PLACES, DATES AND TIMES OF SITTINGS

HC Deb 20 October 2003 vol 411 cc442-51

Mr. Heath

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 14, line 14, after 'courts', insert '(including family proceedings courts and youth courts)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 14, line 33, after 'place', insert

'in the local justice area'. No. 7, in page 14, line 33, at end insert— '(e) a place where specific facilities are available which are necessary in the interests of justice'.

Mr. Heath

These amendments are in my name, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and his hon. Friends for attaching their names to them.

We return to the issue of accessibility. The clause is headed, "Places, dates and times of sittings", and that might be considered to be at the crux of whether a court is likely to be accessible to the people who use it. Amendment No. 8 expressly extends the clause's remit to include family proceedings and youth courts, and amendment No. 6 would amend clause 30(5)(d) by inserting the words in the local justice area", which appear in the previous four paragraphs. Amendment No. 7 would introduce a new category of a place where specific facilities are available which are necessary in the interests of justice".

I shall expand on what I intend by the amendments. My prime reason for amendment No. 8 takes us back to the position in London and to proposals that were suggested by the Greater London Magistrates Court Authority for a change in the structure of the family courts in the metropolis. The issue has caused a great deal of controversy. I fear that I have included the whole family of the Lord Chief Justice in today's debates, because one of the leading protagonists on this matter is Lady Woolf, the wife of the Lord Chief Justice and a magistrate of 27 years standing. She is the chairman of the Richmond family proceedings court and has a clear understanding of the issues involved.

The proposals would have put an end to the present system for family courts across most of London, particularly south London, and they would have concentrated proceedings in three specialist family centres. Those family centres were to be situated in central and north London.

8 pm

There is an argument for having specialist family court centres. I understand that argument and I do not intend to ridicule it in any way. The real fear that was expressed by Lady Woolf, as well as by other chairmen of family proceedings Benches and a great many other people across London, was that the consequence of the proposal would be that some of the most vulnerable people to be dealt with by the court system at the most vulnerable time of their lives would be placed in the almost impossible situation of having to travel across London to attend a specialist family centre, rather than having access to family proceedings courts in their own locality.

That proposal quite properly set a lot of alarm bells ringing. We often deal with children at risk, with battered wives, and with people in all manner of appalling circumstances. These people are probably the least able to afford to travel long distances, and the least able to do so in physical terms if they have young children in tow, because that is often what the family proceedings courts are about. Yet they are the people who are being asked to travel from the extremities of the metropolis—down in south-west London, over in Hillingdon, or down in Bexley, for example—to central London to be dealt with by a specialist centre. That is not a sensible suggestion, and it is unlikely to command the agreement of the people of London. Indeed, I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about this, and he entirely concurs with my views in this respect. He has more experience than most from his own constituency of the difficulties involved.

I know that these plans have now been rethought in the face of the opposition that was expressed in the consultation exercise. I do not, therefore, want to prolong this argument, because I know that we shall be seeing different proposals that will take account of the underlying principles of the scheme and of the realities of life in London and the needs of the customers.

This matter seems, however, to underline the principle that the Government have accepted the Lords amendment, to which I shall draw attention when we talk later about matters of accessibility. Clause 30(2) states: In exercising his powers under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area. Well, hallelujah to that, but let us be absolutely clear that that should apply to family proceedings courts and to youth courts as well. In fact, it should almost do so more than is the case with magistrates courts, because of the nature of the people involved in the proceedings. The arguments that hold true for magistrates courts should hold doubly true for family proceedings courts and youth courts. If my amendment is passed today, as I hope it will be, it will explicitly incorporate family proceedings courts and youth courts in the province governed by clause 30(2), and will therefore ensure that the Lord Chancellor will have regard to accessibility when making the decisions that he will inevitably have to make.

Amendment No. 6 is equally important, and we had a debate on this issue in Committee. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath and I held very similar views on it. There is only one way in which I can interpret clause 30(5)(d). Subsection (5) identifies the places where courts are to be held. The first is a place in the local justice area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed". The second is a place in the local justice area in which the person charged with the offence resides". The third is a place in the local justice area in which the witnesses, or the majority of the witnesses, reside". Fine; I have no problem with any of those. Each of them specifically refers to "the local justice area". When we get to the fourth provision, in clause 30(5)(d), however, it simply refers to a place where other cases raising similar issues are being dealt with. It makes no reference to the local justice area, or to the locality, at all. It could mean anywhere in the country where other cases raising similar issues are being dealt with.

