Lords amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 20: No. 20B, after clause 18, to insert the following new clause—War pensions for widows: entitlement—
(" .—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (3) ("the DSS pension") and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a widow in receipt of a basic pension under section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and a widow in receipt of such a pension who has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex may not retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(3) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—
§ The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)
I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the House's financial privileges are involved in all four Lords amendments for consideration today, which is to say Lords amendments Nos. 20B, 42D, 43E and 43F. If the House were to agree to any of those Lords amendments, I would ensure that the appropriate entry was made in the Journal.
§ Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week, the Minister of State mentioned the Parliament Act 1911 and said:That legislation can be used to push a Bill through the House on a fast-track basis only if the Bill takes the same form as it took when it was introduced …The reality, as the Clerks will confirm, is that the Parliament Act cannot be used to push through the amended Bill."—[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 332.]I have discussed that with the Clerk at the Table and the Clerk of the House. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that it is a complicated matter. However, it appears that the Bill could pass amended if the Lords amendments were agreed. Could you clarify that?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have listened with interest to the argument put to me. Madam Speaker is charged under 925 the Parliament Acts with the duty of giving certificates on whether the procedures of the Acts may be applied to particular Bills. I do not wish to anticipate any future decisions that she may have to take in that regard. In the meantime, Members might like to consult pages 569 and 570 of "Erskine May".
§ Mr. Rooker
I will keep my remarks brief because there is a guillotine on all four amendments. Lords amendment No. 20B refers to our debate last week on war widows.
The amendment that the Lords have placed before us today, as they are fully entitled to do, is a modified version of the amendment that the House voted to overturn last week to allow forces widows whose husbands' death was due to service to keep occupational pensions for life. The new amendment restricts the change further by excluding those widows in receipt of a category A state retirement pension—in other words those with a retirement pension in their own right, who by definition would probably have been working for at least 10 years to receive that pension.
In a week like this week, we obviously recognise that we have to look after the widows of those who died as a result of service, but I repeat what I said last week. The matter is under inquiry and review by the Ministry of Defence and it is not appropriate to place the amendment in the Bill. I do not defend the argument on cost grounds, although I gave the House a series of costs last week that could escalate as a knock-on effect of the amendment.
Last week, in answer to a specific question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) at column 389 of Hansard, I said that the amendment would cost the MOD less than £15 million annually. I say to my hon. Friend, whom I see in his place, that the cost of the amendment would actually be a good deal less than that. One has to be careful about the kind of cohort with which one is dealing. I give a rough figure, but we cannot be held to it. If future and current widows affected by the amendment were taken into account, the cost would be about £3 million. That would not include those who have already remarried. I must, however, be very precise about the general figures at issue.
I quoted other knock-on figures last week for the public sector which I will not repeat tonight because they are on the record and they stand. However, I wanted to put that extra figure from the MOD on the record so that we could see the amount in relation to the group of widows in question. That is important.
Hon. Members are fully entitled to make representations to the MOD. I confirm to the House that I have kept the commitment that I gave to the House last week. I have made the most urgent and vigorous representations to my right hon. Friend as a result of the debate. I did more than send him a copy of Hansard. I wrote to him and even added my own postscript to the letter. I registered the mood from both sides of the House. With respect, I think that the other place also did that because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman there said that the figures had been placed on the record and the Government could be held accountable to them. Indeed, those on the Opposition Front Bench did not vote on the matter and in the subsequent Division the majority was 926 somewhat less than before. I hope that the House does not wish to divide on the amendment tonight and that it will accept my motion.
The matter is being given serious consideration. The MOD will publish the review by next summer and it will be available for full public consultation. I accept that I cannot answer on the reasons for the delay, but since my speech last week it has been reaffirmed in the other place by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, on the say-so of my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, that the report will be published by next summer. There will then be full public consultation. We are not dismissing the issue without fair consideration. We do not dismiss the amendment on cost grounds alone. Who would dismiss it on a perfunctory £3 million, which is all that is involved for this narrow cohort? There are, however, other considerations to take into account. It is right that we should do that and not accept the amendment.
Both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity within a relatively short period following a consultation to come to a conclusion, so I hope that the House will accept the motion that I have put before it tonight.
§ Mr. Michael Trend (Windsor)
I want to speak, albeit briefly, in support of the Lords amendment, which is a great modification on the original. It tightens still further the ring fence around the group of war widows represented so well by the War Widows Association of Great Britain. Let us be clear that we are talking about post-1973 widows of service men who die or are killed in the line of duty while still serving. Moreover, we are talking only about those who might decide to remarry. The new Lords amendment further defines the group by excluding all widows in receipt of the basic state pension—those over 60 years of age.
