Directions Relating to Breach of Duty or to International Obligations

Orders of the Day — Food Standards Bill – in the House of Commons at 11:30 pm on 8th November 1999.

Alert me about debates like this

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 12, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— ("(b) by the Scottish Ministers (in so far as it is exercisable by them within devolved competence or by virtue of an Order in Council made under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998); and")

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 31.

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

This group of amendments includes some important technical points arising from devolution. As we have explained throughout the Bill's passage, the agency is being established as a United Kingdom body, with the aim of achieving across the United Kingdom a consistent approach to food safety. However, food safety and standards are a devolved matter. We therefore have to ensure that the Bill correctly reflects the position following the devolution legislation, and takes account of the appropriate devolved responsibilities.

Photo of James Paice James Paice Shadow Spokesperson (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

The Bill must be right in addressing the devolution issue. I should simply like to challenge the Minister on Lords amendment No. 16, which would amend clause 24. Clause 24 itself refers to clause 23, and the fact that the powers would be given to Scottish Ministers if it appeared to them that there has been a serious failure by the Agency …to comply with section 23". Clause 23(2) itself states that The Agency, in considering whether or not to exercise any power, or the manner in which to exercise any power, shall take into account (among other things)— (a) the nature and magnitude of any risks to public health". That provision brings us immediately to the current crisis of confidence over the Government's policy on beef on the bone. If devolution does what the Bill says, if the arrangements are separate for each country and if the Lords amendment gives Scottish Ministers competence to consider whether there has been a serious failure by the Agency to take into account the nature and magnitude of those risks, what will happen after the agency is created?

Now, despite the advice that he has received from the chief medical officer, the English Minister refuses to lift that absurd ban, on the basis that his Scottish counterpart says that he does not think it safe for Scots to eat beef on the bone. That is the price of devolution.

12.15 am

It seems odd that the Bill establishes, and a Government amendment reaffirms, Scottish competence to deal with such issues and to take into account the nature and magnitude of the risks to public health, which is the very core of the beef on the bone issue, while what the Government are actually doing—or rather, failing to do, which is to lift the absurd ban—shows a total disregard of the principles in the Bill.

Photo of Dr Norman Godman Dr Norman Godman Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde

In relation to Lords amendment No. 16, I have every confidence in the Scottish medical officer of health—just as I have every confidence in the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament—to ensure that the Bill and the regulations are administered fairly and effectively.

However, what would happen if Ministers in the Scottish Parliament expressed concern about the way in which fish farms were inspected by the agency? A few minutes ago, I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State how important that industry is to our coastal and island communities. What powers does the Scottish Parliament possess to change or introduce regulations governing such access to fish farms or other Scottish enterprises? We may require some sort of concordat, because Scottish Ministers and Members of the Scottish Parliament may have far greater knowledge of the local conditions surrounding such industries than do Ministers or Members here—with the obvious and estimable exception of Scottish Members of this Parliament.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

I welcome the amendments in so far as they clarify the position of the Scottish Parliament. None the less, I hark back to what I said on Second Reading—that if Scotland had been allowed to legislate for itself on food standards, neither the amendments nor the original clauses would have been necessary in the first place. The Government have embarked on devolution and the House has devolved the oversight of food standards, yet they do not seem prepared to accept the consequences and let the devolved Parliaments legislate in their own way. So be it. They have chosen this route, so I welcome the amendments.

To follow what the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, I do not believe that anything in the Bill specifically states that the Scottish Parliament may in due course choose to legislate separately on such matters.

Photo of Mr Tam Dalyell Mr Tam Dalyell Labour, Linlithgow

Nineteen minutes past 12 in the morning is not perhaps the most felicitous time to ask this question, so I preface it by saying that the Minister may wish to reply by putting a note in the Library. A judgment on beef on the bone has been made in the sheriff court in Scotland—a judgment that is very awkward from the Government's point of view. Ministers know that that judgment opens a Pandora's box of problems, so if they cannot comment off the top of their head, will they put a note in the Library about their attitude to the sheriff court's finding?

Photo of Dr Peter Brand Dr Peter Brand Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight

I shall not enter into the beef on the bone debate, but I invite the Minister to clarify the mechanism that will be used. As I understand it, the Food Standards Agency will give advice to Ministers and will publish that advice. I imagine that the relevant Ministers in the relevant nations will be free to reject that advice, or to accept it. If that is the case, clearly it would be acceptable to have beef on the bone in Wales, but not in England—I am not sure what the Scots want to do.

Photo of Dr Peter Brand Dr Peter Brand Liberal Democrat, Isle of Wight

That is a personal opinion. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on my point.

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

I have been somewhat surprised by the wide-ranging nature of the debate on what is a technical amendment. The amendment relates to Executive devolution under the Scotland Act 1998 and we cannot reopen the debate on the devolution settlement, as some of the contributions appeared to try to tempt me to do. Legislative responsibilities for food safety and standards, including beef on the bone, were already devolved by Parliament in the Scotland Act 1998. The issue of beef on the bone has been debated several times and will doubtless be raised again in various ways.

