Skip to main content

Before Clause 2

Volume 404: debated on Monday 28 April 2003

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Lords amendment: No. 1.

6.31 pm

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 20.

This small group of amendments relates to part 1 of the Bill. As hon. Members who were involved in the Bill in Committee will recall, we discussed the limited circumstances in which the order changing the number of Members of the European Parliament could be made. As I said in Committee, our intention has always been that that should apply pursuant only to our treaty obligations. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked that the scope of the clause

"should be expressly limited to changes arising out of Treaties which have already been the subject of an earlier Act of Parliament".
That is what amendment No. 1 does. It defines "Community law", which is referred to particularly in clause 4, to mean in this context treaties that have been the subject of an Act of Parliament amending the European Communities Act 1972 to include such treaties and Council decisions or other Community instruments made under such treaties. That clarifies the position and ensures clear safeguards for Parliament.

Amendment No. 2 was inserted to enable action to be taken to debate and put in place the orders necessary to change the numbers and distribution of MEPs in advance of those Community law provisions, and if necessary in advance of their incorporation into UK law.

I am glad that there has been some movement, but is not the Minister being a little economical with the truth? This is a climbdown. It was not clear during the original debate that the provision was limited to those areas where treaties had already been the subject of the proper debate and parliamentary scrutiny that is required for the passage of an Act, and the worry was that it would be back-door legislation without proper scrutiny.

We have always made clear our intention to ensure that we could implement not only decisions made under treaties, but Council decisions that were pursuant to treaties. That is why the orders are necessary. We have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—

The hon. Lady is being a little disingenuous. She may recall that not once, but two or three times, I raised the question of protocol A to the Nice treaty—I am sure that she remembers every detail of it. That was some time before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made its recommendations, and I am somewhat surprised that she should overlook the fact that although the matter was hotly debated, she has only partially addressed the points that I made.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks suggest that he will therefore support the amendments. We have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Moreover, as we clearly explained in Committee, the problem with the amendments that he tabled is that we could not be sure that they would apply not only to the explicit wording in the treaty, but to Council decisions pursuant to the treaty. As I remember, we discussed that in considerable detail. We have ensured that the provision is framed in such a way as to cover not only the explicit wording of the treaty, but Council decisions that are pursuant to it. That is important.

Amendment No. 2 enables debate to take place in advance, but it is important to recognise that it does not allow the orders to be brought into force until the conditions set out in amendment No. 1 apply and, in effect, until the Community law provisions come into force. That is necessary because the treaty of accession that sets out the number of MEPs for 2004 will not come into force until 1 May 2004, which is only five or six weeks before the election. Furthermore, if one of the accession states should fail to ratify the treaty, a Council decision under the protocol on enlargement annexed to the treaty of Nice will make a pro rata correction to the number of MEPs, which could enter into force at a similarly late stage. We expect, however, to know what the numbers of MEPs will be shortly after all the referendums in ratifying states are completed in September this year. It is important that everyone with an interest in the elections—those who are involved in the administrative arrangements, electoral returning officers and those who are involved in the parties in terms of campaigning and candidates—can plan with some sense of what the arrangements will be for 2004. We therefore expect to be able to debate and to make the order well in advance of 1 May 2004, even though it will not actually come into force until that date or the date on which the Council decision comes into force. The amendment solves the timing problem to allow electoral administrators, candidates and parties to proceed on a firm basis early in 2004.

Amendment No. 3 is simply a consequence of amendment No. 2, which moves two subsections displaced by amendment No. 2 to a more logical place, arid amendment No. 20 corrects a typographical error.

I commend the amendments to the House.

