I intend to concentrate on Lords amendment No. 17, which I shall ask the House to resist.
Lords amendment No. 16 is a relatively minor technical amendment. It proposes that the word "subject" should be changed to "subjected", simply to ensure consistency with wording elsewhere in the legislation. I hope that it will not detain the House for too long.
As I have said, I shall ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 17. We believe that employers and employees should continue to have the opportunity that they have now to conclude individual contracts which differ from collective agreements that would otherwise apply to individual employees. Nothing in the Bill will affect that. However, we also believe that individuals in the workplace who refuse such contracts and choose to remain covered by collective agreements should be protected against being subjected to dismissal or detriment as a result of the refusal. There should be no obligation, and there should be no incentive, for individuals to break out of collective agreements. We do not think that someone who wishes to remain within a collective agreement should suffer detriment as a result.
We therefore propose to draft regulations to achieve that policy objective. We will, of course, consult on the regulations in draft before presenting them to the House for approval under the affirmative procedure.
We cannot accept the amendments tabled by the Opposition in the House of Lords. We have two main problems with Lords amendment No. 17. First, it contains a fundamental weakness, in that it confuses two separate issues: the bargaining arrangements, and action to prevent or deter trade union membership. Those are clearly two distinct issues.
The amendment seeks to require section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—the section that guarantees the right to join or not to join a trade union, and to take part in trade union activities—to be interpreted in accordance with the amendment, which has nothing to do with such matters. That is the confusion at the heart of amendment No. 17. It is concerned only with individual contracts and collective agreements. Therefore, that attempt to affect section 146 is dangerously imprecise and illogical.
Although we may understand the basic thrust of the amendment, it is unhelpful in that it is extremely detailed and restrictive, and will create difficulties when we introduce our regulations. For our regulations to be effective, they need to be drawn up in a way that is not constrained by the provisions that would be introduced as a result of amendment No. 17.
Therefore, I invite the House to disagree with amendment No. 17. We will introduce our own regulations. The House will have an opportunity to debate and to vote on them after we introduce them. We believe that that is an appropriate way in which to deal with the matter.
We feel that amendment No. 17 creates difficulties. It does not allow the individual to have freedom. The danger is that individuals will feel, effectively, that there is a deterrent to remaining within a collective agreement. We feel that there should be freedom to make a decision, not a method by which an individual may be punished.
That will be the principle of the regulations that we intend to introduce. For these to be effective, we will need the House to disagree with amendment No. 17, which was carried in the House of Lords.
I will be happy to allow speedy progress on some amendments, but not amendment No. 17. What has happened as a result of the amendment bears full examination.
As the Secretary of State said, the amendment was introduced in Committee in another place by the Opposition. I go back to the beginning. Amendment No. 17 concerned continuation of the right of employees voluntarily to agree with their employer contracts that differ from those of a collective agreement that applies to them, as long as the different terms were agreed through a revised contract of employment, the employee had voluntarily accepted the new terms, and the employer's purpose in offering such terms was to further a change in his relationship with all, or any class of, his employees, as set out in section 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
It was thought in another place that the Government supported the amendment in principle. Indeed, we were led to believe that it was Government policy, not least
because we had looked carefully at the Government's White Paper "Fairness at Work", particularly paragraph 4.20, which is reinforced by annexe 1, paragraph 8. I am sure that it is engraved on the Secretary of State's heart, but let me remind him of what annexe 1 says:
The terms of agreements resulting from collective bargaining are normally incorporated into individual employees' contracts either explicitly or by custom and practice and thus set the minimum terms and conditions for all employees in the bargaining unit".
The annexe goes on:
Under the existing law an employee and an employer can agree different terms if they wish. Since the current law works well, the Government sees no reason to change it".
When the amendment was introduced in another place by my hon. Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon, there was quite a lot of discussion. It was Conservative peers who, in the absence of a Government amendment, sought to honour what they thought was a Government pledge—not least because of what is contained in the White Paper, and an indication in Committee from the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry that the Government would look at the matter. Therefore, there was an expectation that, before the Bill had proceeded too far through another place, the Government would table something similar to the amendment that is now part of the Bill.
It is interesting to note what the Minister, as quoted in the Lords, said in respect of an employee who had refused to sign a personal contract:
The employee may … think that it is unreasonable of the employer to … give the employee a pay rise, but that is the employer's right".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 356.]