The service community as a whole and, I think, the general public, recognise that war widows are a special case. War widows just over 60 are now prepared to take themselves out of the group in order to focus attention where it is most desperately needed—on the younger widows, especially those with children who, by definition, do not have fathers.
I think it is fair to say that when we debated the matter less than a week ago, the Minister was not as well briefed as he would have liked to have been. He promised that he would hotfoot it to the MOD and make urgent representations, and I am glad to know that he has. That is what I would have expected of him. I am sure that he, too, will have reached the view that we are dealing with a special case. We are probably talking about only hundreds of widows out of the maximum 2, 500 that we discussed before.
§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston)
Like most of my hon. Friends, I followed the discussion yesterday in another place with great interest. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the spokeswoman for his party accepted the assurances given by the Minister and said that she would not push the matter and would not ask this House to discuss it. What has changed since yesterday in the minds of the Conservative Front-Bench team in this place?
§ Mr. Trend
I do not accept that there has been a change of mind between the two teams. This is the first time that 927 the House of Commons has had a chance to debate and take a view on the new amendment. It clarifies in an important way the most important feature, which is the ring fence. If the ring fence is solid and in place and if the Government are determined to keep to it, it is sufficient.
We all agree that our service men and women are unique among people in the public service. They cannot join a trades union; they do not get paid overtime; they are excluded from the maximum working hours legislation. They are on duty round the clock. They have long-term contracts of a sort that do not exist elsewhere in the public service. They are posted throughout the world with great disruption to their family life, whether they are in front-line positions overseas or in barracks, preparing for combat. They are the only group of people who are sent on service knowing full well that they should not assume that they will return alive. We cannot, however, take them for granted.
As the Minister knows, there is a real problem with the recruitment and retention of service men and women. In the past few days the Minister will also have been warned of the supposed knock-on effect of the amendment. As I have told the House before, that effect simply need not occur if the Government find the will to ring-fence the war widows. If, even at this stage, further tightening amendments can be found which will help to achieve that ring fencing, the Government will have our full support in speeding them through Parliament.
The Minister has referred to the supposed costs. None of us can be sure about the cost because we do not know how many widows will choose to remarry. All those widows who remarry will save the Exchequer roughly £4, 500 by relinquishing their DSS pension. That will be a net gain, and should be recognised as such in the overall calculations. I hope that the Minister will hotfoot it again to the Treasury to show how minuscule the figures are.
I am disappointed that the Minister's journey round the Departments has hardened his heart. On the Conservative Benches there are many who dealt with the matter when we were in government. They have to this day a deep regret that they did not overcome departmental obstinacy on this most deserving group of people. The Minister must not hide behind departmental reviews. There have been many in the past and they have all agreed that the war widows should retain their armed forces pension if they remarry. I can tell that the Minister has reached that view privately. I profoundly hope that he will not find himself one day regretting that he left it too late to do anything about it. I intend to divide the House on the matter to show our strength of feeling and that the campaign will continue.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
I shall vote with the Government on this amendment. I understand perfectly the difficulties and complexities of the figures. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister of State in any way; indeed, I thank him for making inquiries. However, the point about the Ministry of Defence waiting until next summer is nonsense. If the MOD can make up its mind so quickly—as was done at Rambouillet in a matter of hours—to bomb the hell out of Serbia—
§ Mr. Dalyell
This is very much the subject. If the same expedition were to be shown in this matter as in some others, it could be dealt with far more quickly than next summer. It could be dealt with by Christmas.
§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)
Like the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), I detect a scintilla of inconsistency in the position of Conservative spokesmen. The last time that we discussed this matter in this place, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) was proud to announce his conversion, but it did not seem to have been communicated to his colleagues in another place. However, a double conversion is all the more welcome and I am grateful for it. At least the Liberal Democrats have been wholly consistent.
I shall not detain the House by repeating arguments that were adequately made on a previous occasion. As some Members have pointed out, the amendment has been slightly tightened since our previous discussions of the matter. It modernises the position and, most important, it is right. It would save money for the Exchequer, although we cannot prove it through financial forecasts. It does not set a precedent, but I have no intention of reciting a limerick to prove it, as did my noble Friend the Earl Russell in another place. The people who serve in our armed services and are killed in that capacity are a very special group. The measure will have the additional benefit of improving recruitment and retention. That too is important for the MOD.