I have already made one of the points that I intended to make in response to the Minister. She is indeed being disingenuous, as I suggested. We debated the provision significantly in Committee and on Report. but it is still no more than a partial response to the points that we made, which at that time were resisted by the Government. Before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made its recommendations, the Minister was not prepared to accept the points that. I made. I have here protocol A of the Nice treaty, which deals with the enlargement of the European Union, and which, in article 2, sets out the provisions concerning the European Parliament. The Minister rightly says that it is perfectly possible that a number of countries may decide—they would be wise to do so—to vote against the proposals in a referendum, but the fact remains that article (2)(3) states:

"If the total number of members referred to in paragraph 2 is less than 732, a pro rata correction shall be applied to the number of representatives to be elected in each Member State, so that the total number is as close as possible to 732, without such a correction leading to the number of representatives to be elected in each Member State being higher than that provided for in Article 190(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community".
However, it then goes on to say:

"The Council shall adopt a decision to that effect."
In other words, protocol A already prescribes the manner and vires of the decision.

The amendment, which refers to an anticipated change in Community law, states:
"In this Part 'change under Community law' … means a change made by … a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties; or … any provision of a Council Decision, or of any other instrument, made under a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties."
The provision to which the Minister refers is specific: it is a decision under article 2(3) of protocol A. It therefore surprises and concerns me that she is not prepared to stick to the words of the treaty and refer in terms to the fact that the decision on which she relies is already prescribed.

The amendment to clause 4 constitutes another substantial change, which is partly a response to points that I made in Committee and on Report, to the timing of an order. We had extensive debates, which we do not need to repeat. Although I am prepared to concede that some progress has been made, and that it is the job of Government and Parliament to respond to reasonable points that the Opposition and other parties make, the provision is exceptional and objectionable. It is objectionable because it tries to deal with the fundamental point of principle that I have made throughout the proceedings on part 1.

The Lord Chancellor and the Minister as his vicarious representative on earth have provided that an order making an amendment to section 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, which prescribes procedure and the number of seats allocated to each member state,
"may be made before the provision making the relevant change has entered into force."
It may be highly convenient for those who have regard to the diktats and decrees of Brussels and the order-making powers that are incumbent on Ministers in the European Communities Act 1972 to say that the requirement to debate such matters, or at least to do so at the right time, is a waste of parliamentary time and that we have to be more realistic about that in a modern world.

As the Minister said in Committee, those who do not have a majority in Committee do not win votes. She also suggested that the outcome would be based on a European decision, and that we would not win our case on that, either.

Is not the Bill's great irony the fact that it genuflects to democracy by offering us elected offices to put before the British people but does so in such an undemocratic way that there can be no proper democratic debate or discussion, and that the Community cannot work out a timetable for agreement that leaves us time to undergo a proper democratic process?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The problem emerges in all sorts of other arenas such as the Convention on the Future of Europe and proposals that pre-empt proper democratic decision making by this Parliament, thereby reducing it to rubble. We are expected to accept all that for reasons such as: it will happen anyway; it is good for us. The sort of discussion that we would expect at the right time will be precluded.

6.45 pm

I wish to underline the significance of the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made. Will my hon. Friend comment on what he believes that the Government intend to be interpreted or connoted from the words "anticipated change"? For how long does it have to be anticipated? What forum will be the subject of the anticipation? Who will anticipate it? The words are so spectacularly imprecise that they are constitutionally perilous.

I personally believe that the provisions are not only perilous but damaging to the democratic process. As we said in Committee and on Report, the anticipated change depends on events that have not yet occurred. The proposal and the mandates are therefore based on a hypothesis. For example, we do not know how many countries will agree to the changes. We do not know whether they will be agreed in Poland. [Interruption.] The Minister for Europe had to eat humble pie over several European matters recently, including the common foreign and security policy. He now makes another of his famous predictions. Poland represents a significant number of seats in the European Parliament, and it is possible that it will reject the proposals.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, a range of obstacles has to be overcome before the final decisions can be made under the decision to which I referred earlier. It is not right to make provision in advance of decisions on a hypothesis that renders nugatory and makes a laughing stock of the parliamentary process.

Amendment No. 2 refers to proposed new subsection (2C), which would provide that
"no amendment to section 1 … may be made so as to come into force… if the relevant change is made by a provision … before that provision has entered into force".
Despite the gobbledegook and wrapping up in ribbons, there is an attempt to provide that the Government will legislate in embryo and enable their wishes on "anticipated change" to be effected under the order-making power. However, they appreciate that matters may not turn out in the way in which they would like; hence in response to the Opposition's demonstration of the constitutional black hole into which they were moving on Report and in Committee, they simply tried to provide that
"no amendment … may be made so as to come into force"
unless the provisions that I mentioned were in force. That stretches the parliamentary process to the point of incredulity.