We think that an employer and employee should always be free to make their own bargain, notwithstanding union recognition in the workplace. There is a need for flexibility in respect of an employer rewarding people in the workplace, based on agreements—even individual agreements—with the work force. That was what we believed the Government felt was the state of play as well, but it was not the Government who introduced the amendment; it was Baroness Miller of Hendon.
After Baroness Miller of Hendon moved the amendment successfully in the Lords, a debate took place with Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He stated:
I sincerely congratulate the noble Baroness both on the care which she has clearly taken in drafting the amendment and on the evident passion with which she has moved it.
That seems to contradict the Secretary of State's words a moment ago, when he identified what he regarded as flaws in the drafting of the amendment. I should like him to comment specifically on why a Minister in another place congratulated Baroness Miller on the drafting of the amendment, but only a little while later, in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State said that he believed it to be flawed.
I continue with the words of the Lord McIntosh:
I think that I can assure her"—
that we can achieve substantially the objectives which she wishes to achieve. As my noble friend Lord Simon explained in his letter of 10th May, in response to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, the Government hoped to replace the power in Clause 15 with a substantive provision and we hoped to bring forward an amendment in Committee.
It is thus clearly on the record that the Government, as we had anticipated, hoped to introduce such a measure, but we have received no explanation of why it was left to the Opposition—in the absence of that measure—to table successfully the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord McIntosh went on:
I am sorry that we have not been able to do so. but I am confident that we shall be able to produce an amendment on Report which will, in a sense, go further than that of the noble Baroness because, instead of adding to the regulatory power, which is what her amendment does, it will produce a substantive content in clause 15 instead of a purely regulatory power.
So clearly, at the close of the Committee stage, although the Government had been expected to table an amendment themselves in Committee, there was a firm commitment by the Minister to bring back a substantive amendment on Report as the Bill proceeded through another place.
Later, Lord McIntosh continued:
I repeat our apologies that we have not been able to produce the substantive amendment which we wished to introduce in Committee.
I hope that with the assurances and details I have given about the substantive amendment which we propose to introduce on Report, the noble Baroness will realise that we intend to introduce something which is along the lines of what the noble Baroness wants".
In other words, a firm ministerial commitment was given at the end of the deliberations in another place to bring the matter back on Report. Ministers acknowledged that the content of the amendment that we are discussing was not, apart from a few details, a matter of dispute. However, the Secretary of State seems now to have changed to his mind about that.
It was on the basis that there was little dispute about the amendment that my noble Friend Baroness Miller was asked to withdraw the amendment. Wisely, she did not do so, but put it to a vote instead. In the same debate, Lord McCarthy, in response to what Lord McIntosh said in support of the Opposition amendment, said:
Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he realises how much he is worrying some of us?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 359–62.]
That was the first indication that not all Labour peers were happy with the Government's line. Perhaps the Secretary of State's neglect of the amendment tonight shows that the Government are responding to the concerns that have been expressed. If not, his approach is a mystery, given previous ministerial commitments about the amendment in another place. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State has not tabled a substantive amendment for debate tonight.
I believe that the Secretary of State has abused his position—and the ministerial commitments that are on record. Instead of allowing a proper and full debate this evening, he has promised that the matter will be subject to regulation at a later date. That has become a hallmark of the Government's approach.
In another existence just over a year ago, I was a member of the Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Bill. The Secretary of State was then Minister of State with responsibility for school standards. It was typical of his approach then that he did not want matters to be debated in detail and pressed for a vote. He preferred to push them into the long grass, in the hope that regulation, when it was introduced, would not be given the necessary scrutiny. This important amendment certainly warrants detailed scrutiny and debate.
Will the Secretary of State explain why the word of Ministers in another place can no longer be taken as a matter of honour? It is an insult to both Houses that commitments made on the record are not honoured.
There is considerable interest in the matter outside the House. Business has questions to which answers must be given in this debate. For example, what is meant by the phrase "detriment by his employer"? I should be grateful if the Minister would give the House a definition. What are the Government seeking to achieve with the power that the clause gives the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State make a clear and unambiguous statement about the right of employees voluntarily to agree with employers contracts that differ from those under the collective agreement that applies to them?
