Previous Section Index Home Page

17 Oct 2006 : Column 787

For a sole trader, it is hardly likely to come to that. Many of those duties are already observed by good companies, but the argument about the level playing field is important because we must move forward.

Today, we have learned in a report that we must cut our emissions by 90 per cent. if we are to stop climate change and have a planet on which to live. We cannot do that as individuals, no matter how many low-voltage light-bulbs we use, and no matter whether we have windmills on our roofs. That will not bring about changes in emissions. Companies must be part of the process, and to ensure that that is the case, we must change the culture of companies. Neither clause 173 nor new clause 4 goes far enough, but they are a step in the right direction. I must tell the Minister that although the provisions do not go far enough, they are an improvement. They will make companies start to think about what they have to do. I prefer new clause 4 because it goes slightly further, but there is more to do, and companies should take that on board.

Margaret Hodge: This has been an extremely good debate. I thank Labour Members, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Patrick Hall), for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins), for their generous welcome of the provision, and I note their wish that it went a little further. I also appreciate the welcome that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) gave the measures. It is a shame that I must once again draw the House’s attention to the fact that, although Opposition Members said that they wished to debate the issues in detail, for most of the debate the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—I welcome his contribution—has been the only Opposition Member present in the Chamber. There have been more Members from the minority parties than from the Conservative party, even though it was Conservative Members who resisted the programme motion so vigorously.

Clause 173 heralds and articulates a radical, historic and vital cultural change in the way in which companies conduct their business—a change that the Government enthusiastically promote in the Bill. In the past, business success in the interests of shareholders has been thought to be in conflict with society’s aspirations for people who work in the company or in supply chain companies, the long-term well-being of the community and the protection of the environment. The Government challenge that view. We think that the two purposes are complementary, not contradictory.

6.45 pm

We believe that businesses perform better, and are more sustainable in the long term, when they have regard to a wider group of issues in pursuing success. That was the premise behind the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North. We are not alone in holding that view: a number of Members have said that the best British companies conduct their business responsibly because, having exercised reasonable care and skill, they judge in good faith that that is the best way to promote business success.

17 Oct 2006 : Column 788

We are backing Britain’s businesses, which regard the Bill as the future. Good businesses understand the purpose of good law—and the Bill is good law. We are setting out in legislation a director’s duty to her or his company. We are laying out the issues that we expect quoted companies to cover in their business review, and we are ensuring that quoted companies will be held to better account by their shareholders—particularly indirect shareholders, such as those of us who have investments in pension funds or personal equity plans. We are making information more readily available, we are making it easier for indirect shareholders to exercise a vote, and we are ensuring that directors can be held to account for their actions. In doing all those things, we are setting in place a framework—not rigid prescriptive action—that will support companies and enable them to be both successful in business and responsible to their communities and work force. Our new framework is not burdensome, as Opposition Members have suggested, nor is it destructive. It will help to stimulate changes in market behaviour.

Clause 173 sets out the first part of the framework, codifying in law a director’s duties to his or her company. That is simply a common-sense approach that reflects a modern view of the way in which businesses operate in the real world: they interact with customers and suppliers; they make sure that employees are motivated and properly rewarded; and they think about their impact on communities and the environment. They do so at least partly because it makes good business sense.

Directors’ duties evolve as times change and as societal norms are transformed. When I first became involved with concepts of corporate social responsibility some 25 years ago, our main concern was to encourage companies to employ people who suffered discrimination in the labour market on the grounds of their race, gender or sexuality. Today, it is customers who increasingly care about whether employees have been mistreated or whether the environment has been damaged. That is why the sale of Fairtrade and organic products has increased so sharply in recent years.

I entirely understand and appreciate that some Members want us to go further, but I encourage them to be patient. We have all seen corporate social responsibility develop and evolve over time. Many practices that are initially controversial quickly become common and then widespread. The relationship between business interests and the wider world is changing all the time—I believe for the better. The best way of achieving lasting cultural change is to go with the tide and the broad consensus of opinion.

New clause 4 would amend the subsection by inserting “endeavour to” in place of “have regard to” and, I am afraid, it would paint the list of factors in more pluralist colours. One of our key aims in the clause is to make the law clearer and more accessible. Directors must be clear about their objective, but the wording of the new clause would point directors towards two different goals. Directors are still required to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, but the new clause would require them to endeavour to promote the interests of the company’s employees, too, and to minimise any adverse impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment.

17 Oct 2006 : Column 789

The Government believe that our enlightened shareholder value approach will be mutually beneficial to business and society. We do not, however, claim that the interests of the company and of its employees will always be identical; regrettably, it will sometimes be necessary, for example, to lay off staff. The drafting of the clause must therefore clearly point directors towards their overarching objective. We have made it clear that clause 173 will make a difference, and a very important difference.

To help my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) I must explain that the words “have regard to”—mean “think about”; they are absolutely not about just ticking boxes. If “thinking about” leads to the conclusion, as we believe it will in many cases, that the proper course is to act positively to achieve the objectives in the clause, that will be what the director’s duty is. In other words “have regard to” means “give proper consideration to”. I hope that comforts my hon. Friend.

Consideration of the factors will be an integral part of the duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. The clause makes it clear that a director is to have regard to the factors in fulfilling that duty. The decisions taken by a director and the weight given to the factors will continue to be a matter for his good faith judgment. I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw his new clause.

