Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in page 4, line 35, after "conduct", insert
, in 2002 and every five years thereafter,".
No. 18, in page 4, line 38, leave out
A review may be limited by the Treasury to
The Treasury may also require separate limited and independent reviews of".
No. 477, in page 4, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
No. 478, in page 5, line 10, leave out—
appearing to the Treasury to be'.
This group of amendments covers particularly important territory. As the House knows, we tabled new clause 3 to address the matter in detail, but the amendments to clause 10 have the same effect.
As clause 10 stands, the Treasury may appoint an independent person to conduct a review of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the FSA has used its resources in discharging its functions, but clause 10(3) qualifies that power by providing that the review may not deal with the merits of the FSA's general policy or principles in pursuing its regulatory objectives.
Our amendments require the Treasury to appoint an independent person in 2002 and every five years thereafter. The Treasury may also require separate, limited and independent reviews of such matters as it may specify. In essence, that is already covered in clause 10. The limitation in subsection (3) would be deleted. Finally, the definition of "independent" would be amended by deleting the subjective words
appearing to the Treasury to be".
We have already touched on that in relation to attempts to reduce scope for judicial review.
It is important that there should be an automatic process of review of regulation. Had the Financial Services Act 1986 provided for that, there would have been a lot less hassle than we have had. Fewer amendments and less parliamentary time would have been needed, and there would have been fewer delays in bringing regulation up to date. For this undemocratic Government and for the industry, a review of regulation is an appropriate part of the process of checks and balances.
There is the pretence of a process of review under clause 10, but it will occur only at the behest of the Treasury and will not cover the most important territory. We feel strongly about the issue, which we discussed at length in Committee.
That sounds like an argument that totalitarian Governments have used. The review would be independent. The FSA would clearly have to participate in it, but it is more important that regulation should require proper accountability. The FSA spends an enormous amount of time doing the same thing vis-a-vis those that it regulates. I do not believe that that was a serious intervention. We view the matter as an important principle to be included in the Bill.
Clause 10 is important. As has been said repeatedly, the FSA is an unprecedentedly powerful institution. Clearly, we need to take a look at it after a few years, to see whether it is working properly.
In the Government's draft Bill, there was no provision for any kind of review. After consultation, they introduced clause 10. However, the provision is nothing more than a mouse. Given last week's events, "mouse" is an appropriate description—
Worse still, the clause is a rat. Clause 10 is not worth having, and therefore we have to amend it.
Subsection (1) provides for an independent person
to conduct a review of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Authority has used its resources in discharging its functions.
In other words, the independent person will consider only how the authority spends its money.
Subsection (2) is equally limiting. It grants the Treasury the power to specify the functions that the independent investigator may examine. He may wish to consider a particular function, but the Treasury may prevent him from doing so.
Subsection (3) expressly forbids the independent investigator from considering several broader issues. It states:
A review is not to be concerned with the merits of the Authority's general policy or principles in pursuing regulatory objectives.
As if that is not enough, the independent reviewer will not necessarily be independent. As has already been said, subsection (7) states:
'Independent' means appearing to the Treasury to be independent".
That means as independent as the Treasury wishes the reviewer to be.
That does not constitute a serious commitment to review the Bill. We have therefore tabled amendments to try to provide for that.
The clause does not even guarantee that a review will take place at all, because subsection (1) states:
The Treasury may appoint an independent person".
It does not say that the Treasury "must" appoint someone to undertake a review. The Opposition believe that a Bill that could so dramatically affect the biggest, most important and most successful industry in Britain in recent decades should be subject to independent review. That is the gravamen of the amendments.
In Committee, we presented proposals for defining "independent". We suggested that the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office should conduct the review. Some technical problems with that suggestion were mentioned in Committee, but I shall not rehearse them now. Many representative bodies support the idea of appointing him, as do the Opposition. The Government did not explain clearly why that was not a sensible approach. It would give those who are being regulated confidence in the appointment of a genuinely independent reviewer.
I do not want to go through all the arguments that the Burns committee presented. The hon. Gentleman is right, and the point was made in Committee. However, the Burns committee said that that was its position provided that its recommendations on the compensation scheme were implemented. The Bill does not provide for implementation of such a scheme. Any reasonable person who reads the Burns committee report will conclude that it would now recommend amendments to clause 10.
