§ (1) The Bill shall be re-committed to a Standing Committee.
§ (2) The proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 4th July.'
§ The Home Secretary is, of course, right that the new clauses and amendments that the Government have tabled in the last 24 hours or so were widely signalled. The fact is, however, that they are also of great importance, and they are numerous—I believe that there are about 90 on the amendment paper.
§ It is no surprise to any of us that the Home Secretary has also been ingenious in the construction of the new clauses—in particular, new clauses 14 and 15. In them, he has yoked together two parallel sets of propositions. We strongly agree with one, but are in deep disagreement with the other, as I suspect he surmises. He has, by these means, presented us with the most interesting—and, from his point of view, delicious—opportunity to choose between voting for the Government to achieve what we have to achieve to make sense of what we have been saying for the last eight months, and voting against them to defeat measures that we find repulsive.
§ We cannot choose to do what we seek to do, which is to propose and agree with those parts with which we agree, and to disagree with and dispose of those parts with which we disagree. The parliamentary process is designed to enable people to take the positions that they actually wish to take, rather than those that the ingenuity of the Government—and their draftsmen—force upon them. The point of the Standing Committee is to tease out these differences in a slightly more dispassionate atmosphere, and to provide opportunities for the Government and the Opposition to put forward different formulations.
§ If necessary, if the Bill is not re-committed to Committee, we could ask our noble Friends in the other place to do that work for us. Indeed, Ministers might argue that, as there is no earthly chance of our winning a vote in Committee in this place, we might as well get on with the job and allow the other place—where there is a chance of the Government being overturned and of the amendments being amended—to do its work. On that thesis—although I am sure that it is not one with which you would have any sympathy, Mr. Speaker—we could dispense with the Standing Committee in this House altogether and, while we were at it, more or less dispense with the workings of this House between one election and the next, and leave it to the other place, where there is some possibility of the Government being defeated, to handle all legislation.
§ Mr. Letwin
No, I am not.
I cannot accept the proposition that the mere fact that we are likely to be defeated in Committee means that we should not even discuss these issues there. We have not had the chance to do so, because as the spokesman for the 730 Liberal Democrats has made all too plain, these new clauses and amendments were simply not before us when the Committee was sitting.
§ Mr. Letwin
I do not know what was Government policy but I know that the parliamentary draftsman had not the foggiest clue about how to draft such new clauses at that stage. Indeed, looking at the drafting, I am not sure that he had a clear idea of what to do when he did draft them, but we shall come to that anon.
These are immensely important matters that will affect the lives and livelihoods of living individuals. It is right that the Opposition parties should have a chance to agree, disagree and vote on the parts of these clauses that we respectively agree and disagree with. It is wrong that we should be forced into a straitjacket. The only proper course of action, therefore, is to take these particular clauses—I ask no more than that—back to a Committee of the House to reconsider them, to tease out the implications and try to come up with a differentiation between the parts with which we agree and those with which we do not. Should that fail, we shall, alas, be setting ourselves up for yet another encounter between this House and another place, which I, for one, would regret.
§ Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)
Will my hon. Friend reflect on this point? The nature of what is before us is so serious for those who are affected that, in a sense, the more that the House agrees, the more important it is for those areas on which there is disagreement to be considered with great care. We are to discuss the freedom of people and their lives in a way that is rarely used in the House, but would not it have been better for the Government to have shown themselves to be generous in such a matter to ensure that those who are affected have a respect for the law of Britain, even if that law, in the end, excludes them?
§ Mr. Letwin
I am bound, as so often, to agree with my right hon. Friend. The fact is that the new clauses, in particular new clauses 14 and 15, contain provisions that will not only deeply affect the lives and the sense of fair play of certain individuals, but that are at the very least highly tendentious in respect of their compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998.