The amendments are unprecedented, undesirable and unnecessary. I therefore do not intend to ask my colleagues to vote for them. However, I propose to divide the House on only the first amendment in the group. My comments on the others should be perceived in the light of the vote against it; otherwise we could be here for much longer than the time for which the programme motion that the Government have imposed on us provides. I am sure that they do not want to keep us here to the last minute.

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is in danger of not accepting a yes, however guarded, hedged around with circumstances or faltering, for an answer. The Minister might have been a little more explicit in acknowledging that the proposal in amendment No. 1 was pressed upon her both by me and by the hon. Gentleman in Committee and on Report, because we were concerned about the rather nebulous way in which the Bill was originally drafted.

I am not entirely satisfied even now that the Bill is sufficiently explicit. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are being so coy about this. The Bill implements the treaty of Nice, protocol A, article 2, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. Why do they not just say that? Most of us would be extremely happy—I cannot speak for the whole House because some may not be—to see enacted an explicit measure bringing into effect what the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Government proposed as a result of a treaty signed by Her Majesty's Government and debated by the House. Instead, we have these vague and imprecise terms that allow suspicions to be formed that there is a range of other secret treaties or obligations that have yet to see the light of day and which the House will be refused the opportunity to debate fully simply because of the way in which the Bill is worded.

As I say, I do not believe that that is the case, which is why I am so irritated by the way in which the Government have chosen to address the issue. I believe that they are simply trying to ensure that the Bill to allow for enlargement is introduced in good order. As I told the hon. Gentleman in Committee, I do not for one moment buy the notion that a Minister of this Government, even the Lord High Chancellor, would deliberately reduce the United Kingdom's capacity to be represented in the European Parliament in the absence of a reduction in the overall size of the European Parliament. That would be a nonsensical position. However, it seems odd that the Government persist in legislating in generalities rather than in specifics, which is effectively what is being done here.

I shall support amendment No. 1 because it improves the Bill, and I shall recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends do so too. I am partly reassured by the fact that amendment No. 2 will not come into force without the various treaty provisions coming into force. That squarely addresses the point made by me and by the hon. Gentleman in Committee and on Report. But it prompts the question of the necessity for pre-emptive legislation other than specifically in the context of the Nice treaty. Again, I ask the Minister why on earth the Nice treaty is not specified. The first part of the Bill is effectively a ratification process for the Nice treaty, so why on earth do we not make that explicit?

The remaining amendments simply regularise and improve the Bill and, in one case, correct a glaring error that, despite our best endeavours, we seem to have missed in Committee. I am glad that that has now been corrected.

I welcome the Government's somewhat reluctant acknowledgement of the force of the arguments that were put at an earlier stage in the proceedings. It is a shame that we have to have the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to make the point that was quite adequately made by both Opposition parties in discussions on the Bill. It would have been more generous of the Government to have acknowledged that and to have simply said that they had taken our advice and put it into the Bill.

I share the worries of Opposition Members that this is only a partial recantation by Her Majesty's Government. It is a pity that the Minister did not come in a more humble spirit and say that a mistake had been made and that the debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) had made an impact. It would be so much better if Ministers practised what they sometimes preach. I thought that the idea of Parliament was to bring to bear on issues the collective mind of the elected representatives of this country, and where good points were made, from wherever they might come, that Ministers should listen to them and take them on board. That was how I tried to conduct myself as a Minister. There were times when I accepted amendments in Committee and was happy to do so because I did not think that Ministers and the civil service had a monopoly on wisdom when it came to drafting such measures. In this case, it was a material point that went to the heart of democracy: the right of this House to have a prime discussion and primary legislation on matters that Ministers certainly think are of major importance—the question of how many representatives there should be in the European Parliament as it develops, how they should be chosen and the areas that they might represent.