Other hon. Members have pointed out that this week is an especially poignant one in which to discuss this subject—as we wear poppies in our lapels, two days away from the 11 th day of the 11 th month. I hope that we shall send the particular message to service men and women and their families that not only do we remember those who have fought, but we realise the sacrifices that the forces make every day.
I respect the Minister of State, who has approached the subject with his customary courtesy and integrity. I am grateful to him for his observations, although I am slightly saddened by the fact that no Minister from the MOD was able to spare two minutes to attend the debate—unlike what happened when the matter was debated in the other place. I hope that the House will show its firm intention and that the point will be made this evening.
§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)
On the last occasion we discussed this matter—albeit under a slightly different measure—I voted with the Opposition. The arguments made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats at that time and tonight are correct, but, as the Opposition spokesmen in the Lords have accepted the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is unreasonable to press the matter to a vote, I cannot join the Opposition in the Division Lobby tonight.
I raise two issues with my hon. Friend. First, he states that the measures can be dealt with properly and fully in a review. He has given sufficient commitment to show that he has considered the arguments made in this place and that he considers that the matter is serious and that it should be dealt with in the review. However, if there is a manifest defect, it could be put right by the measure before us. It would thus be open to the Government to accept the proposal, which is a compromise compared to the measure that we debated previously.
929 Secondly, my hon. Friend argued that his case was not made solely on ground of cost. However, the reason that the Commons gave to the Lords for not accepting the Lords measure was based purely on cost. Although some unfortunate inconsistencies remain, I shall not, however, join Opposition Members in the Division Lobby.
§ Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
I note that this evening, like last week, the Minister cannot begin to defend the way in which he invites his colleagues to vote on the ground that it is right.
We have the promise of a review by next summer. However, for the Ministry of Defence, "by next summer" is a somewhat flexible concept. I should be much happier if we had a date, rather than a season, for the review. We should not overturn the Lords amendment on the grounds that the findings of a review will be published at some time in the future, and that there will then be a lengthy consultation period. Even if the war widows measure were included in that review, and it would be appalling and a scandal if it were not, widows and their children would have to wait all that time before they could make sense of their future status—to remarry, to have fathers for their children.
We should not ask war widows to wait any longer. In this week of all weeks, when we are about to attend remembrance parades, it is wholly wrong to expect them to continue the sacrifice that their husbands have already made. In another place, the Baroness Strange stated that the matter was honourable and right. It is honourable and right for us to support the Lords amendment.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde)
I am more than happy to support the Government, although I share the reservations voiced by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the length of the review process.
Tonight, we have rightly paid tribute to our service men and women—to their bravery, stoicism, fortitude, gallantry and loyalty. The Minister may criticise me for my sloppy research, but will the position of the widows of Gurkha soldiers be included in the review? All the tributes that have been paid to our service men and women must also embrace the bravery and courage of that remarkable band of men, who are currently showing us what fine, brave soldiers they are. Will the position of their widows be part of the review?
§ Mr. Rooker
I do not have a direct answer for my hon. Friend, as I speak on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence. However, "I sincerely hope so" is the answer that I give my hon. Friend. The MOD will conduct a full review. It is one of four Departments currently reviewing their pension schemes.
I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and recognise the expertise with which he speaks, as he was formerly a special adviser to the Ministry of Defence. The matter is a sensitive one. Members of the other place accepted that the review was genuine and that the date was a season—the summer. That is the best date which I could obtain from my colleagues at the MOD; there will be time to put pressure on them to be more specific. However, there will be a full consultation.
930 This issue will not go away. I have been as open as I possibly can with the House about the figures. It is not a monetary issue. I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that, if the House overturns the amendment and sends back a message to the Lords, the message will be couched in the language of public finances, because that is the prerogative of this House. However, those are not the reasons that I use to advance my argument for resisting the amendment, although the nature of the exchange of messages between the two Houses is such that such language must be used. I would not want hon. Members to think that, because the message will refer to public finances, the Government rest our case on public finances—we do not.
§ Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 361, Noes 178.934
|Division No. 311]||[6. 20 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Chisholm, Malcolm|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Church, Ms Judith|
|Ainger, Nick||Clapham, Michael|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)|
|Alexander, Douglas||Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Clark, Paul (Gillingham)|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary||Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)|
|Ashton, Joe||Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)|
|Atherton, Ms Candy||Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Clelland, David|
|Barron, Kevin||Clwyd, Ann|
|Bayley, Hugh||Coaker, Vernon|
|Beard, Nigel||Coffey, Ms Ann|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Coleman, Iain|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Connarty, Michael|
|Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)||Cooper, Yvette|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)||Corbett, Robin|
|Benton, Joe||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Corston, Jean|
|Berry, Roger||Cousins, Jim|
|Best, Harold||Cox, Tom|
|Blackman, Liz||Cranston, Ross|
|Blair, Rt Hon Tony||Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Cryer, John (Hornchurch)|
|Blizzard, Bob||Cummings, John|
|Blunkett, Rt Hon David||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Boateng, Rt Hon Paul||Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Dalyell, Tam|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Darling, Rt Hon Alistair|
|Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Darvill, Keith|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)|
|Browne, Desmond||Dawson, Hilton|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Dean, Mrs Janet|
|Burden, Richard||Denham, John|
|Burgon, Colin||Dismore, Andrew|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Dobbin, Jim|
|Byers, Rt Hon Stephen||Dobson, Rt Hon Frank|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Doran, Frank|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Dowd, Jim|
|Caplin, Ivor||Drew, David|
|Casale, Roger||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Caton, Martin||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Edwards, Huw|
|Chaytor, David||Efford, Clive|
|Ellman, Mrs Louise||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Field, Rt Hon Frank||Keeble, Ms Sally|
|Fisher, Mark||Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)|
|Fitzpatrick, Jim||Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)|
|Fitzsimons, Lorna||Kelly, Ms Ruth|
|Flint, Caroline||Kemp, Fraser|
|Follett, Barbara||Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)|
|Foster, Rt Hon Derek||Khabra, Piara S|
|Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)||Kidney, David|
|Foster, Michael J (Worcester)||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Fyfe, Maria||King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)|
|Galbraith, Sam||King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)|
|Gapes, Mike||Ladyman, Dr Stephen|
|Gardiner, Barry||Lawrence, Ms Jackie|
|George, Bruce (Walsall S)||Laxton, Bob|
|Gerrard, Neil||Lepper, David|
|Gilroy, Mrs Linda||Leslie, Christopher|
|Godman, Dr Norman A||Levitt, Tom|
|Godsiff, Roger||Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)|
|Goggins, Paul||Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Linton, Martin|
|Gordon, Mrs Eileen||Livingstone, Ken|
|Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)||Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Lock, David|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Love, Andrew|
|Grocott, Bruce||McAllion, John|
|Grogan, John||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Gunnell, John||McCabe, Steve|
|Hain, Peter||McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)|
|Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Hall, Patrick (Bedford)||McDonagh, Siobhain|
|Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)||Macdonald, Calum|
|Hanson, David||McDonnell, John|
|Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet||McFall, John|
|Heal, Mrs Sylvia||McGuire, Mrs Anne|
|Healey, John||McIsaac, Shona|
|Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)||McKenna, Mrs Rosemary|
|Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)||Mackinlay, Andrew|
|Hepburn, Stephen||McNulty, Tony|
|Heppell, John||MacShane, Denis|
|Hesford, Stephen||Mactaggart, Fiona|
|Hewitt, Ms Patricia||McWalter, Tony|
|Hill, Keith||Mallaber, Judy|
|Hinchliffe, David||Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)|
|Hodge, Ms Margaret||Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)|
|Hoey, Kate||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Home Robertson, John||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Hood, Jimmy||Marshall-Andrews, Robert|
|Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Martlew, Eric|
|Hope, Phil||Maxton, John|
|Hopkins, Kelvin||Meacher, Rt Hon Michael|
|Howarth, Alan (Newport E)||Meale, Alan|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Merron, Gillian|
|Howells, Dr Kim||Milburn, Rt Hon Alan|
|Hoyle, Lindsay||Miller, Andrew|
|Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)||Moffatt, Laura|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Humble, Mrs Joan||Moran, Ms Margaret|
|Hurst, Alan||Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)|
|Hutton, John||Morley, Elliot|
|Iddon, Dr Brian||Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Ingram, Rt Hon Adam||Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)|
|Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)||Mountford, Kali|
|Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)||Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie|
|Jamieson, David||Mudie, George|
|Jenkins, Brian||Mullin, Chris|
|Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)||Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)|
|Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)||Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)|
|Naysmith, Dr Doug|
|Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)||Norris, Dan|
|Jones, Helen (Warrington N)||O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)|
|Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)||O'Hara, Eddie|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||Olner, Bill|
|Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa||O'Neill, Martin|
|Organ, Mrs Diana||Spellar, John|
|Osborne, Ms Sandra||Squire, Ms Rachel|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Pearson, Ian||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Pendry, Tom||Stevenson, George|
|Perham, Ms Linda||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Pickthall, Colin||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Pike, Peter L||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Plaskitt, James||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Pollard, Kerry||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Pond, Chris||Straw, Rt Hon Jack|