It is not at all clear that the Law Lords in the other place will take the view that the provisions, or some of them, are compatible with the Human Rights Act. Indeed, equivalent warnings that we gave on a particular aspect of the Proceeds of Crime Bill have proved to be justified, which is another reason, another great cause, to debate these matters properly—in detail in Committee.
§ Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)
I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his hon. Friends know, we came to the view independently that the process of the Bill requires us to return to consideration in Committee if we are to do the job properly. That is why my hon. Friends and I put our names to the amendment. 731 I follow the Home Secretary's example, first, in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who did an exceptionally good job at the Home Office. She was always courteous and always competent, and she always tried to give information. We did not always agree, but that was not to be expected. I must say that we were surprised that she was not kept in office, and I hope that it is not long before she returns.
Secondly, I congratulate the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, the new Minister of State; we look forward to working with her in her important responsibility. Again, we may not always agree, but we hope to disagree honestly and straightforwardly, and we shall seek to do the best for our fellow citizens and for the country.
§ Mr. Letwin
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to echo his comments and add the hope that the brief sojourn on the Back Benches experienced by a current Home Office Minister is parallelled in the example of the hon. Member for Wallasey?
§ Simon Hughes
Unity for a moment, before we disagree.
The Home Secretary was right, of course, to say that there have been lots of debates between the parties about the timetable for this significant Bill, and there is no dissent from the fact that it is hugely important. The Bill reflects an issue that is being considered in probably every European Union country. It is on the agenda for next week's Seville summit and it impacts on the European convention on human rights and other international conventions such as the refugee convention, the convention on the rights of the child.
Everybody understood that we needed to do the job well, and the Home Secretary and his colleagues know that, at the outset, we sought more time in Committee. There was negotiation, but the period was not as long as we would have wished. We went through proceedings in Committee entirely properly, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will agree, I hope, that there was no time wasting on any side.
We did our job competently, we tried to get through as much business as possible and, including the additional time that Ministers and Whips negotiated and the change to the order of consideration that accommodated the Home Secretary's quite proper wish to introduce the changes to appeals that he had flagged up and which were considered last, we had an extra day in Committee.
I hope that these figures are accurate; I did the tally this morning. At the conclusion of the Committee stage, 17 clauses, three schedules, 13 new clauses and 53 amendments had not been debated. More importantly, and hence the reason for the amendment to return the Bill to Committee, the Order Paper contains 160 non-Government amendments, 35 Government amendments and two Government new clauses for consideration today and 49 Government amendments, six Government new clauses and two Government new schedules for consideration tomorrow.
§ Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)
As Parliamentary Private Secretary, I sat through the whole of the Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we made considerably 732 better progress when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) was present than when he was there? Will he also confirm that if we added up the number of speeches made, he spoke more than everybody else in the Opposition put together?
§ Simon Hughes
I am not going to get involved in that debate. Some of the voices that were expected to come from the Labour party in support of immigrants and asylum seekers were rarely heard.
§ Simon Hughes
Certainly including the hon. Gentleman's. It was left significantly to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—to whom I pay tribute—and his colleagues, and to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam, to put the case that, until this Government took office, Labour Members would regularly have put. That was a great disappointment to me and a greater disappointment to many outside who thought better of the Labour party and are increasingly greatly disappointed.
§ Mr. Gummer
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on which previous Labour Government or Labour party would have allowed these debates to be held with so little dissent on the issues for which the Labour party historically had great concern?
§ Simon Hughes
The House will draw its own conclusion. There are very honourable exceptions on the Labour Benches, and there is still hope outside that this House will not go down the road that the Labour party, in some of the proposals, is suggesting. Paradoxically, as the hon. Member for West Dorset said, it may be left to the House of Lords to prevent the worse excesses of the Labour Government. We will do our bit today and tomorrow, and we will not waste time. We will force votes where necessary, but if we do not win the day this week we hope sincerely that we will win the day in the House of Lords in a few weeks' time.