The White Paper and the Government's words both here and in another place appear to indicate that their policy was that employees had that right, but now they have performed a complete U-turn. As was said in connection with the previous group of amendments, this is the House's last chance to discuss these important matters in detail.
If the comments of Lord McCarthy in another place were indicative of concern among the Labour ranks, I hope that the Secretary of State is not involved in a cynical exploitation of the democratic process. With the trade union and party conference season just a few weeks away, is the Minister hoping to avoid putting in the Bill something that the unions will not like? Employees and employers want clarification of a matter that the Minister appears to want to kick into the long grass by saying that it will be dealt with in regulation rather than in the Bill.
The Secretary of State risks incurring contempt for the ministerial statements that have been made on the matter, and he will put in jeopardy the process by which hon. Members can debate amendments tabled in another place. I hope that he will explain why he has not tabled a substantive amendment to tidy up what he might perceive as flaws in the original wording. Amendment No. 17 states only that
this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.
That is a contempt of the democratic process.
In general, the Bill has not received much publicity, but this group of amendments—entitled "Detriment and dismissal; discrimination against part-time workers"—may soon attract a lot. The amendments go to the heart of the relationship between employers and employees.
The White Paper is very clear. It states:
As under existing law, individual employees will continue to have the right, should they wish, to agree terms with their employer.
The Bill contains only a limited definition of small firms, as we shall discuss later, but many people will continue to negotiate their own contract terms. The White Paper also states:
Under the existing law an employee and an employer can agree different terms if they wish. Since the current law works well, the Government see no need to change it.
The Secretary of State should explain what the Government are trying to achieve with these amendments, which contradict the White Paper.
I could understand the Government's approach if they considered that the amendments tabled in another place would enable employers to include discriminatory provisions in contracts to discourage trade union membership. I could understand it if the Government's aim was to ensure that people should not be pressurised not to join a union. However, why should not people be allowed to enter into contracts that they consider to be better than what they could negotiate by means of a collective agreement through a trade union?
Many companies and businesses in this country offer such good terms of employment that trade union representation has never been necessary. I am fortunate in having a Quaker mother and a Quaker background. Many companies of Quaker origin, such as Cadbury, have offered such good terms that their employees have not felt it necessary to seek trade union recognition, but have made other arrangements for representation. Do the amendments mean that such arrangements will now be otiose? The amendments seem to suggest that, where there is a work force of more than 21 people, some form of collective agreement will be necessary. If so, that will lead to considerable confusion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, what has been said in the other place and here will confuse many about the Government's policy objective. If the Government are simply trying to ensure that people should not be discriminated against because they want to be members of a trade union, that is fine. We would all understand that. But we do not understand the concept that individuals should not be free to negotiate better terms with their employer if they think that that is achievable. That seems to be a fundamental breach of an individual's opportunity freely to contract with his employer, and it is fundamentally against what the Government seem to have set out in their White Paper.
Conservative Members have already established that the amendments are a classic example of a typical new Labour fiasco. Initially, the Government said one thing in one place and another thing in another. They usually ensure that the places concerned are a couple of hundred miles apart. They will say one thing in a constituency by-election and an entirely different thing in London. In this instance, however, the Government have managed to say one thing at the other end of the Corridor and something entirely different at this end. Even for this Government, it is stretching the credulity of their audience a little to believe that what is said in the other place might not be compared in Hansard with what is said in this place.
The Government have been caught out in a technique which I suspect they imported from their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, of saying different things to different audiences, but I am afraid that, in this instance, they have been caught out, and we look for a little more consistency from them.
Another thing that I fear is becoming all too typical of the Government is that they find themselves in a drafting shambles, advancing arguments that clearly do not stand up. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out that the Secretary of State's argument that the amendments are somehow defective simply does not stand up. That is not consistent with what the noble Lord McIntosh said in the other place, and it is not consistent with any straightforward reading of the amendments.
Once again, as we saw when we debated the previous group of amendments, I fear that the Government find themselves unable to accept perfectly valid and clear amendments because they seem to be determined to plough ahead regardless, no matter what the quality or source of the arguments put to them. That, again, we must regret.