The Bill shows that Ministers have little ability to influence the pace and nature of debate in the EU. Surely Ministers should explain our democratic system to our partners on the continent and explain that, as a matter of courtesy to the House of Commons, they should agree not merely the general outlines, but the actual numbers of MEPs in good time for the House to debate and legislate with primary legislation before the elections are called. It is bad manners on the part of the Community not to offer Britain, and for all I know several other countries with similar democratic traditions, the time and space to debate these important matters in the traditional way rather than having to hurry through cobbled-together legislation and then having to change that under protest and under pressure because some of the legislation fell foul of the usual procedures and ways of conducting business.

Ministers say that through this device we can anticipate the number of MEPs that may be required. I do not know whether that comes from the Foreign Office tradition that thinks that the Beano is a stronger source of authority than some of the European documents that it wishes to dismiss when we try to debate them, and whether we have to look in the pages of the Beano to see how many MEPs might be needed and legislate on the back of that, or whether Ministers have in mind something more substantial before bringing before the House the exact number of MEPs that they wish to see.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that the inclusion of the words in the Bill "anticipated change" could themselves act as a self-fulfilling prophecy? That is to say that the very fact of including the words and predicting the scenario could force the pace of events within the Community in a direction that it might otherwise have not have taken.

It could have that impact, or we could end up legislating twice. We might anticipate wrongly and the House would have to deal with an embarrassing correction from Her Majesty's Government.

I urge Ministers, first, to accept tonight that they have given some ground, and rightly so. That would be sensible, accepting their role in democratic debate. Secondly, I would like Ministers to assure the House that, when negotiating such matters in future with our partners in the EU, they will try to obtain more space and time so that we can go through our usual democratic processes and not feel rail-roaded and dealt with rather shabbily, as we do tonight.

I knew that I would need my copy of the Nice treaty. When the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) gets a chance to speak about Europe, it is always useful to have a copy ready to hand.

7 pm

I am slightly puzzled by the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone about this issue, because he seems to think that the Council's pro rata decision under the Nice treaty is already prescribed, if various states fail to ratify. Yes, the way in which the Council will need to make such a decision is prescribed; it has to be a pro rata decision. That was among the many points that I made when we discussed this in Committee. It will have to make a pro rata adjustment. The Council's decision is pursuant to the treaty, but given that the numbers in question are not on the face of the treaty, it is important to clarify that the numbers—the final end point in terms of the numbers of MEPs that we shall have—and the Council's decision, should a pro rata adjustment need to be made, are both covered in the Bill. It will be possible

to introduce an order that will implement the Council's pro rata decision under the treaty of Nice if such a decision is needed.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining that this is referred to in the Nice treaty. We have always said that this is about the decisions that are pursuant to that treaty, which has been debated in this place and incorporated in UK law by this Parliament. That should surely constitute the safeguard that the hon. Gentleman is asking for. He is concerned that Parliament has not had a chance to debate these issues, but the fact that it has debated the Nice treaty and incorporated it in UK law should surely be the answer to his concerns.

The hon. Lady might recall that I tabled 240 amendments to the legislation incorporating the Nice treaty. Her answer does nothing to contest the argument that I am presenting, which is that the provisions in subsection 1(a) and (b) of proposed new clause 1 are too wide. They refer to

(a) a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties;
(b) any provision of a Council Decision, or of any other instrument, made under a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties."
The Minister must realise that that is so wide that it is not confined to the protocol under the Nice treaty; it is wider than that. Perhaps I can offer her a suggestion. She knows that the European constitution is coming up, and that it will be wrapped up with the latest articles that have just been put forward and which include a whole range of provisions for consolidation of treaties and the tabling of amendments. That is probably therefore what this is all about—

Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought that it would not be long before we strayed into such territory, but that is not the subject of the Bill and I will not debate those issues now.

Yes, the hon. Gentleman did table an immense number of amendments to the legislation incorporating the Nice treaty, but the fact that he does not like the treaty does not mean that Parliament did not get the chance to debate it. He might not like Parliament's decision, but the UK Parliament decided to incorporate the treaty of Nice in UK law, and he should stop trying to use Parliament as a cover for the fact that he simply does not like the treaty or the European Union. That was most telling in his opening remarks, in which he said that if people were wise, they would vote against the provisions. I think that that probably sums up where a lot of this is coming from.