That is an extraordinary intervention. The object of any review is to undertake cost-benefit analyses of regulations to ascertain whether they are intelligent or cost the industry more than they save it. We would expect the Treasury to use its intelligence to ensure that the review did not become an excessive and irredeemably burdensome examination of the FSA's activity.
The Opposition have consistently argued for at least one thoroughgoing review of the fundamental change in legislation. The Government consistently refuse to say whether we can have such a review—[Interruption.] The Minister nods; perhaps that is because he has read a pleasant note, which he has stuffed into his pocket, but perhaps he was agreeing with me that the Government have consistently refused to accept the need for at least one thoroughgoing review of the measure.
The arguments were well presented in Committee, and people can read them in Hansard.
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am about to conclude my remarks.
The City would be greatly reassured by the prospect of a review. There is much uncertainty about this Bill in the City, and the knowledge that a review will take place will help allay it. We must not underestimate that point.
A second crucial reason for having a review is that the Bill alters the structure of the regulatory system. We have not simply transferred existing legislation; we have fundamentally altered it. In addition, rapid change is occurring, and an on-going review should probably take place, even if there were no Bill.
A third reason for supporting the spirit of the amendments, which do not cover the point about the Comptroller and Auditor General, is that granting him power to review will increase accountability to Parliament because he will be able to report to the Public Accounts Committee. The accountability to Parliament of the extremely powerful body that we are creating should be important to all hon. Members.
I cannot understand why the Government are afraid of reviews. Why do they consider it unreasonable to undertake, after three or four years, a fundamental review of the leviathan Bill that we are considering?
Our new review proposals have received a rather grudging welcome. I should have thought that Opposition Members would show a little more enthusiasm for the new arrangements.
Clause 10 gives the Treasury the power to appoint an independent person to review the efficiency, economy and effectiveness with which the FSA has used its resources in discharging some or all of its functions. We are considering value-for-money audits. Under the clause, an audit can be carried out at any time, but the amendment seeks to alter that so that the first audit would take place in 2002, with subsequent further audits at five-year intervals. The Treasury would have the power to require further audits to be undertaken outside that timetable, if that appeared necessary.
The amendment is unnecessary. The purpose of the clause is to allow the Treasury to commission a review when it believes that that would be helpful. That is a matter of judgment and it is impossible to specify the right time in advance, because that may depend mainly on events outside the FSA. Let us suppose, for example, that a crisis suddenly occurred in a sector of the financial services industry and the FSA had to step in and put matters right. In those circumstances, the Treasury might want to ask for a review to see how the FSA's systems stood up to the crisis. The amendment would not prevent that, but we could be in the absurd position of having to begin another review—on the regular timetable—immediately after the first review had concluded and when it was apparent to everybody that there was nothing new to report.
Unlike the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I suggest to the House that my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) were absolutely right. He should have taken much greater note of their remarks because there is a serious issue here of forcing on to people unwanted and unwarranted reviews and procedures that do not merit the costs associated with them. There is no advantage in having fixed periods for external reviews; they should take place when they are needed.
Many people will look at how the legislation works, not least the Treasury Committee. The timing of the value-for-money audits should depend on circumstances—for example, the non-executive directors might draw to our attention in the annual report the FSA's efficient and economic use of resources. Schedule 1 requires that to be included in the FSA's annual report.
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and hope that I have not cut him off at a vital moment, but one of my worries is that the reviews appear to be confined to the
economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Authority has used its resources".
Would that cover circumstances of growing and perhaps widespread concern in the City that the authority was using its powers in an overbearing and tyrannical way?
I suppose that that would depend on the particular circumstances, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention brings us on to the points that were made about amendments Nos. 477 and 478. Let me respond to those.
There is no doubt that the FSA's performance in terms of making policy—the type of area to which he referred—and establishing principles in pursuit of its regulatory objectives should be open to scrutiny, but amendment No. 477 is not the right way to achieve that. The Bill already provides a number of mechanisms that will achieve that outcome, which I think we all seek.
Schedule 1 requires the FSA to report on the extent to which its objectives have been met in its annual reports. Clause 7 requires it to consult with practitioners and consumers, including the statutory practitioner and consumer panels, on
the extent to which its general policies and practices are consistent with its general duties",
which are set by clause 2. The FSA will be under a duty under clauses 8 and 9 to have regard to any representations made to it by the consumer and practitioner panels.