Amendment No. 16 is simply a technical amendment which will ensure that Scottish Ministers have power of direction on matters within their devolved competence, including matters that are the subject of Executive devolution, as well as directly under the Scotland Act 1998. It will make no significant difference to the powers of direction, but it is necessary for consistency within the general framework of devolution in Scotland.

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has a felicitous sense of timing, but my understanding is that the case he mentioned is still before the courts and, therefore, I cannot comment on it even though he tempted me to do so. Whether I am relieved about that, I will keep to myself.

We have had an interesting debate, but it has ranged much wider than the technical nature of the amendment would suggest. None the less, I hope that the amendment will gain the approval of the House.

Photo of Mr Tam Dalyell Mr Tam Dalyell Labour, Linlithgow

For all the levity, the case I mentioned is a serious issue. When the courts finally come to a judgment, MAFF will have to make a statement on it.

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

I was not commenting on the seriousness or otherwise of the issue. I was simply saying that it is currently before the courts.

Photo of Michael Fallon Michael Fallon Conservative, Sevenoaks

As I understand Lords amendment No. 22, it would allow the Scottish Parliament to confer an additional function of its choosing on the Food Standards Agency, which may be exercisable in Scotland, but presumably, once conferred, may also be exercisable in England. Can the Minister explain the amendment?

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Lords amendment No. 22 is intended simply to remove any doubt that may arise about the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly to modify the functions of the agency in their own areas of jurisdiction, which have already been established. That does not necessarily mean that Scotland or Northern Ireland would do something different from England and Wales. However, because Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legislative competence on food safety and standards matters, we need to ensure that there is no doubt about their ability to make changes to the agency's functions which have been agreed across the UK.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 24 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 19, line 28, at end insert("(2A) In this Act the expression "interests of consumers in relation to food" includes (without prejudice to the generality of that expression) interests in relation to the labelling, marking, presenting or advertising of food, and the descriptions which may he applied to food.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Ms Quin.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

With this it will be convenient to take amendment (a).

Photo of Caroline Spelman Caroline Spelman Shadow Spokesperson (Health)

I shall speak to amendment (a) with confidence and with the full support of the National Farmers Union, which has written to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) saying that the amendment would open the door to better country-of-origin labelling, and that that would assist consumers to buy British, on the basis of quality, origin, taste and safety.

The amendment would also encourage action better to inform consumers, through labelling and otherwise, about how the product has reached the supermarket shelf. Farmers producing to the high welfare standards required by British law in the pig industry, for example, could then command the premium that they well deserve. We urge the Government to grab this opportunity, at this late stage of the Bill's progress through the House, to give the Food Standards Agency the power to regulate the sourcing of food in this country.

On repeated occasions during the Bill's progress, Opposition Members have tried to get the question of labelling incorporated into the FSA. It seems ironic that one of the key reasons for bringing the agency into being is to protect public health from food risks, yet failure to give the agency responsibility for food sourcing and the labelling of food will simply prevent members of the public from protecting themselves against real or perceived risks. That is why we urge the Government most strongly to consider accepting the amendment, even at this very late stage.

The fact that the co-director of the Food Commission has described present labelling arrangements as a shambles should serve to encourage the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to go further than his most recent statements about changing the guidelines on labelling. Indeed, speaking on BBC1's "Breakfast with Frost" programme on 24 October, he said: I do think if people check where the product is sourced from they can make informed choices. However, people cannot do that. At the height of the Belgian dioxin scare, my nanny bought chicken breast from the local supermarket for my children's tea. From the label, there was no way of knowing where the meat had come from, so I followed the Minister's good advice of "when in doubt, throw it out".

The Minister went on, in his interview on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme, to state: My personal choice is to look for the Meat and Livestock Commission's 'Assured British' label". Conservative Members wholeheartedly support that scheme, but its impact is limited. Out of curiosity, I went to my local supermarket and hunted—in vain—for British smoked back bacon. There was Dutch and Danish bacon of that variety, as well as many packs with no country of origin identified at all. To work, the Assured British scheme must be backed by statute. That is one of the strong reasons why we are looking for the incorporation of labelling into the work of the Food Standards Agency.

The weakness of the Minister's announcement of 27 October about amending the guidelines is that it does not place any legal obligation on retailers to follow the recommended good practice regarding labelling as to country of origin. Without some extra obligation, as opposed to mere advice, there must be doubt about how effective the proposed changes will be.

I hope that the Government will make the concession implied in the amendment and give the very important responsibility for the sourcing of food to the Food Standards Agency. Failure to do that will lead us to press the amendment to a vote.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Spokesperson (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 12:30 am, 8th November 1999

I support amendment (a), although, as I am no curmudgeon, I must point out that the Government have been responsive to many points made here and in the other place. They have gone a long way towards improving the Bill, but the amendment asks them to go one step further.

The amendment qualifies the definition of the interests of consumers in relation to food, a concept referred to throughout the Bill, notably in clauses 2, 6, 7 and 8. It defines the work of the agency in protecting the public from risk, developing policies, providing advice and information and obtaining, compiling and keeping under review such information. It is right that the agency should take account of the sourcing of food when considering those matters.