Then we come to what is perhaps the Government's greatest characteristic, and that is that they break their pledges. It is not simply that there has been confusion and inconsistency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, what amounted to a pledge was given by a Minister in the other place—not a pledge given, in that famous phrase of a few years ago, on a wet weekend in Dudley, but a pledge given by a Minister of the Crown to one of the Chambers of this Parliament that certain amendments would be brought forward. That has not occurred. I regard that as very serious, albeit that it has become part of a characteristic pattern of this Administration.
Finally we come to a modus operandi employed by the Government which I suspect they will come to regret—kicking something into the long grass in the hope that it will never come rolling out again. The Government say that all will be dealt with in regulations, that there is nothing to worry about and that employer organisations, trade unions and so on can be entirely content that all circles will be squared, that everyone will be bought off and that everyone will be happy in the end. There is the belief that if one keeps postponing the provision of detail for a sufficient number of months, no problem will ultimately arise.
This is the point at which the whistle has been blown. The package has been passed around for a little while and the ticking time bomb is about to go off. The Minister has clearly not succeeded in kicking it into the long grass. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has rightly performed her duty in holding the Minister to account for the pledges made by his junior ministerial team.
There may be a subtext to all this. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton touched on one possible subtext, which relates to the buying off of trade union friends, and that is a point to which I may return later. But there may be another subtext, and that is that the Secretary of State may not much mind what his juniors say in another place because he knows that either they or he will move next week. In either event, he may not care too much about ministerial consistency because the present happy band of brothers and sisters at the Department of Trade and Industry may be about to be broken up and dispersed. The Government Whip on the Front Bench, who is a most distinguished and admirable member of that team, and—I hope that I do not damage his prospects—someone who thoroughly deserves promotion, may also find himself part of a different ministerial team. That may be why the Minister does not care whether he is being consistent or not. I hope that such a short-term view has not entered the Secretary of State's calculations, but one must bear in mind that this particular piece of unhappy legislation has already borne the fingerprints of no fewer than three Secretaries of State in its transition from the initial White Paper, through the wonderful spinning regime of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who tried to pretend that it was something entirely different from what it was, to the present chair of decisions at the Department of Trade and Industry, who has found it in his in-tray and fiddled around with it.
We do know one thing from the press reports relating to the Government reshuffle, which may explain the Secretary of State's reaction. Whatever the fate of his junior Ministers in the other place, and whatever the fate of his Whip, it is widely expected that his junior Minister of State is likely to become the equivalent of party chairman. The party chairman must ensure that all the members of the Labour party, including the trade union funding partners, are happy. That is why the Government are resisting the amendment. I can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are following closely the way in which I am referring closely to the Government's resistance to the amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton rightly pointed out, the amendment provoked unhappiness in the other place, not from any old member of the Labour Benches, but from a senior person with connections to the trade union movement. It is distinctly possible that any chairman-elect of the Labour party—as we may refer to the Minister of State—would be concerned if the trade union movement, which is instrumental in keeping the Labour party going, funding it and providing key workers in key seats, was in any way displeased.
As we turn to the detail of the amendments, we should bear in mind the fact that the Secretary of State has a range of reasons, not all of them entirely above board or noble, for resisting the text before us. That text is clear. The Secretary of State claimed earlier that it was an attempt to spatchcock two different concepts together and that the Bill was the wrong place for it. In fact, it defines, at least in part, the "detriment" identified in clause 15(1). It is an important clarificatory measure. We must be clear what is and is not "detriment".
I hear a nasty echo of some famous—indeed notorious—remarks made a few years ago by Roy Hattersley, then the Labour party's deputy leader. In The Guardian, he wrote that the Labour Party was not the party of equality of opportunity. That, he wrote, was the Tory party, while the Labour party was the party of equality of outcome. If that is the attitude of the Labour party, and one must assume that a former deputy leader knows something about his party's instincts, one can see why Labour Members do not like the amendment. It would permit someone who was not a member of a trade union to earn more than someone who was.
Labour wants a wonderful world—wonderful in Labour's terms, though not in anyone else's—in which everyone who works for a specific employer is paid exactly the same. No matter how hard they work, how successful they are, how many bonuses they earn or how much they contribute to the company, they will receive no more money. That chimes with the Secretary of State's recent attack on so-called fat cats, another indication of the Government's egalitarian instincts. They are opposed to the idea of having different pay for different skills, aptitude or effort. Serious concern exists that they are seeking to impose a model on our industrial relations that clearly would not work.