Does the Minister accept that even as authoritative a trade association as the Association of British Insurers still does not feel that the Bill provides for enough scrutiny? With such important trade bodies saying that more needs to be done, our amendments are necessary to satisfy the needs of those with a legitimate interest in the legislation being reviewed properly when it is in force.
There will be ample scrutiny through the mechanisms that I have set out—for example, the work of the Treasury Committee and the role of the Treasury—and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Arrangements will be in place to meet that concern.
Virtually all the points made by Conservative Members have been designed, perfectly properly, to protect the position of people in the trade. My hon. Friend has said that the review clause will take account of the points made by consumer panels. Will he make it clear that the review procedure will be symmetrical in order to protect the interests of consumers as much as those of the trade? The point is that "effectiveness" also covers effectiveness on behalf of consumers.
My hon. Friend's important point provides a helpful corrective to the balance in the debate. He is absolutely right that the position of consumers and the protection of their interests is at the heart of the Bill. That is only right.
Does my hon. Friend also accept that consumers and practitioners alike will be far more reassured by a review that results from a trigger rather than a meaningless regular mechanism?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unnecessary regular reviews, with all the costs that they entail, are not a feature of the system that anybody wants, least of all consumers.
I am concerned that the Minister seemed to agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and appeared to suggest that there is a trade-off between the interests of consumers and of producers. I had hoped that we had moved on and that, somehow or other, Labour—which talks of the third way—had managed to shed such language, but it seems that we are back to where we were and the Minister accepts the trade-off. Will he acknowledge that the interests of consumers and producers are the same with respect to reviews and that a review that makes a producer more efficient will give greater benefit to the consumer?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) would have been comforted if Conservative Members had paid more attention to the interests of consumers. He made a telling point on that subject.
On amendment No. 478, clause 10 provides that any person appointed by the Treasury to carry out a review of the FSA must be independent of the FSA. Subsection (7) defines what that means. The problem with the proposed change is that it is not necessarily self-evident whether a particular person is at any time independent of the FSA. In practice, somebody will need to take a view and, as it is the Treasury's responsibility to appoint any reviewer, it follows that the Treasury should make the judgment. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment and hope that it will be withdrawn.
I shall be brief. I am disturbed that the Minister has not been more forthcoming. He should at least accept an amendment providing for a full-scale review within a reasonable period of the establishment of the structures in the Bill.
These amendments, like the previous group, concern the authority's accountability. I confess that I am becoming significantly alarmed. The Minister was silent on this, but unless the Government recognise that the appeal tribunal structure must be headed by somebody of the permanence and calibre of a High Court judge and that the authority's activities should be regularly and independently reviewed, the checks and balances that we require will not be adequate.
We thought that the Government were a great supporter of reviews, but it appears that they do not support reviews of certain matters. Much as we appreciate the Financial Secretary's courtesy, we feel—I certainly feel—that his response was somewhat weak. His refusal to commit the Government at least to a review of this highly complicated new legislation, bringing in the whole industry and changing the position constitutionally after a sensible period, suggest to us that the Government are not very interested in the review process.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that it was necessary to wait for a Barings or a pension-selling problem to break before conducting a review, but the whole point of a regular review is that it is designed to throw up problems and ensure that they are dealt with. The problems with the regulation of the retail industry date back 10 years. Everyone has known about the—the FSA has admitted that. Had there been a statutory regular review, something might have been done.
Such reviews are an important part of efficiency, good regulation and protecting the consumer, as well as ensuring that regulation has not become excessive in the other direction. The review, as clause 10 provides, would be laid before Parliament. According to our thinking, it would provide a document on which the Select Committee on the Treasury could do a great deal of the homework.
It should be borne in mind that the financial services industry changes at a rapid pace. Let us consider what has happened in the last five years, let alone the last 10. Change is needed to update and adjust as the industry changes, and we feel that a statutory five-year review is appropriate to the needs of the situation. We have not specified the Comptroller and Auditor General as the person who should conduct the review, as particular issues may arise; we have merely specified that it should be someone who is truly independent. I felt that the Financial Secretary's response was rather strange, as we see no real problem in determining who is independent of the Treasury.