To persuade me that that should not be stated in the Bill, the Minister may suggest that it is unnecessary because the point is already covered. If that is so, why is amendment No. 25 felt necessary, as it, too, defines the terms within which advice should be given? Alternatively, the Minister may suggest that amendment (a) might prejudice the agency's work. I cannot accept that, as the amendment would provide an important adjunct to the agency's core work. A further suggestion might be that the amendment would not be in the interests of consumers, an idea with which I would have to differ most strongly. It is greatly in the interests of consumers that they should know the source of food. It is a happy coincidence that the interests of consumers and producers are the same in this case.

The Minister has mentioned the pig industry, but one of the major reasons for that industry's parlous state is the high welfare standards that prevail in the United Kingdom. Those standards are quite proper, but they are not matched in the pig industries of our principal competitors abroad, and our pig producers are therefore at a constant commercial disadvantage in the supermarkets if consumers cannot make a choice informed by knowledge of the source of the food and the conditions under which it was produced.

In the interests of consumers, producers and transparency, we should avoid the type of confusion on which there have been recent exchanges during Question Time. Earlier this month, I pointed out that St. Ivel Shape yoghurt—not a product that I buy regularly—is made in France while Carte D'or ice cream is made in Gloucester. How is the consumer supposed to understand that?

Photo of James Gray James Gray Conservative, North Wiltshire

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. St. Ivel yoghurt is made in my constituency, at Wootton Bassett.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Spokesperson (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

St. Ivel yoghurt is made in many places, and the brand to which I have referred is made in France. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. It is a tragedy that even an hon. Member who represents the area where a product is made may not be aware that it is also sourced from another country, but that fact highlights the very difficulty that the consumer faces when he or she goes to the supermarket. I sometimes do the shopping, rather than sending a nanny to do it, and I, like many people, find labelling confusing.

If the Minister cannot respond adequately to these points, I fear that we shall support amendment (a), which is important to our primary producers.

Photo of Mr Teddy Taylor Mr Teddy Taylor Conservative, Rochford and Southend East

I wish to make two brief points following the convincing argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). I believe in free trade, and it is terribly important that people should be told the truth. However, as one of the older Members in the House, I can recall other occasions on which we have discussed proposals that seemed sensible, sound and absolutely super, only to find to our horror that we could not in fact put them into practice. In such cases, we have ended up spending millions of pounds in compensation.

I remember Members waving their Order Papers over the question of which ships were allowed to fish under the British quota. We all thought it was splendid, but now it is costing us a lot of money. I have a simple question for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and the Minister: are we allowed to do this sort of thing? Sadly, I find that in Parliament these days, there are many things that we would like to do but are not allowed to do because, if we did, we would be fined horrendous sums or put in the equivalent of a Euro-prison.

I shop in a store called Asda, of which hon. Members may have heard. I always intend to buy New Zealand lamb but, unfortunately, I am not allowed to, not because of labelling but because of National Farmers Union pressure. The NFU is so concerned about overproduction that we are not allowed to buy from New Zealand any more. That is sad because whenever we have been in trouble, our friends from New Zealand have always been there to help us.

I have a horrible feeling that our basic problem is overproduction, not labelling. There is so much food. We are producing more and more, but, sadly, people are eating less and less. I am told that the continentals eat 2 per cent. less every year. The crucial question is whether we are allowed to label continental food according to its origin.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is very pro-British and made it abundantly clear that he did not want to buy any more French food. The trouble is that, as I understand it, we are not allowed to determine whether food comes from France, so it will be hard to help him. I hope that my hon. Friends will not end up in another horrible mess where we have to pay more Euro-fines. Let us find out whether we are entitled to label food as coming from France, Germany or Italy. I understand that, under a derogation, we are allowed to say whether something comes from Britain or outside the European Economic Community, but not to give people the opportunity of knowing which part of the EEC something comes from.

My point may seem minor, but bearing in mind the horrendous fines that we have had to pay and the undermining of our freedom to decide things in this House, before we do something that we know to be sound, sensible and reasonable and that would support a freedom, let us find out whether we are allowed to do it. One of the great tragedies in this House is that we spend a great deal of time talking about things that we are not allowed to do. We have debates on fishing or the age of homosexual consent, over which we have no power at all. Let us not make another blunder. Before taking the final plunge and approving this superb amendment, which was tabled for the best of reasons, let us find out if we can do it.

Photo of Mr Christopher Gill Mr Christopher Gill Conservative, Ludlow

I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. In a previous debate, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food highlighted the importance of having meaningful labelling of our food. That must mean a statement of its source. Labelling should state the country of origin of food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said, the public need to know so that they can make informed choices between, for example, beef fed in this country on natural rations and that from cattle that we are told are fed on sewage sludge elsewhere, or between pigmeat produced in this country to high animal health and welfare standards and that produced in countries where standards are much lower.

Not only do the public need to know, they have a right to know where their food was produced. While I am sure that the Government will try to tighten the present labelling regulations, if they stop short of showing the country of origin on the product, they will not be serving the public interest properly. In the same earlier debate, the Government said that on issues of animal welfare, Parliament had listened and legislated and reflected what public opinion wanted in the legislation. That was democracy at work—the people told us what they wanted; Parliament reacted accordingly and legislation followed.