§ Simon Hughes
No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain that time is being taken up, yet seek to intervene to make partisan points.
The most significant reason for sending the Bill back to Committee is, as the Home Secretary accepted implicitly in what he said to me earlier, the fact that major matters appeared on the Order Paper last week—the last opportunity for tabling new clauses and amendments. Those matters include major amendments that, for example, change the rules for appeals and the penalties for people involved in immigration.
Constitutionally, it has not been possible for my party, the Conservative party or any other party to table amendments to new clauses and new schedules—we have not had time. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, variations of new clauses, such as new clauses 14 and 15, cannot be debated. Parliament is therefore unable to do the job on Report that it ought to do.
733 This is a matter of huge concern outside the House and involves important questions of civil liberties. Given that we had no Special Standing Committee and took no evidence before having a guillotined Committee stage, it is a pity that the Government cannot see the merit in returning to Committee and doing the job properly. For every day that we do not do our job properly, others may have to pick up the pieces. When the lives and liberties of some of the most needy in the world are at stake, I would have hoped that we could do better.
§ 4.5 pm
§ Annabelle Ewing (Perth)
I shall be brief, as many of us are keen to get on to the main debate. I support the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The number of significant Government amendments that have been tabled at the 11th hour is astonishing. The proposed programme will give us no proper opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of matters such as the effective removal of the right of appeal for many asylum seekers.
The late tabling of Government amendments will also mean that we will have no opportunity to debate some extremely important constitutional matters raised by the Scottish National party-Plaid Cymru group concerning the scope of matters devolved to the Scots Parliament. The Scotland Act 1998 devolved children's education to the Scots Parliament, but the restriction of discussion will result in Westminster clawing back devolved powers without any proper debate in the House. I understand that the issue was also not debated in Committee. That is surely unacceptable in this so-called mother of democracies.
The proposed programme will also mean, in the light of the late tabling of Government amendments, that we cannot discuss the important constitutional matter of the new oath of loyalty to the United Kingdom. I raised on Second Reading the constitutional question of how a new applicant seeking to reside in Scotland could be required to pledge an oath of loyalty to the United Kingdom, when the official Opposition in the Scots Parliament would not be prepared to take such an oath. The constitutional implications have not been discussed in the House, and the programme will probably mean that they will not be ventilated at all. The people of Scotland will find that very curious indeed.
For those reasons, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will support it.
§ 4.8 pm
§ Tony Baldry (Banbury)
The first couple of amendments that we will consider in the main discussion relate to accommodation centres. Currently, they affect only Opposition Members, because no centre is proposed in a Labour-held constituency. I have a duty both to represent the concerns of my constituents about accommodation centres and to provide leadership for them on the question. My constituents, along with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), have sought to channel their concerns into petitions to Parliament and 734 proper use of the democratic process, which is why I have been very keen on a public inquiry into the proposals for a centre in my constituency.
I am glad to say that, in the nearly 20 years for which I have represented Banbury, there has not been a single vote cast for a single National Front or British National party candidate at any local or national election. [Interruption.] I cannot hear the cheap jibe that the Home Secretary is making. This is an important point and I would have hoped that the Labour party would wish, as strongly as we do, not to see any support given to the tendencies that have been represented by the National Front and the BNP in this country. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way. Apparently, he does not. If the Home Secretary and the Government rush through legislation such as this, allowing just three hours in which to debate accommodation centres, three new clauses and some 30 amendments—the equivalent of about three minutes per amendment on average—it will be much harder for me to look my constituents in the eye and say, "These matters can be properly and fairly debated and resolved in the House of Commons."
Using a huge majority to drive through this legislation at such speed and with minimal scrutiny does little for those who wish to ensure that Parliament is seen as the forum in which such matters are resolved. I can only hope that the other place will take note of how little time we have been given properly to debate and decide certain matters before us today, and that it will make use of its ability to exercise proper scrutiny.
§ Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal)
From a sedentary position, the Home Secretary made a jibe that suggested that the people of Suffolk, Coastal need not worry about the Bill. However, given that it experiences considerable pressure through the arrival of asylum seekers, and given that Felixstowe is one of the largest ports in Britain, we should—like those who live in other constituencies—be concerned about the Bill. Of course, he made the jibe not because he knows about the constituency, but because it was suggested—yet again by a Conservative Member, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal—that the Bill deals with matters of great concern to people's lives and liberty.
However seriously we regard these issues, and however great our concern about the difficulties that the arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers can cause our constituents, it is important that asylum seekers are treated properly by a nation that has a reputation for always doing so. Although I have always taken what might be described as a liberal view, I feel very strongly that, in dealing with serious issues that affect our constituents, we must adopt measures that are in common with those in the rest of Europe. I beg the Home Secretary not to take these issues lightly and grin and giggle; they matter to individual people, whom we care about.
§ Mr. Blunkett
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who often gave way in similar circumstances when we were in opposition. I made a sedentary remark that related to his own intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—which bordered on an accusation that Labour Members 735 were in dereliction of their duty to defend asylum seekers—and in doing so I referred to pressures. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the comments of the leader of his own party in The Sunday Times of 21 April. In referring to his vision of hell, he said:Brave new world, local council estate, acres of concrete, women raped regularly, single mothers, asylum seekers.We on the Labour Benches need no lectures on whom we should represent and how we should speak.
§ Mr. Gummer
This is neither the time nor the place to argue about such issues in full, but I should point out that in 20 or more years in this House I do not remember ever regarding asylum seekers and immigration as subjects about which it is suitable to giggle—whether from a sedentary position or otherwise.
§ Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)
In the light of the Home Secretary's regrettable intervention, I want to add one brief comment. I was very grateful for his letter, in which he praised me for the anti-racist nature of the campaign that I fought against the establishment of an asylum accommodation centre in Throckmorton. Indeed, my campaign was based entirely on an anti-racist premise. I want also to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry): proper time in which to discuss these matters would help us to continue the debate in an anti-racist way.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 330.739
|Division No. 259]||[4.14 pm|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Cash, William|
|Allan, Richard||Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael||Chidgey, David|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Chope, Christopher|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Clappison, James|
|Bacon, Richard||Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey|
|Baker, Norman||Collins, Tim|
|Baldry, Tony||Conway, Derek|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick|
|Barker, Gregory||Cotter, Brian|
|Baron, John||Cran, James|
|Barrett, John||Curry, Rt Hon David|
|Beggs, Roy||Davey Edward (Kingston)|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Davies, Quentin (Grantham)|
|Blunt, Crispin||Djanogly, Jonathan|
|Boswell, Tim||Doughty, Sue|
|Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)||Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)|
|Brady, Graham||Duncan, Peter (Galloway)|
|Brake Tom||Evans, Nigel|
|Brazier, Julian||Ewing, Annabelle|
|Breed, Colin||Fabricant, Michael|
|Brooke, Mrs Annette L||Fallon, Michael|
|Bruce, Malcolm||Field, Mark (Cities of London)|
|Burnett, John||Flight, Howard|
|Burns, Simon||Flook, Adrian|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric|
|Burnside, David||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Burstow, Paul||Fox, Dr Liam|
|Cable, Dr Vincent||Francois, Mark|
|Cameron, David||Garnier, Edward|
|Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)||George, Andrew (St Ives)|
|Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)||Gibb, Nick|
|Carrnichael, Alistair||Gillan, Mrs Cheryl|
|Goodman, Paul||Price, Adam|
|Gray, James||Prisk, Mark|
|Grayling, Chris||Randall, John|
|Green, Damian (Ashford)||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Greenway, John||Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)|
|Grieve, Dominic||Rendel, David|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John||Robathan, Andrew|
|Hammond, Philip||Robertson, Angus (Moray)|
|Hancock, Mike||Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)|
|Harvey, Nick||Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)|