The amendment is highly important to the interests of all to whom regulation relates. The machinery that we propose would avoid a number of the problems that have been experienced with regulation since the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force, and we therefore wish to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
|Division No. 57]||[7.23 pm|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Allan, Richard||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Horam, John|
|Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)||Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)|
|Baker, Norman||Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)|
|Baldry, Tony||Hunter, Andrew|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Jack, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bercow, John||Jackson, Robert (Wantage)|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Blunt, Crispin||Keetch, Paul|
|Boswell, Tim||Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)|
|Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia||Key, Robert|
|Brady, Graham||Kirkbride, Miss Julie|
|Brake, Tom||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Brazier, Julian||Laing, Mrs Eleanor|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Lansley, Andrew|
|Burnett, John||Letwin, Oliver|
|Burns, Simon||Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)|
|Burstow, Paul||Lidington, David|
|Butterfill, John||Lilley, Rt Hon Peter|
|Cable, Dr Vincent||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Cash, William||Llwyd, Elfyn|
|Chidgey, David||Loughton, Tim|
|Chope, Christopher||Luff, Peter|
|Clappison, James||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||McIntosh, Miss Anne|
|Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Collins, Tim||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Colvin, Michael||Madel, Sir David|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Cran, James||Maude, Rt Hon Francis|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||May, Mrs Theresa|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)||Moore, Michael|
|Day, Stephen||Moss, Malcolm|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Norman, Archie|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Oaten, Mark|
|Faber, David||O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)|
|Fabricant, Michael||Ottaway, Richard|
|Fallon, Michael||Page, Richard|
|Fearn, Ronnie||Paice, James|
|Flight, Howard||Paterson, Owen|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Pickles, Eric|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Portillo, Rt Hon Michael|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Prior, David|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Randall, John|
|Fraser, Christopher||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||Robathan, Andrew|
|Gibb, Nick||Robertson, Laurence|
|Gill, Christopher||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Gillan, Mrs Cheryl||Ruffley, David|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Green, Damian||St Aubyn, Nick|
|Greenway, John||Sanders, Adrian|
|Grieve, Dominic||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John||Shepherd, Richard|
|Hague, Rt Hon William||Soames, Nicholas|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Hammond, Philip||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Hancock, Mike||Spring, Richard|
|Harris, Dr Evan||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Hawkins, Nick||Steen, Anthony|
|Hayes, John||Streeter, Gary|
|Heald, Oliver||Swayne, Desmond|
|Syms, Robert||Wells, Bowen|
|Tapsell, Sir Peter||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher amp; Walton)||Whittingdale, John|
|Taylor, John M (Solihull)||Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann|
|Taylor, Sir Teddy||Willetts, David|
|Townend, John||Willis, Phil|
|Tredinnick, David||Winterton Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Trend, Michael||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|Tyrie, Andrew||Yeo, Tim|
|Viggers, Peter||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Wardle, Charles||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Waterson, Nigel||Mr. Keith Simpson and|
|Webb, Steve||Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Colman, Tony|
|Ainger, Nick||Connarty, Michael|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Corbett, Robin|
|Alexander, Douglas||Cousins, Jim|
|Allen, Graham||Cox, Tom|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Cranston, Ross|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Crausby, David|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary||Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)|
|Ashton, Joe||Cryer, John (Hornchurch)|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Cummings, John|
|Banks, Tony||Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)|
|Barron, Kevin||Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)|
|Bayley, Hugh||Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire|
|Beard, Nigel||Dalyell, Tam|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Darling, Rt Hon Alistair|
|Bell, Martin (Tatton)||Darvill, Keith|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)|
|Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)||Davidson, Ian|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Benton, Joe||Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)|
|Best, Harold||Dawson, Hilton|
|Betts, Clive||Dean, Mrs Janet|
|Blackman, Liz||Dismore, Andrew|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Dobbin, Jim|
|Blizzard, Bob||Doran, Frank|
|Blunkett, Rt Hon David||Dowd, Jim|
|Borrow, David||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Edwards, Huw|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Efford, Clive|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)||Etherington, Bill|