At present, because there is heightened interest in food, the British people want to know the country of origin of the food that they eat. In other words, the same conditions apply. The same people who wanted meat to be produced from animals bred under higher welfare standards now want products to be labelled with the country of origin. Unless the Government intend to suspend the rules of democracy, they should accept the amendment.

Photo of Mr Peter Bradley Mr Peter Bradley Labour, The Wrekin

Interesting though it is to know the country of origin of the food on the shelves of our stores, what the consumer wants is an assurance that the food is fit to consume—whatever the country of origin. What assurances can my right hon. Friend the Minister of State give the House that any food—whether in the supermarkets or in the corner shop—meets those standards? That is the best way to give the consumer confidence that the food is fit to eat; it is also the best way to ensure that British farmers are competing on a level playing field.

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

I am not surprised that amendment (a) and amendment No. 25 have provoked a lively debate. I know full well that Members on both sides of the House take a keen interest in the issue of labelling. I understand and sympathise with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) when she introduced amendment (a). She and I are anxious to examine labels when we shop. Since taking on my present portfolio, I have become most concerned not only about labelling but about its accuracy, and about the problems caused by misleading labelling.

Photo of Mr Ian Bruce Mr Ian Bruce Conservative, South Dorset

If the right hon. Lady has been into supermarkets, she will be aware that, before the small packs are put on to the shelf, the product usually arrives in a large pack. There is much scope for someone in the back of the shop to decide what label to put on the packs. I hope that the Food Standards Agency will examine exactly what is put on the labels after the main pack has come into the supermarket.

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

It is extremely clear from our debates on the matter that the Food Standards Agency is able to consider labelling generally and its importance to the consumer, both in terms of freedom of choice—a matter mentioned by several hon. Members—and to avoid consumers being misled by labels. During the passage of the Bill, many examples of the problems of misleading labelling were given by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by Members in the other place. Arguments about the dangers of inadequate labelling—especially of substances that could provoke allergies—were well and strongly made during the debate in the other place.

I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Meriden did not give the Government more credit for accepting the amendment tabled in the other place by the Baroness Byford, the Opposition spokesperson. To her credit, she was extremely active in promoting the labelling issue.

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) says that it is the Government's amendment, but the amendment to which I referred was tabled by the Opposition in the other place. The amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Meriden is a further amendment to that amendment. I am surprised that the hon. Lady did not welcome it more enthusiastically. I am grateful that hon. Members of other parties recognise how active the Government have been in respect of labelling.

Photo of James Paice James Paice Shadow Spokesperson (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 12:45 am, 8th November 1999

For the record, the amendment was tabled by Baroness Hayman, whose speech appears at column 909—I do not have the exact date—of that part of the House of Lords' consideration of the Bill. It might have been tabled in response to pressure from Conservatives, but the wording is the Government's, which is why we want to amend it.

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the amendment was the initiative of Baroness Byford, to whom I give credit. It is true that she agreed it with the Government, but for the Opposition now to stand back from the amendment strikes me as incredible. The least that the hon. Member for Meriden could do is give more generous recognition to the way in which the Government bowed before the concern expressed in the other place.

The Conservatives have only discovered an enthusiasm for labelling in opposition. The Labour party has been enthusiastic and active on the issue both in opposition and in government. That is the clear difference between us. Ministers have explained on numerous occasions that the Food Standards Agency will be responsible for policy and advice on labelling matters to Ministers and the public. We are entirely satisfied that the Bill provides the necessary powers for the agency to take a full and active role in that matter, through its role in protecting the interests of consumers in relation to food.

When we accepted the ideas advanced by Baroness Byford in another place, we did so in a way that was consistent with the wording of the regulation-making power in section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That is important if we are not to create confusion or uncertainty about the scope of the agency's role in that matter. The Opposition amendment to which the hon. Member for Meriden spoke would expand our amendment and create inconsistency within the legislation in respect of the main regulation power relating to labelling. Therefore, we believe that it is inappropriate.

I understand the concern expressed by various hon. Members about improved country-of-origin labelling on foods. The Government, too, are concerned and we are active at European level in that respect. That answers in part the points raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). However, labelling is not an area in which we have a free hand, as the hon. Gentleman hinted and as the Opposition Front Benchers have not been prepared to recognise in their approach to the amendment. We need to get agreement at European level on various aspects of labelling, although voluntary labelling is possible.

Given the vigilance of the hon. Member for Meriden in looking for labels in shops, she will know that country-of-origin labelling is becoming increasingly common, especially on meat and meat products. I welcome that. The snag is that the labelling is not always accurate, which is why the arguments on misleading labelling are so important.

We have to be careful not to impose on the agency duties that it is unable to perform—a point raised by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. We have to recognise the limitations prevailing within the single market on unilateral changes to labelling, while taking every opportunity to give consumers the information that they need, including information on country of origin.

The effect of the Opposition amendment would be wider than simply inserting in the Bill a requirement for country-of-origin rules. Under it, the agency would be given a remit encompassing general issues of sourcing—the hon. Member for Meriden appears to agree with that. However, some issues may be outwith the agency's responsibility. The agency cannot have overall responsibility for sourcing because that is often based on commercial decisions, such as availability and seasonality, and has nothing to do with food safety and quality. They are the issues for which the agency is responsible.