|Hawkins, Nick||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Hayes, John||Ruffley, David|
|Heald, Oliver||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Heath, David||Sanders, Adrian|
|Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Hendry, Charles||Selous, Andrew|
|Hermon, Lady||Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian|
|Hoban, Mark||Simmonds, Mark|
|Holmes, Paul||Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|Horam, John||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)||Soames, Nicholas|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Jack, Rt Hon Michael||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Spring, Richard|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Johnson, Boris (Henley)||Steen, Anthony|
|Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)||Streeter, Gary|
|Keetch, Paul||Stunell, Andrew|
|Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)||Swayne, Desmond|
|Key, Robert||Syms, Robert|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Lamb, Norman||Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)|
|Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Lansley, Andrew||Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)|
|Laws, David||Thurso, John|
|Letwin, Olive||Tonge, Dr Jenny|
|Liddell—Grainger, Ian||Tredinnick, David|
|Lidington, David||Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Tyler, Paul|
|Loughton, Tim||Viggers, Peter|
|Luff, Peter||Walter, Robert|
|McIntosh, Miss Anne||Waterson, Nigel|
|MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew||Watkinson, Angela|
|Maclean, Rt Hon David||Webb, Steve|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Weir, Michael|
|Malins, Humfrey||Whittingdale, John|
|Maples, John||Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann|
|Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian||Wiggin, Bill|
|Mercer, Patrick||Willetts, David|
|Moore, Michael||Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)|
|Moss, Malcolm||Willis, Phil|
|Murrison, Dr Andrew||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Norman, Archie||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|Oaten, Mark||Yeo, Tim|
|O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Osborne, George (Tatton)||Younger—Ross, Richard|
|Paice, James||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Paterson, Owen||Mr. David Wilshire and|
|Pickles, Eric||Dr. Julian Lewis.|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Austin, John|
|Ainger, Nick||Bailey, Adrian|
|Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)||Baird, Vera|
|Alexander, Douglas||Banks, Tony|
|Allen, Graham||Barnes, Harry|
|Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)||Battle, John|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Begg, Miss Anne|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary||Benn, Hilary|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Bennett, Andrew|
|Benton, Joe||Drew, David|
|Berry, Roger||Drown, Ms Julia|
|Best, Harold||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Belts, Clive||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Blackman, Liz||Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Edwards, Huw|
|Blizzard, Bob||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Blunkett, Rt Hon David||Ennis, Jeff|
|Boateng, Rt Hon Paul||Farrelly, Paul|
|Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)||Fisher, Mark|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna|
|Brennan, Kevin||Flint, Caroline|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)||Flynn, Paul|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Browne, Desmond||Foster, Michael (Worcester)|
|Bryant, Chris||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Foulkes, George|
|Burden, Richard||Francis, Dr Hywel|
|Burnham, Andy||Galloway, George|
|Cairns, David||Gapes, Mike|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Gardiner, Barry|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Gerrard, Neil|
|Caplin, Ivor||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Casale, Roger||Gilroy, Linda|
|Caton, Martin||Goggins, Paul|
|Cawsey, Ian||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Challen Colin||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Hain, Rt Hon Peter|
|Chaytor, David||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Clapham, Michael||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)||Hamilton, David (Midlothian)|
|Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Hanson, David|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Healey, John|
|Clelland, David||Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)|
|Clwyd, Ann||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Coaker, Vernon||Hendrick, Mark|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Cohen, Harry||Heppell, John|
|Coleman, Iain||Hesford, Stephen|
|Connarty, Michael||Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Heyes, David|
|Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)||Hill, Keith|
|Cooper, Yvette||Hinchliffe, David|
|Corston, Jean||Hodge, Margaret|
|Cousins, Jim||Hoey, Kate|
|Cox, Tom||Hood, Jimmy|
|Cranston, Ross||Hope, Phil|