|Pound, Stephen||Stringer, Graham|
|Powell, Sir Raymond||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)|
|Prosser, Gwyn||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Purchase, Ken||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Quinn, Lawrie||Timms, Stephen|
|Rammell, Bill||Tipping, Paddy|
|Rapson, Syd||Todd, Mark|
|Raynsford, Nick||Touhig, Don|
|Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)||Trickett, Jon|
|Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)||Truswell, Paul|
|Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Roche, Mrs Barbara||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Rooker, Jeff||Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Turner, Neil (Wigan)|
|Rowlands, Ted||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Roy, Frank||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Ruane, Chris||Tynan, Bill|
|Ruddock, Joan||Vaz, Keith|
|Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Ryan, Ms Joan||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Salter, Martin||Wareing, Robert N|
|Sarwar, Mohammad||Watts, David|
|Savidge, Malcolm||White, Brian|
|Sawford, Phil||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Shaw, Jonathan||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert||Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)|
|Shipley, Ms Debra||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Short, Rt Hon Clare||Wills, Michael|
|Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)||Wilson, Brian|
|Singh, Marsha||Winnick, David|
|Skinner, Dennis||Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)|
|Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)||Wise, Audrey|
|Smith, Angela (Basildon)||Wood, Mike|
|Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)||Woolas, Phil|
|Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)||Worthington, Tony|
|Smith, John (Glamorgan)||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)||Wyatt, Derek|
|Snape, Peter||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Soley, Clive||Mr. Clive Betts and|
|Southworth, Ms Helen||Mr. Greg Pope.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Boswell, Tim|
|Allan, Richard||Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)|
|Amess, David||Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael||Brady, Graham|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Brake, Tom|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)||Brand, Dr Peter|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Brazier, Julian|
|Baker, Norman||Breed, Colin|
|Baldry, Tony||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Ballard, Jackie||Browning, Mrs Angela|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)|
|Bercow, John||Burnett, John|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Burns, Simon|
|Blunt, Crispin||Burstow, Paul|
|Body, Sir Richard||Butterfill, John|
|Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)||Lansley, Andrew|
|Canavan, Dennis||Letwin, Oliver|
|Cash, William||Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)||Lidington, David|
|Chope, Christopher||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Clappison, James||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)||Loughton, Tim|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Luff, Peter|
|Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Collins, Tim||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Colvin, Michael||McIntosh, Miss Anne|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew|
|Cotter, Brian||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Cran, James||Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Madel, Sir David|
|Davies, Quentin (Grantham)||Mates, Michael|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)||Maude, Rt Hon Francis|
|May, Mrs Theresa|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Duncan, Alan||Moore, Michael|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret||Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)|
|Faber, David||Moss, Malcolm|
|Fabricant, Michael||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Fallon, Michael||Norman, Archie|
|Fearn, Ronnie||O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)|
|Flight, Howard||Ottaway, Richard|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Page, Richard|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Paterson, Owen|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Pickles, Eric|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Prior, David|
|Fraser, Christopher||Randall, John|
|Gale, Roger||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Garnier, Edward||Rendel, David|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||Robathan, Andrew|
|Gibb, Nick||Robertson, Laurence|
|Gill, Christopher||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)|
|Gorrie, Donald||Ruffley, David|
|Gray, James||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Green, Damian||St Aubyn, Nick|
|Grieve, Dominic||Sanders, Adrian|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Hague, Rt Hon William||Shepherd, Richard|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie||Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|Hammond, Philip||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|Harris, Dr Evan||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Hawkins, Nick||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)||Spring, Richard|
|Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David||Streeter, Gary|
|Horam, John||Stunell, Andrew|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Swayne, Desmond|
|Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)||Swinney, John|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)||Syms, Robert|
|Hunter, Andrew||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Jack, Rt Hon Michael||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Tredinnick, David|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Keetch, Paul||Walter, Robert|
|Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)||Wardle, Charles|
|Key, Robert||Webb, Steve|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Wells, Bowen|
|Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Whittingdale, John|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann|
|Laing, Mrs Eleanor||Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd|
|Wilkinson, John||Woodward, Shaun|
|Willetts, David||Yeo, Tim|
|Willis, Phil||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Wilshire, David||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)||Mrs. Jacqui Lait and|
|Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)||Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendment disagreed to.