Although I understand and sympathise with the spirit of the amendment, for the technical reason that I have given and in light of its wider definition of sourcing, it is not appropriate to include the amendment in the Bill in its present form. The amendment has been introduced at a very late stage. We conceded generously to the concerns about labelling that were expressed in the other place—a fact that I hope the hon. Lady will recognise and welcome.

Photo of Mr Peter Bradley Mr Peter Bradley Labour, The Wrekin

The Minister is correct to point out that we are debating a Food Standards Bill and a Food Standards Agency, not a food sourcing agency. Can she assure the House that imported food in our shops will meet the same standards of animal welfare and food hygiene as home-grown and home-produced food? That is the best way both to give consumers information on which they can base an informed choice and to ensure that domestic farmers operate on a level playing field.

Photo of Ms Joyce Quin Ms Joyce Quin Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, to which he made a slightly different allusion earlier.

We are governed by both national and European requirements in this area. There are European standards for food quality and safety, which we apply. In certain cases, we also apply higher national standards, which is permissible. However, we cannot block imports from other European Union countries when there are agreed European standards. That refers to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East.

There are recognised safety standards within the European Commission that countries outside the European Union are required to meet before they can import to the EU. The EU is becoming increasingly interested in food safety, and European Commission President Prodi has advanced ideas for a European food standards agency, authority or some kind of mechanism to ensure that European consumers' general concerns for both safety and quality within the internal market are satisfied properly in future. We want to contribute constructively to that debate.

We believe that the Government's record on labelling is second to none, and vastly superior to the woeful record of the Conservatives during 18 years in office. We do not need to take advice from the Opposition, and I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on the fact that, both technically and in substance, the amendment is not appropriate to the Bill.

Photo of Caroline Spelman Caroline Spelman Shadow Spokesperson (Health)

The Opposition regret that, like her predecessors, the Minister is unwilling to incorporate in the Food Standards Bill this important amendment about the labelling part of sourcing. For that reason, we shall press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 266.