|Crausby, David||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Cruddas, Jon||Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)|
|Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cryer, John (Hornchurch)||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Cummings, John||Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Hutton, Rt Hon John|
|Cunningham, Tony (Workington)||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Dalyell, Tam||Illsley, Eric|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Irranca—Davies, Huw|
|David, Wayne||Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)|
|Davidson, Ian||Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)||Jamieson, David|
|Dawson, Hilton||Jenkins, Brian|
|Dean, Mrs Janet||Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)|
|Denham, Rt Hon John||Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Dobbin, Jim||Jones, Helen (Warrington N)|
|Dobson, Rt Hon Frank||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Jones, Kevan (N Durham)|
|Doran, Frank||Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)|
|Dowd, Jim||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)|
|Joyce, Eric||Plaskitt, James|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Pollard, Kerry|
|Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)||Pond, Chris|
|Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)||Pope, Greg|
|Kelly, Ruth||Pound, Stephen|
|Khabra, Piara S||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Kidney, David||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Primarolo, Dawn|
|King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)||Prosser, Gwyn|
|Knight, Jim (S Dorset)||Purchase, Ken|
|Kumar, Dr Ashok||Purnell, James|
|Ladyman, Dr Stephen||Quin, Rt Hon Joyce|
|Lawrence, Mrs Jackie||Quinn, Lawrie|
|Lazarowicz, Mark||Rammell, Bill|
|Lepper, David||Rapson, Syd|
|Leslie, Christopher||Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick|
|Levitt, Tom||Reed, Andy (Loughborough)|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)|
|Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen|
|Linton, Martin||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Lloyd, Tony||Rooney, Terry|
|Love, Andrew||Ross, Ernie|
|Lucas, Ian||Roy, Frank|
|Luke, Iain||Ruddock, Joan|
|Lyons, John||Ryan, Joan|
|McCabe, Stephen||Salter, Martin|
|McCafferty, Chris||Savidge, Malcolm|
|McCartney, Rt Hon Ian||Sawford, Phil|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Sedgemore, Brian|
|MacDonakd, Calum||Shaw, Jonathan|
|McFall, John||Sheridan, Jim|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|McIsaac, Shona||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McKechin, Ann||Singh, Marsha|
|McKenna, Rosemary||Skinner, Dennis|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|McNulty, Tony||Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)|
|MacShane, Denis||Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)|
|McWalter, Tony||Smith, John (Glamorgan)|
|Mahmood, Khalid||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Soley, Clive|
|Mallaber, Judy||Southworth, Helen|
|Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter||Squire, Rachel|
|Mann, John||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Marris, Rob||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Stevenson, George|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Martlew, Eric||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Meacher, Rt Hon Michael||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Merron, Gillian||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Milburn, Rt Hon Alan||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Miliband, David||Stringer, Graham|
|Miller, Andrew||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Moffatt, Laura||Tami, Mark|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis||Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Moran, Margaret||Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)|
|Morgan, Julie||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Mountford, Kali||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Mudie, George||Tipping, Paddy|
|Mullin, Chris||Todd, Mark|
|Munn, Ms Meg||Trickett, Jon|
|Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)||Truswell, Paul|
|Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Naysmith, Dr Doug||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)||Turner, Neil (Wigan)|
|O'Hara, Edward||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Organ, Diana||Tynan, Bill|
|Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)||Vaz, Keith|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Perham, Linda||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Picking, Anne||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Pickthall, Colin||Wareing, Robert N|
|Watts, David||Worthington, Tony|
|Whitehead, Dr Alan||Wray, James|
|Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Wright, David (Telford)|
|Winnick, David||Wyatt, Derek|
|Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)|
|Wood, Mike||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Woodward, Shaun||Mr. Fraser Kemp and|
|Woolas, Phil||Mr. Ian Pearson.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Main Question put and agreed to.