Socialism in all its forms has failed, particularly the state socialism of eastern Europe. The incentive principle, which lies at the heart of the amendment, is the reason why socialism will never work. Socialism prescribes equality, even where it does not exist. We stand for equality of opportunity—the then Mr. Hattersley was entirely right about that. Sadly, Labour stands for equality of outcome, and that is a very different proposition.
The powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has not been properly addressed by the Government. We want to know their answers to her points. In particular, why does the Secretary of State say something different in the House of Commons from what another Minister said in the House of Lords barely five weeks ago? I wait with bated breath for his reply.
I support what the noble Lords have done. Baroness Miller's remarks concluded:
By compelling an employee to accept a collective bargain against his will and in that way increase the power of the union over him, the Government are attempting to reintroduce the closed shop by the back door. I repeat that this would reintroduce the closed shop by the back door. That is something which the Labour Party promised it would not do. This amendment simply ensures that workers enjoy one of the most fundamental of employment rights; namely, to negotiate their own individual pay if they can strike a better bargain with their employer, possibly by being more flexible than an entrenched egalitarian position of a trade union."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 357.]
The key point is the meaning of "detriment". The Lords amendment broadens the definition, allowing people a much clearer idea of whether it means "difference". Workers have to be flexible today, and although the amendment does not undermine anyone's right to be a member of a trade union and accept the benefits that flow from membership, some workers, perhaps because of the hours they work or the skills they have, are in a good position to negotiate their own terms and conditions.
The amendment allows our economy to be flexible, and allows individual workers with particular skills to take the best advantage of that. My concern is with the meaning of "detriment", and whether it means difference or allows trade unions to level down rather than up. Will individuals with particular skills be able to bargain through the market to achieve the maximum benefits?
This has been an interesting debate; I shall try to reply to the points made by Opposition Members. For the benefit of the House, I point out that the Government voted against amendment No. 17 in the House of Lords—a good demonstration that we did not accept its content. That is why we opposed it, and gave the clearest possible expression of our reservations about it.
However, the reason for the views expressed by my noble Friends lies in the principle that we all share; it underpins the comments made by Baroness Miller and I restated it at the beginning of the debate. The principle is simply that employers should remain free to offer more pay or to improve benefits to individual employees; even though there may be a collective agreement, employers will have that freedom. That is what I believe in, and it will be ensured by the regulations that we shall introduce in the House—which can be debated and voted on.
There is no disagreement about the principle that underpins our consideration of these matters. However, we do not accept the previous Conservative Government's view that individuals should be penalised because they choose to belong to a trade union, and to be part of a collective agreement. The previous Government endorsed and supported that view; the regulations that we shall introduce will allow individuals freedom of contract, but will ensure that people will not be penalised or suffer detriment because they belong to a trade union.
If those were Secretary of State's concerns, why was the amendment not brought back to this place in a modified form on Report? Later, on Third Reading, the Government made a slight alteration on the grounds that the amendment needed a grammatical change. Why was it not substantively changed—as was promised by Lord McIntosh? We share the Secretary of State's concern about the rights of trade union members, but there was nothing to stop him from tabling on Report the substantive amendment that was promised in another place.
We are talking to interested parties about the detail of the regulations. I would rather do that in order to get the regulations right. Those regulations will be supported by business. People will realise that they carry the debate forward appropriately. I realise that Opposition Members find that hard to understand; they do not understand the concept of consultation—of discussing with business what might be suitable or appropriate. We believe in consultation and that, as a result of it, the regulations that we shall introduce will be all the better. [Interruption.] I know that it is difficult for Opposition Members to understand that, but that is what will happen.
We heard a great deal about what is meant by detriment. I knew it was a mistake to use the same approach as that adopted by the previous Government in their Employment Rights Act 1996. Detriment was referred to, but no precise definition was given. We have adopted exactly the same approach.
We are talking about introducing regulations that will do away with one of the great injustices promoted by the previous Government: that because people chose to belong to a trade union, their employer should be able to discriminate against them. We do not accept that approach. We believe that amendment No. 17, supported by the Conservatives in the House of Lords, will make it difficult to ensure that we can remove that discrimination. We believe that individuals should have the freedom to be paid more by their employer if the employer agrees, but that should not be based on penalising trade union members. We know that that is the Opposition's motive because, during their years in government, they did nothing to change matters; they did nothing to oppose discrimination against trade union members.