Division No. 308][12.54 am
Allan, RichardDavies, Quentin (Grantham)
Amess, DavidDavis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Baldry, TonyDuncan, Alan
Bercow, JohnEvans, Nigel
Beresford, Sir PaulFaber, David
Blunt, CrispinFabricant, Michael
Boswell, TimFallon, Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)Flight, Howard
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs VirginiaForth, Rt Hon Eric
Brady, GrahamFox, Dr Liam
Brand, Dr PeterFraser, Christopher
Brazier, JulianGarnier, Edward
Brooke, Rt Hon PeterGibb, Nick
Browning, Mrs AngelaGill, Christopher
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Burnett, JohnGray, James
Burns, SimonGreen, Damian
Burstow, PaulGreenway, John
Butterfill, JohnGrieve, Dominic
Cash, WilliamHamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)Hammond, Philip
Hawkins, Nick
Chidgey, DavidHayes, John
Chope, ChristopherHeath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Clappison, JamesHoram, John
Collins, TimHoward, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, MichaelHowarth, Gerald (Aidershot)
Cormack, Sir PatrickHughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Cotter, BrianJack, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, JamesJackson, Robert (Wantage)
Jenkin, BernardRuffley, David
Key, RobertRussell, Bob (Colchester)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)St Aubyn, Nick
Lait, Mrs JacquiSayeed, Jonathan
Lansley, AndrewShepherd, Richard
Leigh, EdwardSimpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Letwin, OliverSoames, Nicholas
Lidington, DavidSpelman, Mrs Caroline
Lilley, Rt Hon PeterSpicer, Sir Michael
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)Spring, Richard
Llwyd, ElfynStanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Loughton, TimStreeter, Gary
Luff, PeterStunell, Andrew
MacGregor, Rt Hon JohnSwayne, Desmond
McIntosh, Miss AnneSyms, Robert
Maclean, Rt Hon DavidTapsell, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, PatrickTaylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Madel, Sir DavidTaylor, Sir Teddy
Malins, HumfreyTownend, John
Mates, MichaelTredinnick, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir BrianTrend, Michael
May, Mrs TheresaTyrie, Andrew
Viggers, Peter
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)Wardle, Charles
Moss, MalcolmWaterson, Nigel
Nicholls, PatrickWells, Bowen
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)Whitney, Sir Raymond
Ottaway, RichardWhittingdale, John
Page, RichardWiddecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Paice, JamesWilletts, David
Paterson, OwenWinterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Pickles, EricWinterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Prior, DavidWoodward, Shaun
Randall, JohnYeo, Tim
Redwood, Rt Hon JohnYoung, Rt Hon Sir George
Rendel, David
Robathan, AndrewTellers for the Ayes:
Robertson, LaurenceMrs. Eleanor Laing and
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne )Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.
Abbott, Ms DaneCampbell-Savours, Dale
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)Caplin, Ivor
Ainger, NickCasale, Roger
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)Caton, Martin
Alexander, DouglasChaytor, David
Allen, GrahamClapham, Michael
Ashton, JoeClark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Atherton, Ms CandyClark, Paul (Gillingham)
Atkins, CharlotteClarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Austin, JohnClarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Barnes, HarryClarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Barron, KevinClelland, David
Bayley, HughClwyd, Ann
Beard, NigelCoaker, Vernon
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)Coffey, Ms Ann
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)Cohen, Harry
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)Coleman, Iain
Bennett, Andrew FConnarty, Michael
Benton, JoeCook, Frank (Stockton N)
Berry, RogerCooper, Yvette
Betts, CliveCorbyn, Jeremy
Blears, Ms HazelCorston, Jean
Blizzard, BobCousins, Jim
Borrow, DavidCox, Tom
Bradley, Keith (Withington)Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)Cummings, John
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)Cunliffe, Lawrence
Browne, DesmondCunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Burden, RichardCurtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Burgon, ColinDalyell, Tam
Butler, Mrs ChristineDarvill, Keith
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Dean, Mrs JanetLewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Dobbin, JimLinton, Martin
Donohoe, Brian HLloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Doran, FrankLove, Andrew
Drew, DavidMcAvoy, Thomas
Efford, CliveMcCabe, Steve
Ellman, Mrs LouiseMcDonagh, Siobhain
Etherington, BillMacdonald, Calum
Field, Rt Hon FrankMcDonnell, John
Fisher, MarkMcGuire, Mrs Anne
Fitzpatrick, JimMcIsaac, Shona
Flint CarolineMcKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Flynn, PaulMackinlay, Andrew
Follett, BarbaraMcNulty, Tony
Foster, Rt Hon DerekMactaggart fiona
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)McWalter, Tony
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)McWilliam, John
Fyfe, MariaMahon, Mrs Alice
Gapes, MikeMallaber, Judy
Gardiner, BarryMarsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Gerrard, NeilMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Gibson, Dr IanMarshall-Andrews, Robert
Gilroy, Mrs LindaMartlew, Eric
Godman, Dr Norman AMaxton, John
Godsiff, RogerMeale, Alan
Goggins, PaulMerron, Gillian
Golding, Mrs LlinMichie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Gordon, Mrs EileenMiller, Andrew
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)Moffatt, Laura
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Moonie, Dr Lewis
Grogan, JohnMoran, Ms Margaret
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)Mountford, Kali
Heal, Mrs SylviaMudie, George
Healey, JohnMurphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hepburn, StephenO'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Heppell, JohnO'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Hesford, StephenO'Hara, Eddie
Hill, KeithOlner, Bill
Hinchliffe, DavidO'Neill, Martin
Hope, PhilOsborne, Ms Sandra
Hopkins, KelvinPalmer, Dr Nick
Hoyle, LindsayPearson, Ian
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)Perham, Ms Linda
Humble, Mrs JoanPickthall, Colin
Hurst, AlanPike, Peter L
Iddon, Dr BrianPlaskitt, James
Illsley, EricPond, Chris
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)Pope, Greg
Jamieson, DavidPound, Stephen
Jenkins, BrianPrentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)Prosser, Gwyn
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)Purchase, Ken
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)Quinn, Lawrie
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)Rammell, Bill
Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldRapson, Syd
Keeble, Ms SallyRaynsford, Nick
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Kemp, FraserRowlands, Ted
Khabra, Piara SRoy, Frank
Kidney, DavidRuane, Chris
Kilfoyle, PeterRuddock, Joan
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)Ryan, Ms Joan
Kumar, Dr AshokSarwar, Mohammad
Ladyman, Dr StephenSavidge, Malcolm
Lawrence, Ms JackieSawford, Phil
Laxton, BobSedgemore, Brian
Leslie, ChristopherSheerman, Barry
Levitt, TomSimpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Singh, MarshaTurner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Skinner, DennisTurner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Snape, PeterTwigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Southworth, Ms HelenTynan, Bill
Squire, Ms RachelWalley, Ms Joan
Starkey, Dr PhyllisWard, Ms Claire
Steinberg, GerryWareing, Robert N
Stewart, David (Inverness E)watts, David
White, Brian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)Whitehead, Dr Alan
Stinchcombe, PaulWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Stringer, GrahamWilliams Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Sutcliffe, GerryWilliams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)Winnick, David
Taylor, David (NW Leics)Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Temple-Morris, PeterWise, Audrey
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)Wood, Mike
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)Woolas, Phil
Tipping, PaddyWorthington, Tony
Todd, Mark
Touhig, DonTellers for the Noes:
Truswell, PaulMr. Jim Dowd and
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the supplemental allocation of time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Ms Quin.]

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 9.