The hon. Gentleman raised some concerns about amendment No. 2. Let me try to spell this out again. The order cannot come into force until the Community law provisions come into force. It cannot be implemented until those relevant decisions come into force. It is, however, sensible to be able to debate the matter in advance. Of course we can anticipate now that 78 is the number of MEPs that the Copenhagen Council and other discussions that have taken place across Europe have allocated not just to the UK but to other countries as well, if all countries ratify. We shall also have the ratification decisions by September this year. Conservative Members seem to be asking for us to wait until 1 May 2004—when the treaty of accession comes into force and at which point elections will be just five or six weeks away—to tell the electoral administrators, candidates and political parties how many MEPs there are going to be. They are suggesting that, in the interim, we should simply leave them to guess on the basis of what they read in the papers, while we give them a nudge and wink and say, "Well, it will probably be 78, but we cannot have a debate about it in Parliament. Everybody is capable of reading the papers, and electoral administrators up and down the country will be capable of working out that the anticipated number is 78 but, no, Parliament just cannot do it."

Conservative Members seem to be suggesting that we should take that position. That is just not sensible when a whole load of people across the country have to organise an election. They have a hard enough job as it is; an immense amount of work goes into such organisation. Surely we should be able to say, very sensibly, that we can debate the order now, when we are able to, and give those people warning as to what we expect to take place. The order cannot come into force until the Community law comes into force, but it is sensible that we should be able to have that debate in advance.

The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has an obsession with the word "anticipation". The term "anticipated changes" allows the Lord Chancellor to refer anticipated changes to the Electoral Commission and to ask for its advice and recommendations. If necessary, the Lord Chancellor can refer a series of options on which it can make recommendations. Again, this prevents us from having to wait until the treaty of accession or other treaties come into force, possibly at a very late date, before we can even ask the Electoral Commission to advise us on the distribution of MEPs.

Any idea that the Lord Chancellor should be entrusted with the responsibility for determining what constitutes anticipation in these circumstances is scarcely reassuring to most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. May I ask the Minister, however, to agree to the principle of consistency in these matters and, therefore, to tell the House how she reconciles the decisions under the treaty of Nice that have necessitated the Bill and the amendments to the order-making power with the prior inclusion in the treaty of Amsterdam of the protocol on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, because there is obviously a direct read-across?

I should have brought my treaty of Amsterdam. I knew that I was taking a risk by just bringing a copy of the treaty of Nice to the House this evening. The treaty of Nice sets out the clear and simple issue, which the Bill is trying to implement, of changing the number of MEPs in order to allow the accession states fair representation in the European Parliament. We cannot simply unilaterally decide how many MEPs we want to send to the European Parliament this year—they would arrive there and there would not be any seats for them. Clearly, the number of MEPs that each nation is entitled to send has to be negotiated and agreed across Europe. Those decisions then have to pass through the appropriate incorporation into UK law, and the House decided to incorporate the treaty of Nice in that way. The treaty set out a simple principle, which does not need the treaty of Amsterdam or any other treaty that the hon. Member for Buckingham chooses to throw into the debate to explain it.

Hon. Members have asked whether there will be a debate on these matters. There has already been a debate on the treaty of Nice, and there will be a debate on the treaty of accession, which will set out the number of MEPs for 2004, when the legislation to incorporate the treaty of accession will come before the House. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who is on the Front Bench, has responsibility in those matters.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is right: the amendments improve the Bill and I hope that Conservative Members will recognise that and will have the sense to vote for them.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 113.