In replying to the debate on this matter in Committee, the Minister laid a red herring across the trail. He said that specific facilities might be required for a particular type of case which might not be available in the local justice area, and that it might therefore be better to hear the case elsewhere. I have made allowance for that eventuality in amendment No. 7, which adds a new paragraph to deal specifically with that issue. I accept that, on very rare occasions, facilities such as video transmission systems might be needed, for example, or some other specific facility that is not available in the local courthouse.

The mischief that we are trying to remedy by tabling amendment No. 6 is the batch-processing of cases. It alarms the magistracy and many others that the Government might deem it convenient, efficient and effective to deal with many hundreds of cases of the same kind in one magistrates court in one central location—however inconvenient that might be for the defendant, the witnesses and everyone else involved—because that would enable the swift prosecution and resolution of those cases. We already see this happening to a certain extent with traffic offences.

The provision in the Bill would allow for an escalation of batch-processing. That is undesirable in all sorts of ways. It is undesirable in terms of accessibility to justice, as I have already suggested, and in terms of the convenience of those involved in the case. It is also undesirable in terms of the interests of justice. When a batch-processing system deals with a great number of similar cases, it is unlikely that the same care and consideration will be given to each individual case, because the similarities of the cases will disguise the differences between them and the individual circumstances of each person before the bench. Lastly, it is undesirable from the point of view of members of the bench. It is unsatisfactory for a magistrate to deal with one kind of case, day in and day out, in that kind of process. Nor is it satisfactory for the remaining members of the bench, who would effectively have had a whole category of offences taken out of their jurisdiction by this process, to be left with the remnants.

The facility in the clause to allow batch-processing must be rigorously resisted. A combination of amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would answer the case that the Minister put in Committee, restore the basic premise that justice should be locally administered in the local justice area—as stated in the remainder of clause 30(5)—and ensure that the Bill was a better one.

My proposals contain two basic premises: the first deals with family and youth courts; the second deals with batch-processing. It is very important that we receive a satisfactory response from the Minister tonight.

Mr. Hawkins

Once again, our perspective is similar to that of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). As he rightly said, we raised these matters in Committee. Batch-processing provoked an interesting discussion on 1 July this year, at columns 104 onwards. It was noteworthy that Back Benchers on both sides of the Committee were worried. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) raised the problem of making journalists aware of when cases were being heard. It is not satisfactory for press coverage if cases relating to one area are dealt with in courts miles away. The Labour Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), raised his concerns about batch-processing and gave the example of a constituent who was denied the chance of mitigation.

I am especially aware of the problem because some of the courts in which I practised, such as Northampton, have used batch-processing for fixed-penalty notices for the whole country. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, it can be an efficient system for the purposes of administrative convenience of the state, but that is not a good reason to allow it to happen.

I also share the hon. Gentleman's concern about family proceedings and youth courts. Although, as he rightly says, some of the issues raised by Lady Woolf have been taken on board so that some of the problems with family proceedings in the London area have been reconsidered, it is fair to say that because there was a threat to introduce the system that worried Lady Woolf and many others, including those who wrote to me, the fear exists that that mentality will continue to operate. Although we have beaten off that risk this time and forced further consultation, it does not mean that those who prefer administrative convenience to the interests of justice will not be tempted to return to the same batch-processing mentality. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, there is only one way in which the qualifying phrase in clause 30(5)(d) can be read. It is all about administrative convenience.

The House will realise that we have added our names to amendments Nos. 6 and 8 but not to amendment No. 7. That is not because we do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but because we are a bit worried that he is being too generous to the Government by giving them a way to reintroduce their red herring. I thought it better to stick simply to amendments Nos. 6 and 8. There is a judgment call to be made on whether we should give the Government any flexibility by introducing amendment No. 7.

I hope that even at this late stage the Government will be more flexible and recognise that we have a serious concern, which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee recognised. The concern is widely shared by senior magistrates, such as Lady Woolf and others. I hope that the Minister is prepared to accept that the amendments will not damage the Bill but will simply introduce extra safeguards.

Mr. Leslie

Amendment No. 8 would make it clear that the Lord Chancellor's powers to give direction on the places where magistrates courts may sit should include family proceedings courts and youth courts. I assure Opposition Members that the term "magistrates court" already includes those courts unless an Act states otherwise. Section 67 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and section 45 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 describe that more fully. I am more than happy to provide hon. Members with copies of the relevant sections. In short, I assure hon. Members that the issue dealt with in amendment No. 8 is already covered, so it is redundant.