Division No. 309][1.8 am
Abbott, Ms DianeButler, Mrs Christine
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ainger, NickCampbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Alexander, DouglasCampbell-Savours, Dale
Allan, RichardCaplin, Ivor
Allen, GrahamCasale, Roger
Ashton, JoeCaton, Martin
Atherton, Ms CandyChaytor, David
Atkins, CharlotteClapham, Michael
Austin, JohnClark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Barnes, HarryClark, Paul (Gillingham)
Barron, KevinClarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Bayley, HughClarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Beard, NigelClarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)Clelland, David
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)Clwyd, Ann
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)Coaker, Vernon
Bennett, Andrew FCoffey, Ms Ann
Benton, JoeCohen, Harry
Berry, RogerColeman, Iain
Betts, CliveConnarty, Michael
Blears, Ms HazelCook, Frank (Stockton N)
Blizzard, BobCooper, Yvette
Borrow, DavidCorbyn, Jeremy
Bradley, Keith (Withington)Corston, Jean
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)Cotter, Brian
Brand, Dr PeterCousins, Jim
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)Cox, Tom
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Browne, DesmondCryer, John (Hornchurch)
Burden, RichardCummings, John
Burgon, ColinCunliffe, Lawrence
Burnett, JohnCunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Burstow, PaulCurtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Darvill, KeithKumar, Dr Ashok
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)Laxton, Bob
Dean, Mrs JanetLeslie, Christopher
Dobbin, JimLevitt, Tom
Donohoe, Brian HLewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Doran, FrankLinton, Martin
Drew, DavidLloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Efford, CliveLlwyd, Elfyn
Ellman, Mrs LouiseLove, Andrew
Etherington, BillMcAvoy, Thomas.
Field, Rt Hon FrankMcCabe, Steve
Fisher, MarkMcDonagh, Siobhain
Fitzpatrick, JimMacdonald, Calum
Flint, CarolineMcDonnell, John
Flynn, PaulMcGuire, Mrs Anne
Follett, BarbaraMcIsaac, Shona
Foster, Rt Hon DerekMcKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)Mackinlay, Andrew
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)McNulty, Tony
Fyfe, MariaMactaggart, Fiona
Gapes, MikeMcWalter, Tony
Gardiner, BarryMcWilliam, John
George, Bruce (Walsall S)Mahon, Mrs Alice
Gerrard, NeilMallaber, Judy
Gibson, Dr IanMarsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Gilroy, Mrs LindaMarsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Godman, Dr Norman AMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Godsiff, RogerMarshall-Andrews, Robert
Goggins, PaulMartlew, Eric
Golding, Mrs LlinMaxton, John
Gordon, Mrs EileenMeale, Alan
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)Merron, Gillian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Grogan, JohnMiller, Andrew
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)Moffatt, Laura
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)Moonie, Dr Lewis
Heal, Mrs SylviaMoran, Ms Margaret
Healey, JohnMorgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)Mountford, Kali
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Hepburn, StephenNaysmith, Dr Doug
Heppell, JohnO'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hesford, StephenO'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Hill, KeithO'Hara, Eddie
Hinchliffe, DavidOlner, Bill
Hope, PhilO'Neill, Martin
Hopkins, KelvinOsborne, Ms Sandra
Hoyle, LindsayPalmer, Dr Nick
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)Pearson, Ian
Hughes, Simon (Southward N)Perham, Ms Linda
Humble, Mrs JoanPickthall, Colin
Hurst, AlanPike, Peter L
Iddon, Dr BrianPlaskitt, James
Illsley, EricPond, Chris
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)Pope, Greg
Jamieson, DavidPound, Stephen
Jenkins, BrianPrentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)Prosser, Gwyn
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)Purchase, Ken
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)Quinn, Lawrie
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)Rammell, Bill
Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldRapson, Syd
Keeble, Ms SallyRaynsford, Nick
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Kemp, FraserRendel, David
Khabra, Piara SRoss, Ernie (Dundee W)
Kidney, DavidRowlands, Ted
Kilfoyle, PeterRoy, Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)Ruane, Chris
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Bob (Colchester)Todd, Mark
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)Touhig, Don
Ryan, Ms JoanTruswell, Paul
Sarwar, MohammadTurner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Savidge, MalcolmTurner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Sedgemore, BrianTurner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Sheerman, BarryTurner, Neil (Wigan)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Singh, MarshaTwigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Skinner, DennisTynan, Bill
Smith, Angela (Basildon)Walley, Ms Joan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)Ward, Ms Claire
Snape, PeterWareing, Robert N
Southworth, Ms HelenWatts, David
Squire, Ms RachelWhite, Brian
Starkey, Dr PhyllisWhitehead, Dr Alan
Steinberg, GerryWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Stinchcombe, PaulWilliams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr GavinWinnick, David
Stringer, GrahamWinterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Stunell, AndrewWise, Audrey
Sutcliffe, GerryWood, Mike
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)Woolas, Phil
Taylor, David (NW Leics)Worthington, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)Tellers for the Ayes:
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)Mr. Jim Dowd and
Tipping, PaddyMr. Mike Hall.
Fabricant, MichaelLeigh, Edward
Fallon, MichaelPaterson, Owen
Wilshire, David
Gill, Christopher
Gorman, Mrs TeresaTellers for the Noes:
Gray, JamesMr. Eric Forth and
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 11.