I invite the House to disagree with amendment No. 17 carried in the House of Lords. We believe in fairness, not favours; we believe that the Government are for all the people, not just for a few. That is why we shall resist the amendment. We shall ensure that there will not be discrimination against trade union members.
Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 8, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (l)(a) of this section so long as—
and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act and sections 146 and 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 shall be construed accordingly.")
|Division No. 268]||[8.49 pm|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Butler, Mrs Christine|
|Ainger, Nick||Byers, Rt Hon Stephen|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Caborn, Rt Hon Richard|
|Alexander, Douglas||Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)|
|Allan, Richard||Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)|
|Allen, Graham||Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary||Campbell-Savours, Dale|
|Ashton, Joe||Cann, Jamie|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Caplin, Ivor|
|Banks, Tony||Casale, Roger|
|Barron, Kevin||Caton, Martin|
|Battle, John||Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)|
|Bayley, Hugh||Chaytor, David|
|Beard, Nigel||Chidgey, David|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Chisholm, Malcolm|
|Begg, Miss Anne||Clapham, Michael|
|Bell, Martin (Tatton)||Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)|
|Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)||Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)|
|Berry, Roger||Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)|
|Best, Harold||Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)|
|Blackman, Liz||Clelland, David|
|Borrow, David||Clwyd, Ann|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Coffey, Ms Ann|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Cohen, Harry|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Colman, Tony|
|Brand, Dr Peter||Connarty, Michael|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Cook, Frank (Stockton N)|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)||Corbyn, Jeremy|
|Browne, Desmond||Cousins, Jim|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Cox, Tom|
|Burden, Richard||Cranston, Ross|
|Burgon, Colin||Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)|
|Burnett, John||Cryer, John (Hornchurch)|
|Burstow, Paul||Cummings, John|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)||Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)|
|Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Jenkins, Brian|
|Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire||Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Darvill, Keith||Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)|
|Davidson, Ian||Jones, Helen (Warrington N)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Jones, Ms Jenny (Wdverh'ton SW)|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)|
|Dawson, Hilton||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Dean, Mrs Janet||Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)|
|Denham, John||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)|
|Doran, Frank||Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa|
|Dowd, Jim||Keeble, Ms Sally|
|Drew, David||Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)|
|Drown, Ms Julia||Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Keetch, Paul|
|Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)||Kelly, Ms Ruth|
|Edwards, Huw||Kemp, Fraser|
|Ennis, Jeff||Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)|
|Etherington, Bill||Khabra, Piara S|
|Fearn, Ronnie||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Field, Rt Hon Frank||Ladyman, Dr Stephen|
|Fisher, Mark||Lawrence, Ms Jackie|
|Fitzpatrick, Jim||Laxton, Bob|
|Fitzsimons, Lorna||Lepper, David|
|Flint, Caroline||Leslie, Christopher|
|Flynn, Paul||Levitt, Tom|
|Follett, Barbara||Lewis, Terry (Worsley)|
|Foster, Rt Hon Derek||Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen|
|Foster, Michael J (Worcester)||Linton, Martin|
|Foulkes, George||Lock, David|
|Fyfe, Maria||Love, Andrew|
|Galloway, George||McAllion, John|
|Gapes, Mike||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Gardiner, Barry||McCabe, Steve|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||McCafferty, Ms Chris|
|George, Bruce (Walsall S)||McDonagh, Siobhain|
|Gerrard, Neil||Macdonald, Calum|
|Gibson, Dr Ian||McDonnell, John|
|Gilroy, Mrs Linda||McIsaac, Shona|
|Godsiff, Roger||McKenna, Mrs Rosemary|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||McNamara, Kevin|
|Gordon, Mrs Eileen||McNulty, Tony|
|Gorrie, Donald||MacShane, Denis|
|Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)||Mactaggart, Fiona|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||McWalter, Tony|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||McWilliam, John|
|Grocott, Bruce||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Grogan, John||Mallaber, Judy|
|Gunnell, John||Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter|
|Hain, Peter||Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)|
|Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Hancock, Mike||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet||Meale, Alan|
|Heal, Mrs Sylvia||Merron, Gillian|
|Healey, John||Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)|
|Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)||Milburn, Rt Hon Alan|
|Heppell, John||Mitchell, Austin|
|Hewitt, Ms Patricia||Moffatt, Laura|
