The Government have spent a huge amount of money on promoting adult literacy—indeed, there are radio advertisements about literacy gremlins. It is therefore tremendously important that terms and conditions should be read to people with literacy problems. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to support that approach.
§ Chris GraylingI thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Literacy is one of the three fundamental points, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold outlined, which means that to rely simply on the word "understanding" is, legally, too grey. Knowledge of the English language or lack of it affects many of the people who have come to this country or who live in this country, besides many of our ethnic minority groups, which includes many of those who are most affected by the issues in this Bill. There are also those cases that present a potential for a dispute between an applicant and an authority. All those are realities.
The amendment in lieu goes some way to addressing pitfalls down the road for local authorities—pitfalls that are not addressed by the Lords amendment. I hope that the Minister will change her mind and allow the amendment in lieu to be made.
§ Mr. Mark FieldI support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). This amendment represents a belt and braces approach. Perhaps I would understand if the Minister read the whole Bill out to me, but I still do not understand and appreciate her statement that the Lords amendment, which deletes two words, improves matters. I cannot see how that can be the case. However, I appreciate entirely that there is a thought in the Minister's mind that there may be a correct process to 477 follow, particularly in London, where many people speak English not even as a second but as a third or fourth language.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownDoes my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Lords accepted precisely the amendment that we are now being asked to reverse?
§ Mr. FieldThat was going to be my second point. It concerns me not least because the Conservative spokesmen in the Lords have local government experience in London, where there are clear and understandable concerns that people who do not speak English as a first language need to have such a statement read to them as a belt and braces approach to make sure that they understand it. Such people must understand the implications for their housing situation of declining an offer. I am perplexed about how the Minister can come to the view that by removing two words the rights of the most vulnerable in our society—who are homeless—will be safeguarded. I also share the constitutional concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. If the Lords discussed and proposed the amendment that we are suggesting in lieu, why was the deletion made in amendment No. 2 accepted?
§ Ms KeebleThere has been a lot of discussion about not very much, and hon. Members will need to read and understand the Hansard record of the debate. I shall not deal in turn with each of the hon. Members who has spoken because they all said similar things, and they all agreed with what I said previously, which is that people should understand their position, what it means for them to get an offer and, more importantly, what will happen when they accept or refuse the offer.
It was originally proposed that people should read and understand the statement. Lords amendment No. 2 simply requires them to understand the statement, and the means by which they come to understand it should be left to the judgment of local authorities. Both the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the Government should come up with strategies to ensure that people understand the statement and they helpfully suggested some, including the use of an appropriate language. The hon. Member for Cotswold also said, with menace, that the statement should be explained to people very nicely until they understand it. Both hon. Members made it clear that they understand completely what it means to take people through the terms of a document so that they understand it.
The amendment in lieu, tabled by Conservative Members, would mean that the statement must be read by the person concerned or read to him, and understood. The Government believe that that would restrict the strategies that could be adopted to ensure that people understand the statement.
§ Mr. Mark FieldDoes the hon. Lady appreciate that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 contains similar safeguards, which ensure that any statement made by a defendant is not only understood by him but read out to him before he signs it?
§ Ms KeebleWe are discussing how to ensure that someone understands what is meant by a housing offer. 478 As several Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Bath have said, these are complex issues that people need to discuss in detail. That is why we proposed that there should be a burden on the local authority to ensure that people understand the housing offer and the consequences of their decision to accept or reject it. It should be left to the local authority to make arrangements as to the methods by which people acquire that understanding, whether it be by reading the statement themselves, having it read to them in English or, if different, their mother tongue or having it explained to them gently step by step as the hon. Member for Cotswold recommended.
Although some Conservative Members keep saying that they have been in the House only a short time, they show every sign of understanding that it is a big issue to take a person through the process of receiving a housing offer and making a decision. That is why we tabled the amendment in the other place. It arose from debate in the other place, and had not been raised earlier in this place. It is an improvement because it will not restrict housing officers to one or other means of making sure that people understand the process; it will place on local authorities the burden of ensuring that understanding.
§ Chris GraylingWill the Minister give way?
§ Ms KeebleYes, but we have gone over the issue a few times and I have set out clearly the available choices.
§ 6 pm
§ Chris GraylingDoes the Minister realise that her approach places the burden of responsibility for explanation entirely on the shoulders of the housing officer without requiring applicants to take responsibility for themselves? Amendment (a) would provide an appropriate balance of responsibility between the two.
§ Ms KeebleThe burden of responsibility lies with the people concerned because they have to decide what to do about an offer. Their choice has to be informed, however, and on that basis it is important that people understand the process, what is happening and the consequences. That is why the Lords amendment No. 2 has been couched in terms that place a duty on local authorities to ensure that people understand. My winding-up note merely repeats that.