Division No. 310][1.20 am
Abbott, Ms DianeBradley, Keith (Withington)
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ainger, NickBrand, Dr Peter
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Alexander, DouglasBrown, Russell (Dumfries)
Allan, RichardBrowne, Desmond
Allen, GrahamBurden, Richard
Ashton, JoeBurgon, Colin
Atherton, Ms CandyBurnett, John
Atkins, CharlotteBurstow, Paul
Austin, JohnButler, Mrs Christine
Barnes, HarryCampbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Barron, KevinCampbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Bayley, HughCampbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Beard, NigelCampbell-Savours, Dale
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)Caplin, Ivor
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)Casale, Roger
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)Caton, Martin
Bennett, Andrew FChaytor, David
Benton, JoeClapham, Michael
Berry, RogerClark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Betts, CliveClark, Paul (Gillingham)
Blears, Ms HazelClarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Blizzard, BobClarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Borrow, DavidClelland, David
Clwyd, AnnHill, Keith
Coaker, VernonHinchliffe, David
Coffey, Ms AnnHope, Phil
Cohen, HarryHopkins, Kelvin
Coleman, IainHoyle, Lindsay
Connarty, MichaelHughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Cooper, YvetteHumble, Mrs Joan
Corbyn, JeremyHurst, Alan
Corston, JeanIddon, Dr Brian
Cotter, BrianIllsley, Eric
Cousins, JimJackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Cox, TomJamieson, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)Jenkins, Brian
Cryer, John (Hornchunch)Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Cummings, JohnJones, Helen (Warrington N)
Cunliffe, LawrenceJones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs ClaireJones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Darvill, KeithJones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)Keeble, Ms Sally
Dean, Mrs JanetKeen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dobbin, JimKemp, Fraser
Donohoe, Brian HKhabra, Piara S
Doran, FrankKidney, David
Drew, DavidKilfoyle, Peter
Efford, CliveKing, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ellman, Mrs LouiseKing, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Etherington, BillKumar, Dr Ashok
Reid, Rt Hon FrankLadyman, Dr Stephen
Fisher, MarkLawrence, Ms Jackie
Fitzpatrick, JimLaxton, Bob
Flint, CarolineLeslie, Christopher
Flynn, PaulLevitt, Tom
Follett, BarbaraLewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Foster, Fit Hon DerekLinton, Martin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)Llwyd, Elfyn
Fyfe, MariaLove, Andrew
Gapes, MikeMcAvoy, Thomas
Gardiner, BarryMcCabe, Steve
George, Bruce (Walsall S)McDonagh, Siobhain
Gerrard, NeilMacdonald, Calum
Gibson, Dr IanMcDonnell, John
Gilroy, Mrs LindaMcGuire, Mrs Anne
Godman, Dr Norman AMcIsaac, Shona
Godsiff, RogerMcKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Goggins, PaulMackinlay, Andrew
Golding, Mrs LlinMcNulty, Tony
Gordon, Mrs EileenMactaggart, Fiona
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)McWilliam, John
Grogan, JohnMahon, Mrs Alice
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)Mallaber, Judy
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Heal, Mrs SylviaMarsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Healey, JohnMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)Martlew, Eric
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)Maxton, John
Hepburn, StephenMerron, Gillian
Heppell, JohnMichie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hesford, StephenMiller, Andrew
Moffatt, LauraSmith, Angela (Basildon)
Moonie, Dr LewisSmith, John (Glamorgan)
Moran, Ms MargaretSnape, Peter
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)Southworth, Ms Helen
Mountford, KaliSquire, Ms Rachel
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)Steinberg, Gerry
Naysmith, Dr DougStewart, David (Inverness E)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
O'Hara, EddieStinchcombe, Paul
Olner, BillStrang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
O'Neill, MartinStringer, Graham
Osborne, Ms SandraStunell, Andrew
Palmer, Dr NickSutcliffe, Gerry
Pearson, Ian:Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Perham, Ms LindaTaylor, David (NW Leics)
Pickthall, ColinTemple-Morris, Peter
Pike, Peter LThomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Plaskitt, JamesThomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pond, ChrisTipping, Paddy
Pope, GregTodd, Mark
Pound, StephenTouhig, Don
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)Truswell, Paul
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Prosser, GwynTurner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Purchase, KenTurner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms JoyceTurner, Neil (Wigan)
Quinn, LawrieTwigg, Derek (Halton)
Radice, Rt Hon GilesTwigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Rammell, BillTynan, Bill
Rapson, SydWalley, Ms Joan
Raynsford, NickWard, Ms Claire
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)Wareing, Robert N
Rendel, DavidWatts, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)White, Brian
Rowlands, TedWhitehead, Dr Alan
Roy, FrankWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, JoanWilliams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)Winnick, David
Ryan, Ms JoanWinterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Sarwar, MohammadWise, Audrey
Savidge, MalcolmWood, Mike
Sawford, PhilWoolas, Phil
Sedgemore, BrianWorthington, Tony
Sheerman, Barry
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)Tellers for the Ayes:
Singh, MarshaMr. Jim Dowd and
Skinner, DennisMr. Mike Hall.
Chope, ChristopherLeigh, Edward
Fallon, MichaelLewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Forth, Rt Hon EricPaterson, Owen
Tredinnick, David
Gill, Christopher
Gorman, Mrs TeresaTellers for the Noes:
Gray, JamesMr. David Wilshire and
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)Mr. Jonathan Sayeed.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.