|Field, Rt Hon Frank|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Fisher, Mark|
|Browne, Desmond||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Burden, Richard||Fitzsimons, Lorna|
|Burgon, Colin||Flint, Caroline|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Flynn, Paul|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Foster, Michael J (Worcester)|
|Cann, Jamie||Foulkes, George|
|Caplin, Ivor||Gapes, Mike|
|Cawsey, Ian||Gardiner, Barry|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||George, Bruce (Walsall S)|
|Chaytor, David||Gerrard, Neil|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Godsiff, Roger|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Goggins, Paul|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Clelland, David||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Clwyd, Ann||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Coaker, Vernon||Grocott, Bruce|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Grogan, John|
|Gunnell, John||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)||Marshall-Andrews, Robert|
|Hall, Patrick (Bedford)||Martlew, Eric|
|Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)||Maxton, John|
|Heal, Mrs Sylvia||Meale, Alan|
|Healey, John||Merron, Gillian|
|Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)||Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)|
|Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)||Miller, Andrew|
|Heppell, John||Mitchell, Austin|
|Hesford, Stephen||Moffatt, Laura|
|Hill, Keith||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Hinchliffe, David||Moran, Ms Margaret|
|Hodge, Ms Margaret||Morley, Elliot|
|Home Robertson, John||Mountford, Kali|
|Hood, Jimmy||Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie|
|Hope, Phil||Mudie, George|
|Hopkins, Kelvin||Mullin, Chris|
|Howells, Dr Kim||Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)|
|Hoyle, Lindsay||Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)|
|Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)||Naysmith, Dr Doug|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Norris, Dan|
|Humble, Mrs Joan||O'Hara, Eddie|
|Hurst, Alan||O'Neill, Martin|
|Hutton, John||Organ, Mrs Diana|
|Iddon, Dr Brian||Palmer, Dr Nick|
|Illsley, Eric||Pearson, Ian|
|Ingram, Rt Hon Adam||Pendry, Tom|
|Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)||Perham, Ms Linda|
|Jenkins, Brian||Pickthall, Colin|
|Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)||Pike, Peter L|
|Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)||Pollard, Kerry|
|Jones, Helen (Warrington N)||Pond, Chris|
|Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)||Pound, Stephen|
|Powell, Sir Raymond|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Prosser, Gwyn|
|Keen, Alan (Feltham amp; Heston)||Purchase, Ken|
|Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)||Quinn, Lawrie|
|Khabra, Piara S||Radice, Rt Hon Giles|
|Kidney, David||Rammell, Bill|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Rapson, Syd|
|King, Andy (Rugby amp; Kenilworth)||Raynsford, Nick|
|King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)||Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)|
|Kumar, Dr Ashok||Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)|
|Laxton, Bob||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Leslie, Christopher||Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff|
|Levitt, Tom||Rooney, Terry|
|Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Roy, Frank|
|Linton, Martin||Ruane, Chris|
|Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)||Ruddock, Joan|
|Lock, David||Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)|
|Love, Andrew||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Salter, Martin|
|McCabe, Steve||Sarwar, Mohammad|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Savidge, Malcolm|
|McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)||Sawford, Phil|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Shaw, Jonathan|
|Macdonald, Calum||Sheerman, Barry|
|McDonnell, John||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|McFall, John||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Short, Rt Hon Clare|
|McIsaac, Shona||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McKenna, Mrs Rosemary||Singh, Marsha|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Skinner, Dennis|
|McNulty, Tony||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|MacShane, Denis||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe amp; Lunesdale)|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)|
|Mallaber, Judy||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Snape, Peter|
|Soley, Clive||Tynan, Bill|
|Southworth, Ms Helen||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Squire, Ms Rachel||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Steinberg, Gerry||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Stewart, David (Inverness E)||Wareing, Robert N|
|Stinchcombe, Paul||Watts, David|
|Stoate, Dr Howard||White, Brian|
|Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin||Whitehead, DrAlan|
|Stringer, Graham||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Sutcliffe, Gerry||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Taylor, David (NW Leics)||Winterton, Ms Rosie (DoncasterC)|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Wise, Audrey|
|Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)||Wood, Mike|
|Timms, Stephen||Woolas, Phil|
|Tipping, Paddy||Worthington, Tony|
|Todd, Mark||Wray, James|
|Touhig, Don||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Trickett, Jon||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Truswell, Paul||Wyatt, Derek|
|Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Turner, Neil (Wigan)||Mr. David Jamieson and|
|Twigg, Derek (Halton)||Mr. Greg Pope.|