§ Mr. Don FosterPerhaps I can help the Minister with her winding-up speech. Will she give a categorical assurance that the burden of responsibility will be on the local authority housing department to ensure that applicants fully understand what is put before them? Will she also assure us that guidance will be provided to each local authority on a range of strategies that they are expected to use in different circumstances to ensure that that happens, including reading the document to applicants, translating it to their mother tongue, having an independent expert explain it to them or, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, taking them through it step by step?
§ Ms KeebleI assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of Lords amendment No. 2 is to place a duty on the local authority housing officer to ensure that applicants understand what is happening. I also assure him 479 that guidance will be introduced. However, I cannot give a date for that or be specific about the range options that it will include because that would be restrictive.
We have had a good discussion on the different methods available to ensure that someone understands the process. It is in everyone's interest, including that of the local authority, to ensure that applicants understand what they are doing and the consequences of their decisions. As all hon. Members know, if someone does not understand what is happening, they complain or appeal.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownWe have had a—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Order. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had spoken. He cannot speak again.
§ Mr. Clifton-BrownOn a point of clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order either to oppose the amendments or to agree to them?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am advised that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to this group of amendments so he does not have the right to speak again. The debate has come to its conclusion.
§ Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 97.
481| Division No. 168] | [6.4 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Buck, Ms Karen |
| Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE) | Burden, Richard |
| Allan, Richard | Burgon, Colin |
| Allen, Graham | Burnett, John |
| Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E) | Burstow, Paul |
| Cable, Dr Vincent | |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Cairns, David |
| Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary | Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) |
| Atherton, Ms Candy | Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) |
| Bailey, Adrian | Caplin, Ivor |
| Baird, Vera | Carmichael, Alistair |
| Baker, Norman | Caton, Martin |
| Banks, Tony | Cawsey, Ian |
| Barnes, Harry | Challen, Colin |
| Barrett, John | Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) |
| Barron, Kevin | Clapham, Michael |
| Battle, John | Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Clark, Paul (Gillingham) |
| Beard, Nigel | Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Coaker, Vernon |
| Bennett, Andrew | Cohen, Harry |
| Benton, Joe | Coleman, Iain |
| Berry, Roger | Cook, Frank (Stockton N) |
| Best, Harold | Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston) |
| Betts, Clive | Cooper, Yvette |
| Blackman, Liz | Corston, Jean |
| Blears, Ms Hazel | Cotter, Brian |
| Borrow, David | Crausby, David |
| Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) | Cruddas, Jon |
| Bradshaw, Ben | Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) |
| Brake, Torn | Cryer, John (Hornchurch) |
| Breed, Colin | Cummings, John |
| Brennan, Kevin | Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Dalyell, Tam |
| Browne, Desmond | Darling, Rt Hon Alistair |
| Bryant, Chris | Davidson, Ian |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Kemp, Fraser |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W) |
| Dawson, Hilton | |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Khabra, Piara S |
| Denham, Rt Hon John | Kidney, David |
| Dhanda, Parmjit | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Donohoe, Brian H | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Doran, Frank | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Knight, Jim (S Dorset) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Edwards, Huw | Lammy, David |
| Efford, Clive | Lawrence, Mrs Jackie |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Lepper, David |
| Ennis, Jeff | Leslie, Christopher |
| Farrelly, Paul | Linton, Martin |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead) | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Fisher, Mark | Love, Andrew |
| Fitzpatrick Jim | Luke Iain |
| Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna | McCartney, Rt Hon Ian |
| Flint, Caroline | McDonagh, Siobhain |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | MacDonagh, Calum |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | McDonnell, John |
| Foster, Michael (Worcester) | McGuire, Mrs Anne |
| Francis, Dr Hywel | McIsaac, Shona |
| Gapes, Mike | McKechin, Ann |
| Gardiner, Barry | McKenna, Rosemary |
| George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S) | McNulty, Tony |
| Gerrard, Neil | Mactaggart, Fiona |
| Gibson, Dr Ian | McWalter, Tony |
| Gilroy, Linda | Mahmood, Khalid |
| Godsiff, Roger | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Goggins, Paul | Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter |
| Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) | Mann, John |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Marris, Rob |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) |
| Grogan, John | Marshall—Andrews, Robert |
| Hain, Rt Hon Peter | Martlew, Eric |
| Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) | Michael, Rt Hon Alun |
| Hamilton, David (Midlothian) | Milburn, Rt Hon Alan |
| Hanson, David | Miliband, David |
| Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W) | Miller, Andrew |
| Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart) | Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) |
| Harvey, Nick | Mole, Chris |
| Healey, John | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Heath, David | Morley, Elliot |
| Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) | Mullin, Chris |
| Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) | Munn, Ms Meg |
| Hepburn, Stephen | Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | |
| Heppell, John | Norris, Dan |
| Hermon, Lady | O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) |
| Heyes, David | O'Hara, Edward |
| Hill, Keith | Olner, Bill |
| Hodge, Margaret | Organ, Diana |
| Hope, Phil | Owen, Albert |
| Hopkins, Kelvin | Pearson, Ian |
| Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E) | Perham, Linda |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Pickthall, Colin |
| Hoyle, Lindsay | Pike, Peter |
| Humble, Mrs Joan | Plaskitt, James |
| Iddon, Dr Brian | Pond, Chris |
| Illsley, Eric | Pound, Stephen |
| Ingram, Rt Hon Adam | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead) | Prosser, Gwyn |
| Jamieson, David | Pugh, Dr John |
| Jenkins, Brian | Purchase, Ken |
| Jones, Helen (Warrington N) | Purnell, James |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Quin, Rt Hon Joyce |
| Jones, Kevan (N Durham) | Quinn, Lawrie |
| Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak) | Rapson, Syd |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Rendel, David |
| Keeble, Ms Sally | Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland) |
| Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) | |
| Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) | Rooney, Terry |
| Ross, Ernie | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| Roy, Frank | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Ruane, Chris | Tipping, Paddy |
| Ruddock, Joan | Todd, Mark |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) | Touhig, Don |
| Ryan, Joan | Trickett, Jon |
| Sanders, Adrian | Truswell, Paul |
| Sarwar, Mohammad | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Shaw, Jonathan | Turner, Neil (Wigan) |
| Sheerman, Barry | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Shipley, Ms Debra | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Simon, Siôn | Wareing, Robert N |
| Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) | Watson, Tom |
| Skinner, Dennis | Watts, David |
| Smith, Angela (Basildon) | Webb, Steve |
| Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) | White, Brian |
| Smith, John (Glamorgan) | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Soley, Clive | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W) |
| Southworth, Helen | |
| Squire, Rachel | Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) |
| Starkey, Dr Phyllis | Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon) |
| Steinberg, Gerry | Williams, Roger (Brecon) |
| Stewart, David (Inverness E) | Wills, Michael |
| Stewart, Ian (Eccles) | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Stinchcombe, Paul | Woodward, Shaun |
| Stoate, Dr Howard | Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) |
| Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin | Wright, David (Telford) |
| Stringer, Graham | Wright, Tony (Cannock) |
| Stunell, Andrew | Wyatt, Derek |
| Sutcliffe, Gerry | Younger-Ross, Richard |
| Tami, Mark | |
| Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) | Mr. Nick Ainger and |
| Taylor, David (NW Leics) | Mr. Phil Woolas. |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) | Green, Damian (Ashford) |
| Bacon, Richard | Greenway, John |
| Barker, Gregory | Grieve, Dominic |
| Baron, John | Hammond, Philip |
| Bercow, John | Hawkins, Nick |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David |
| Blunt, Crispin | Hendry, Charles |
| Boswell, Tim | Hoban, Mark |
| Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Brady, Graham | Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) |
| Burnside, David | Jack, Rt Hon Michael |
| Burt, Alistair | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Cameron, David | Key, Robert |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) | Kirkbride, Miss Julie |
| Laing, Mrs Eleanor | |
| Chope, Christopher | Leigh, Edward |
| Clappison, James | Letwin, Oliver |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) |
| Collins, Tim | Liddell-Grainger, Ian |
| Conway, Derek | Lidington, David |
| Curry, Rt Hon David | Loughton, Tim |
| Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) | Luff, Peter |
| Djanogly, Jonathan | MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew |
| Duncan, Peter (Galloway) | Maclean, Rt Hon David |
| Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Fabricant, Michael | Malins, Humfrey |
| Field, Mark (Cities of London) | Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian |
| Flight, Howard | May, Mrs Theresa |
| Flook, Adrian | Moss, Malcolm |
| Francois, Mark | Murrison, Dr Andrew |
| Gale, Roger | Norman, Archie |
| Garnier, Edward | O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury) |
| Gibb, Nick | Osborne, George (Tatton) |
| Gillan, Mrs Cheryl | Ottaway, Richard |
| Goodman, Paul | Paice, James |
| Gray, James | Paterson, Owen |
| Grayling, Chris | Pickles, Eric |
| Prisk, Mark | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Redwood, Rt Hon John | Waterson, Nigel |
| Robathan, Andrew | Watkinson, Angela |
| Robertson, Hugh (Faversham) | Whittingdale, John |
| Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) | Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Wiggin, Bill |
| Ruffley, David | Willetts, David |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Wilshire, David |
| Selous, Andrew | Yeo, Tim |
| Soames, Nicholas | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Spicer, Sir Michael | |
| Spink, Bob | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Syms, Robert | Mr. Julian Brazier and |
| Taylor, Sir Teddy | Mr. Desmond Swayne. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.