Division No.171]

[7:08 pm


Abbott, Ms DianeClarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &
Ainger, Nick


Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)Clelland, David
Alexander, DouglasClwyd, Ann (Cynon V)
Allen, GrahamCoaker, Vernon
Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)Coffey, Ms Ann
Armstrong, rh Ms HilaryColeman, Iain
Atherton, Ms CandyColman Tony
Atkins, CharlotteCook, rh Robin (Livingston)
Austin, JohnCooper, Yvette
Bailey, AdrianCorston, Jean
Baird, VeraCousins, Jim
Banks, TonyCrausby, David
Barnes, HarryCruddas, Jon
Barron, rh KevinCryer, Ann (Keighley)
Battle, JohnCryer, John (Hornchurch)
Bayley, HughCummings, John
Beard, NigelCunningham, rh Dr. Jack
Beith, rh A.J.


Beith, HilaryCunningham, Jim (Coventry S)
Bennett, AndrewCunningham, Tony (Workington)
Benton, Joe (Bootle)Dalyell, Tam
Best, HaroldDavey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Betts, CliveDavies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)
Blackman, LizDavies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Blizzard, BobDawson, Hilton
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)Dean, Mrs Janet
Bradshaw, BenDhanda, Parmjit
Brake, Tom (Carshalton)Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)
Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle EDobson, rh Frank


Donohoe, Brian H.
Doran, Frank
Bryant, ChrisDoughty, Sue
Buck, Me KarenDrown, Ms Julia
Burnham. AndyEdwards, Huw
Cable, Dr. Vincent Efford, Clive
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)Ellman, Mrs Louise
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'Bridge)Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)
Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)Ewing, Annabelle
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)
Casale, RogerFisher, Mark
Challen, ColinFlint, Caroline
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)Follett, Barbara
Chaytor, DavidFoster, Don (Bath)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)McDonnell, John
Foster, Michael Jabez (HastingsMacDougall, John


McFall, John
Foulkes, rh GeorgeMcIsaac, Shona
Francis, Dr. HywelMcKechin, Ann
Gapes, Mike (llford S)Mackinlay, Andrew
Gardiner, BarryMacShane, Denis
Gerrard, NeilMcWalter, Tony
Gibson, Dr. IanMahmood, Khalid
Gidley, SandraMallaber, Judy
Gilroy, LindaMandelson, rh Peter
Goggins, PaulMann, John (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hamilton, David (Midlothian)Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Hanson, DavidMarshall, David (Glasgow
Harman, rh Ms Harriet


Harvey, NickMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &Meacher, rh Michael


Merron, Gillian
Healey, JohnMichael, rh Alun
Heath, DavidMiller, Andrew
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)Mole, Chris
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)Morris, rh Estelle
Hendrick, MarkMullin, Chris
Hepburn, StephenMunn, Ms Meg
Hewitt, rh Ms PatriciaMurphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Hinchliffe, DavidNaysmith, Dr. Doug
Hodge, MargaretNorris, Dan (Wansdyke)
Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)Olner, Bill
Hope, Phil (Corby)O'Neill, Martin
Hopkins, KelvinPalmer, Dr. Nick
Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)Perham, Linda
Howarth, George (Knowsley N &Pickthall, Colin

Sefton E)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)
Howells, Dr. KimPlaskitt, James
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &Pollard, Kerry


Pond, Chris (Gravesham)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)Pound, Stephen
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Humble, Mrs Joan
Hutton, rh JohnProsser, Gwyn
Iddon, Dr. BrianPurchase, Ken
Illsley, EricPurnell, James
Ingram, rh AdamQuinn, Lawrie
Irranca-Davies, HuwRapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &Reed, Andy (Loughborough)


Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Jamieson, DavidRendel, David
Johnson, Alan (Hull W)Robertson, Angus (Moray)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)Robertson, John (Glasgow
Jones, Kevan (N Durham)


Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)Roche, Mrs Barbara
Keeble, Ms SallyRooney, Terry
Keen, Alan (Feltham)Ruddock, Joan
Keen, Ann (Brentford)Russell, Ms Christine (City of
Khabra, Piara S.