|Hinchliffe, David||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Hodge, Ms Margaret||Moran, Ms Margaret|
|Hoey, Kate||Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)|
|Hood, Jimmy||Morley, Elliot|
|Hopkins, Kelvin||Mudie, George|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Mullin, Chris|
|Howells, Dr Kim||Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)|
|Hoyle, Lindsay||Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)|
|Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)||Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Naysmith, Dr Doug|
|Humble, Mrs Joan||O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)|
|Hurst, Alan||O'Hara, Eddie|
|Hutton, John||Olner, Bill|
|Organ, Mrs Diana||Spellar, John|
|Osborne, Ms Sandra||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Pearson, Ian||Stevenson, George|
|Pendry, Tom||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Pickthall, Colin||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Pike, Peter L||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Plaskitt, James||Stott Roger|
|Pope, Greg||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Pound, Stephen||Straw, Rt Hon Jack|
|Powell, Sir Raymond||Stringer, Graham|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Prescott, Rt Hon John||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Prosser, Gwyn||Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)|
|Purchase, Ken||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Radice, Rt Hon Giles||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Rammell, Bill||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Rapson, Syd||Timms, Stephen|
|Raynsford, Nick||Tipping, Paddy|
|Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)||Touhig, Don|
|Roche, Mrs Barbara||Trickett, Jon|
|Rooker, Jeff||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Rooney, Terry||Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)|
|Roy, Frank||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Ruddock, Joan||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Russell, Bob (Colchester)||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Ryan, Ms Joan||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Salter, Martin||Wareing, Robert N|
|Sanders, Adrian||Watts, David|
|Sarwar, Mohammad||White, Brian|
|Savidge, Malcolm||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Sawford, Phil||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Shipley, Ms Debra||Willis, Phil|
|Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)||Winnick, David|
|Singh, Marsha||Wise, Audrey|
|Skinner, Dennis||Worthington, Tony|
|Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)||Wray, James|
|Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Smith, John (Glamorgan)||Wyatt, Derek|
|Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Snape, Peter||Mr. Clive Betts and|
|Soley, Clive||Mr. Keith Hill.|
|Amess, David||Day, Stephen|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)||Duncan, Alan|
|Baldry, Tony||Duncan Smith, Iain|
|Bercow, John||Evans, Nigel|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Faber, David|
|Blunt, Crispin||Fabricant, Michael|
|Body, Sir Richard||Fallon, Michael|
|Boswell, Tim||Forth, Rt Hon Eric|
|Brazier, Julian||Fox, Dr Liam|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Fraser, Christopher|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Gale, Roger|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Gibb, Nick|
|Burns, Simon||Gill, Christopher|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)||Gillan, Mrs Cheryl|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Chope, Christopher||Gray, James|
|Clappison, James||Green, Damian|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Greenway, John|
|Collins, Tim||Gummer, Rt Hon John|
|Cran, James||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie|
|Davies, Quentin (Grantham)||Hawkins, Nick|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)||Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas||Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)|
|Horam, John||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||St Aubyn, Nick|
|Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Hunter, Andrew||Shepherd, Richard|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Spring, Richard|
|Key, Robert||Swayne, Desmond|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Syms, Robert|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Lansley, Andrew||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Leigh, Edward||Taylor, Sir Teddy|
|Letwin, Oliver||Townend, John|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)||Tredinnick, David|
|Lidington, David||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)||Viggers, Peter|
|Loughton, Tim||Walter, Robert|
|Luff, Peter||Wardle, Charles|
|MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew||Waterson, Nigel|
|Maclean, Rt Hon David||Wells, Bowen|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Maude, Rt Hon Francis||Whittingdale, John|
|May, Mrs Theresa||Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann|
|Moss, Malcolm||Wilkinson, John|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Willetts, David|
|Norman, Archie||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Ottaway, Richard||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|Page, Richard||Yeo, Tim|
|Paice, James||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Prior, David||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Randall, John||Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||and|
|Robathan, Andrew||Mr. Keith Simpson.|