I do, however, appreciate what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said about the London specialist family proceeding centres. Clearly, Lady Woolf s involvement has helped to raise that issue in the public arena. The Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority is reconsidering its position, in particular to take account of accessibility. At the moment, location issues are entirely a matter for the authority. The best I can do now is to note the hon. Gentleman's representations.

8.15 pm

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would allow cases to be heard outside the local justice area only if specific facilities are not available and are needed in the interests of justice. Let me set clause 30 in context. It is necessary to make courts more accessible by removing restrictions on where magistrates courts may sit and by allowing the use of non-court buildings where appropriate. The new unified administration of the entire court estate will allow more opportunities for the co-location of county courts with magistrates courts, especially in rural areas that have no criminal court nearby.

It is true that clause 30(5)(d) allows a case to leave a local justice area if it raises similar issues that are being dealt with elsewhere. That is not simply for reasons of batch-processing the mass of standard cases, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome implied. The Government intend to strike the right balance between running an efficient and effective court system. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 would fetter the flexibility necessary to run such a system by restricting the transfer of cases outside a locality to circumstances related solely to court facilities rather than to the nature of the case itself. Serious criminal cases that cross a wide area of the country, as organised crime and drugs cases often do, might require specific magistrate training or prosecuting or defending needs. In such similar but numerous cases, why should court administrators be inhibited from co-locating them in a place best suited to the circumstances? Why should facilities be the only determining factor, allowing cases to cross a local justice area boundary?

Mr. Heath

The Minister's rhetorical question goes to the heart of the amendments. There may be a case if facilities are the issue, but the mere similarity of cases, with no crossover of people, is not an argument for reducing the accessibility to the case for local people who are interested in seeing justice done in their area. A crossover of people is, of course, allowed for in other subsections of clause 30.

Mr. Leslie

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is framed in such a way as to allow cases to go outside the local justice area only because of the facilities provided. They do not relate to the services for victims and witnesses that might need to be tailored to particular cases and are not classed as facilities. We need to retain flexibility to allow the courts better to serve the needs of court users. Let me give examples of cases other than terrorism that may need to cross boundaries: serial cases might sometimes need committing across local justice area boundaries to ensure that defendants are tried in a single location for a string of offences; it might not be possible for a local court to cater for vulnerable witnesses or victims with special needs if the problem is not simply one of physical facilities; and consistency of sentencing is sometimes needed when violent demonstrations take place in different locations and could be tried in a single court.

Some Opposition Members seem to dislike the notion of processing certain cases in specialist magistrates courts. Many magistrates courts deal with a lot of cases and are, to be frank, overburdened with important but relatively routine minor offences, such as television licence cases and minor traffic violations. In my view, it would be wrong to force all such cases to be dispersed across the whole country, potentially clogging up some courts and delaying more important cases or preventing them from being heard more swiftly locally, where it matters most. We need flexibility in the system to allocate cases sensibly, with the vast majority of offences heard locally, but keeping open options for specialist courts to hear cases that raise similar issues. I believe that the Bill as framed strikes the correct balance, and I trust that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will think again and withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Heath

First, let me deal with the lead amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for stating explicitly that family proceedings courts and youth courts are included within the definition of magistrates courts for the purposes of this part of the Bill. That is a clear undertaking that the provisions of clause 30(2) about accessibility apply just as much to family proceedings courts and youth courts as to magistrates courts. We will hold him to that undertaking in future. The opportunity to have that put explicitly on the record was a useful end in itself, and I do not intend to take the matter further.

I am also grateful to the Minister for his comments on the position in London. I hope that that will be resolved, but many of us will watch carefully to see what the end result will be and hope that it is acceptable to the very large number of people who reside in London but not in central London. Their needs must be catered for just as much as the needs of residents of the City, Soho or any other part of central London. Many hon. Members will carefully scrutinise any proposals that emerge.

On amendments Nos. 6 and 7, the Minister has entirely failed to persuade me of his case—in fact, he has made matters worse by his comments. Having suspected that what is proposed is batch-processing, we now know that what is proposed is batch-processing of those minor cases that are apparently such an administrative bore for local justices that they have to be put into a central receiving centre and dealt with there. Never mind the interests of defendants, witnesses, or anyone else involved—that is how such cases will be dealt with.

I listened carefully to the examples the Minister gave of what he has in mind. First, he mentioned serial offences. They already come within the provisions of subsection (5), because the offences will have been committed elsewhere, so it entirely proper that they be dealt with on that basis. Secondly, he spoke about cases involving terrorist offences, wherein the main requirement is facilities to house the proceedings properly. Clearly, such facilities are covered by amendment No. 7. Then, quite extraordinarily, the Minister posited that if there were demonstrations in several parts of the country, it would obviously be for everyone's convenience if a single court were to deal with them. That is so far from local justice administered locally that it is laughable.