Kidney, DavidRyan, Joan (Enfield N)
Knight, Jim (S Dorset)Salter, Martin
Ladyman, Dr. StephenSanders, Adrian
Lammy, DavidSawford, Phil
Laxton, Bob (Derby N)Sedgemore, Brian
Lazarowicz, MarkShaw, Jonathan
Lepper, DavidSheerman, Barry
Levitt, Tom (High Peak)Sheridan, Jim
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)Shipley, Ms Debra
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Linton, MartinSingh, Marsha
Love, AndrewSmith, rh Chris (Islington S &
McAvoy, Thomas


McCabe, StephenSmith, Jacqui (Redditch)
McCafferty, ChrisSoley, Clive
McDonagh, SiobhainSouthworth, Helen
Spellar, rh JohnTwigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Squire, RachelTyler, Paul (N Cornwall)
Starkey, Dr. PhyllisTynan, Bill (Hamilton S)
Steinberg, GerryVaz, Keith (Leicester E)
Stevenson, GeorgeVis, Dr. Rudi
Stinchcombe, PaulWalley, Ms Joan
Strang, rh Dr. GavinWard, Claire
Stringer, GrahamWareing, Robert N.
Stunell, AndrewWatts, David
Sutcliffe, GerryWhite, Brian
Tami, Mark (Alyn)Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)
Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)Winnick, David
Taylor, David (NW Leics)Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)
Timms, StephenWishart, Pete
Tipping, PaddyWoodward, Shaun
Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)Woolas, Phil
Tonge, Dr. JennyWorthington, Tony
Touhig, Don (Islwyn)Wright, Anthony D. (Gt
Trickett, Jon


Truswell, PaulWright, David (Telford)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Tellers for the Ayes:


Mr. John Heppell and

Twigg, Derek (Ha/ton)

Mr. Fraser Kemp


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)Grieve, Dominic
Amess, DavidGummer, rh John
Arbuthnot, rh JamesHague, rh William
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)Hammond, Philip
Bacon, RichardHawkins, Nick
Baldry, TonyHayes, John (S Holland)
Barker, GregoryHeathcoat-Amory, rh David
Baron, John (Billericay)Hendry, Charles
Bellingham, HenryHermon, Lady
Bercow, JohnHoban, Mark (Fareham)
Beresford, Sir PaulHogg, rh Douglas
Blunt, CrispinHoram, John (Orpington)
Boswell, TimHoward, rh Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Bottomley, rh Virginia (SWJackson, Robert (Wantage)


Jenkin, Bernard
Brady, GrahamKey, Robert (Salisbury)
Brazier, JulianLaing, Mrs Eleanor
Browning, Mrs AngelaLansley, Andrew
Burnside, DavidLeigh, Edward
Burt, AlistairLetwin, rh Oliver
Cameron, DavidLewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)
Cash, WilliamLiddell-Grainger, Ian
Chope, ChristopherLidington, David
Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Lilley, rh Peter
Conway, DerekLuff, Peter (M-Worcs)
Curry, rh DavidMaclean, rh David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham &McLoughlin, Patrick


Maples, John
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &May, Mrs Theresa


Mercer, Patrick
Djanogly, JonathanMitchell, Andrew (Sutton
Duncan, Alan (Rutland)


Evans, NigelMoss, Malcolm
Fabricant, MichaelMurrison, Dr. Andrew
Field, Mark (Cities of London &Norman, Archie


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Flight, HowardPage, Richard
Flook, AdrianPaice, James
Forth, rh EricPaterson, Owen
Fox, Dr. LiamPickles, Eric
Francois, MarkPrisk, Mark (Hertford)
Garnier, EdwardRedwood, rh John
Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)Robathan, Andrew
Gray, James (N Wilts)Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Grayling, ChrisRosindell, Andrew
Greenway, JohnRuffley, David

Selous, AndrewWalter, Robert
Shephard, rh Mrs GillianWaterson, Nigel
Shepherd, RichardWatkinson, Angela
Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)Whittingdale, John
Spelman, Mrs CarolineWiddecombe, rh Miss Ann
Spicer, Sir MichaelWiggin, Bill
Spink, Bob (Castle Point)Willetts, David
Spring, RichardWilshire, David
Streeter, GaryYeo, Tim (S Suffolk)
Syms, RobertYoung, rh Sir George
Taylor, John (Solihull)
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Tellers for the Noes:

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Mr. Desmond Swayne and

Tyrie, Andrew

Hugh Robertson

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.