It is surely not the Government's intention or the intention behind the Bill that, for administrative convenience, cases involving different offences—or allegations of offences—committed in different parts of the country should be heard by a single court that is not aware of local circumstances or the context in which the offences took place, which would cause great inconvenience to all concerned, whether defendants, witnesses, victims or representatives of those involved. Yet that is what the Minister says he is legislating for through the provisions of clause 30. That may be what the Minister wants, but it is not what I want, nor, I suspect, what many hon. Members want.

Mr. Leslie

I realise that the Liberal Democrats do not always have to consider issues of efficiency and effectiveness, but can the hon. Gentleman envisage circumstances in which, for example, training for specialist magistrates or specific prosecution or defence needs might require cases to be heard outside local justice areas, the issue being not facilities, but particular services that might be needed? Is he really arguing that we should never, in any circumstances, consider such cases outside local justice areas?

Mr. Heath

In the first instance, the matter should be for magistrates for the local area to determine. We are not discussing proceedings in Crown court or the higher courts; we are talking about magistrates courts—the local bench hearing cases involving local offences and applying local justice to their considerations. If the Minister does not understand that, all our debates on the Bill have been a complete waste of time.

Now, stripped of rhetoric and pretence, we see the reality of the Government's proposals. I am not sure that it will profit the House to continue to debate this matter, but I am glad that we now have clarity about the Government's purpose, which gives us a clear objective to vote against. I have listened to the Minister's comments on amendment No. 8 and, in the circumstances, I am prepared to seek leave to withdraw it, but my views on amendment No. 6 have been strongly reinforced by his remarks and I am now determined to press it to a Division.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 14, line 33, after 'place', insert 'in the local justice area'.—[Mr. Heath.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 278.

Division No. 330]	[8.27 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard	Garnier, Edward
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	George, Andrew (St. Ives)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Gidley, Sandra
Barrett, John	Green, Damian (Ashford)
Beith, rh A. J.	Green, Matthew (Ludlow)
Blunt, Crispin	Greenway, John
Boswell, Tim	Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Breed, Colin	Hawkins, Nick
Burnett, John	Hayes, John (S Holland)
Burnside, David	Heath, David
Calton, Mrs Patsy	Hoban, Mark (Fareham)
Cameron, David	Hogg, rh Douglas
Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)	Holmes, Paul
Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)	Jack, rh Michael
Carmichael, Alistair	Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Cash, William	Kirkwood, Sir Archy
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
	Lamb, Norman
Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Lansley, Andrew
Cotter, Brian	Laws, David (Yeovil)
Donaldson, Jeffrey M.	Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)
Doughty, Sue	Liddell-Grainger, Ian
Duncan, Peter (Galloway)	Lidington, David
Evans, Nigel	Llwyd, Elfyn
Flook, Adrian	Loughton, Tim
Gale, Roger (N Thanet)	Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

McIntosh, Miss Anne	Streeter, Gary
Maclean, rh David	Stunell, Andrew
McLoughlin, Patrick	Syms, Robert
Moore, Michael	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Moss, Malcolm	Teather, Sarah
Öpik, Lembit	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Osborne, George (Tattoo)	Tonge, Dr. Jenny
Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)	Trend, Michael
	Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)
Pugh, Dr. John	Tyrie, Andrew
Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)	Webb, Steve (Northavon)
	Whittingdale, John
	Willetts, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)	Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)	Willis, Phil
Russell, Bob (Colchester)	Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Sanders, Adrian	Young, rh Sir George
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)
	Tellers for the Ayes:
Spink, Bob (Castle Point)	Tom Brake and
Stanley, rh Sir John	Mrs. Annette L. Brooke
NOES
Adams, Irene (Paisley N)	Coaker, Vernon
Ainger, Nick	Coffey, Ms Ann
Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)	Cohen, Harry
Alexander, Douglas	Coleman, Iain
Allen, Graham	Connarty, Michael
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)	Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
	Cousins, Jim
Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary	Cranston, Ross
Atherton, Ms Candy	Crausby, David
Bailey, Adrian	Cruddas, Jon
Baird, Vera	Cryer, Ann (Keighley)
Barron, rh Kevin	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Beard, Nigel	Cummings, John
Bell, Stuart	Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Benn, Hilary	Cunningham, Tony (Workington)
Bennett, Andrew	Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Benton, Joe (Bootle)	Darling, rh Alistair
Berry, Roger	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Best, Harold	David, Wayne
Betts, Clive	Davidson, Ian
Blackman, Liz	Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)
Blizzard, Bob	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Borrow, David	Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)	Dawson, Hilton
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Dean, Mrs Janet
Brennan, Kevin	Denham, rh John
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)	Dhanda, Parmjit
	Dismore, Andrew
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)	Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Bryant, Chris	Dobson, rh Frank
Buck, Ms Karen	Drew, David (Stroud)
Burden, Richard	Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Burgon, Colin	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Burnham, Andy	Edwards, Huw
Caborn, rh Richard	Efford, Clive
Cairns, David	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Farrelly, Paul
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Fisher, Mark
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Flynn, Paul (Newport W)
Caplin, Ivor	Follett, Barbara
Casale, Roger	Foster, Michael (Worcester)
Caton, Martin	Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)
Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)
Challen, Colin	Francis, Dr. Hywel
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)
Clapham, Michael	Gardiner, Barry
Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)	Gerrard, Neil
	Gilroy, Linda
Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)	Goggins, Paul
	Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Clelland, David	Grogan, John
Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)	Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Mallaber, Judy
Hamilton, David (Midlothian)	Mandelson, rh Peter
Hanson, David	Mann, John (Bassetlaw)
Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)	Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)
Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
	Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)
Healey, John
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)	Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Martlew, Eric
Hendrick, Mark	Meacher, rh Michael
Hepburn, Stephen	Meale, Alan (Mansfield)
Heppell, John	Merron, Gillian
Hesford, Stephen	Miliband, David
Heyes, David	Miller, Andrew
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Moffatt, Laura
Hodge, Margaret	Mole, Chris
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)	Moran, Margaret
Hope, Phil (Corby)	Morley, Elliot
Hopkins, Kelvin	Mountford, Kali
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)	Mudie, George
Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)	Mullin, Chris
	Munn, Ms Meg
Howells, Dr. Kim	Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Humble, Mrs Joan	Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)
Hurst, Alan (Braintree)	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Hutton, rh John	O'Hara, Edward
Iddon, Dr. Brian	Organ, Diana
Irranca-Davies, Huw	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)	Owen, Albert
	Palmer, Dr. Nick
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Perham, Linda
Jenkins, Brian	Picking, Anne
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)	Pickthall, Colin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)	Plaskitt, James
	Pollard, Kerry
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Pond, Chris (Gravesham)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Pound, Stephen
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jowell, rh Tessa	Prescott, rh John
Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)	Prosser, Gwyn
Keeble, Ms Sally	Purchase, Ken
Keen, Alan (Feltham)	Purnell, James
Kidney, David	Quin, rh Joyce
Kilfoyle, Peter	Quinn, Lawrie
King, Andy (Rugby)	Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)	Raynsford, rh Nick
	Reed, Andy (Loughborough)
Knight, Jim (S Dorset)	Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Lammy, David	Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Laxton, Bob (Derby N)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lazarowicz, Mark	Roy, Frank (Motherwell)
Leslie, Christopher	Ruane, Chris
Levitt, Tom (High Peak)	Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)
Love, Andrew
Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)	Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)
Luke, Iain (Dundee E)	Salter, Martin
Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)	Sawford, Phil
McAvoy, Thomas	Sedgemore, Brian
McCabe, Stephen	Shaw, Jonathan
McDonagh, Siobhain	Sheerman, Barry
MacDonald, Calum	Sheridan, Jim
McDonnell, John	Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)
MacDougall, John	Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
McIsaac, Shona	Singh, Marsha
McKechin, Ann	Skinner, Dennis
McKenna, Rosemary	Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)
McNulty, Tony	Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &Finsbury)
Mactaggart, Fiona
McWalter, Tony	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mahmood, Khalid	Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Mahon, Mrs Alice	Steinberg, Gerry

Stevenson, George	Vis, Dr. Rudi
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)	Wareing, Robert N.
Stinchcombe, Paul	Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin	Watts, David
Stringer, Graham	White, Brian
Stuart, Ms Gisela	Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Wicks, Malcolm
Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)	Williams, Betty (Conwy)
Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)	Wills, Michael
Taylor David (NW Leics)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)	Woodward, Shaun
Tipping, Paddy	Woolas, Phil
Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)	Worthington, Tony
Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)	Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)
Truswell, Paul
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	Wright, David (Telford)
Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)	Tellers for the Noes:
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Mr. Fraser Kemp and
Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)	Jim Fitzpatrick

Question accordingly negatived.