Many of the Opposition’s amendments were discussed in Committee. In my view, I am afraid that they row back from the good progress that we have made in marrying success for enterprise and business with sustainability and social justice. A lot of people have said, “Stop talking, start acting.” The time has come for the Opposition to say whether they mean what they say and to show that in their votes. They do not dare, quite, to oppose us lock, stock and barrel—we will see what happens tonight—because that would unmask their continuing true hostility to the socially and environmentally responsible agenda that we are laying out and that most people in Britain today want. But they are trying in their amendments, which were discussed in Committee, to weaken and neutralise the impact of our proposals on the way in which businesses conduct their activities. I would have greater respect for the Opposition if they were honest about their principles. Do they want untrammelled, short-term, laissez-faire business behaviour that damages society or not? If not, they should vote with us.

I know that hon. Members wish to talk about other issues tonight, so I will not deal with all the Opposition amendments in detail. Those hon. Members who are interested in the amendments can look at the record of our Committee proceedings, because most of the issues were dealt with then. I will just say that I do not believe from tonight’s debate that Opposition Front Benchers believe in enlightened shareholder value, whereas we do. Everything that they have said continues to suggest that they see business prosperity, caring for the environment and looking after employees as pointing in different directions. We emphatically do not see it that way. Successful businesses do not see it that way. Successful businesses know that the world has changed and that they need to change with it. They know that
17 Oct 2006 : Column 790
the world will change further—and so will they. I hope that, on that basis, the House will agree that clause 173 as it stands is right and should be supported without any of the amendments that we have discussed this afternoon.

Patrick Hall: We have had an instructive debate on some important matters, and I am pleased that some finely balanced judgments have been placed on record. I listened carefully to the carefully chosen words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions. All that I want to see is that the secondary duties in clause 173 are taken seriously and cannot lightly be dismissed. I think that she has gone as far as she reasonably can today. Progress is being made, in my judgment, and I do not wish, by calling a vote on these matters now, to risk provoking the Conservatives in another place into reintroducing the damaging position that they took last May. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 171

Scope and nature of general duties

Mr. Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 389, in page 78, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 390, in page 78, line 24, leave out from ‘directors’ to end of line 25.

No. 391, line 26, leave out subsection (4).

No. 399, in page 79, line 36, clause 176, after ‘must’, insert ‘take all reasonable steps to’.

No. 400, line 37, leave out ‘, or possibly may conflict,’.

No. 401, line 38, at end insert

‘at the time when he seeks authorisation pursuant to subsection (5) below.’.

No. 402, in page 80, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

‘(a) if the director reasonably and in good faith believes the situation is not likely to give rise to a conflict of interest; or’.

No. 403, line 14, at end insert—

‘(5A) The authorisation may, in either case, be given by them (unconditionally, or subject to such conditions or limitations as they may specify), either in relation to a particular matter or generally, following receipt by them of a general notice in accordance with section 183.’.

No. 404, line 22, at end insert—

‘(8) Where a conflict or potential conflict arises because of multiple directorships, the duty is not infringed if the director ensures there is no disadvantage to the interests of the company.’.

Mr. Djanogly: Given the lack of time, due not least to the way in which today has been arranged, I will
17 Oct 2006 : Column 791
simply say that we will seek to press amendment No. 402 to a Division and move directly to speak to it.

The amendment allows directors to exercise their subjective judgment about whether a situation is likely to give rise to a conflict. We should be showing UK company directors that we have faith in their judgment—a course that the Government do not seem keen to follow in this instance. The Government said in Committee that the amendment watered down the obligations on directors and endangered members, but it should be seen as a flexible, forward-looking approach that benefits companies.

David Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the advantages of amendment No. 402, and one of the reasons why I support it, is that it reintroduces into the law the concept of good faith and honesty, which is surprisingly missing from the Government’s present draft?

Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I accept. The Law Society, among others, has pointed out that there is a significant difference between the common-law rule on conflicts of interest and the wording of the clause. Notably, the common- law rule maintains a negative position, whereas the clause imposes a positive duty. While the Government deny that that is so, it seems to be a widely held belief among stakeholders. The fact that the clause now gives rise to a positive duty is a key concern that many stakeholders have raised. The fear is that that positive duty might impact on a director’s ability to assume multiple directorships, which are a feature of the UK company system and provide a number of benefits to companies of all sizes.

We believe that it will be more difficult for directors to hold multiple directorships, which could affect the pool of non-executive directors. That is of particular concern to the private equity and venture capital industries.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The amendment does deal with directors’ conflicts of interest. Our aim is that directors should seek to avoid conflicts of interest, which do arise and need to be dealt with in a reasonable and balanced way. If they arise, the interests of the company must come first. The current law is strict. We want to put in place a statutory structure that enables the interests of the company to be closely balanced with those of the director so that people may have, in particular circumstances, multiple directorships. But it has to be clear that the interests of the various companies of which they are directors are taken into account.

Through the amendments—particularly amendment No. 402—the Conservatives are starting to water down the balanced safeguards that we have provided for shareholders.

David Howarth: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

The Solicitor-General: I regret that I cannot give way because of the time. I apologise.

17 Oct 2006 : Column 792

We have provided for shareholders and companies to be able to look after their interests. If directors have created a conflict—in some cases they will not be aware that the conflict is about to arise, but in the case of multiple directorships it is possible that they will be aware—they must resolve that conflict and the company’s interests must come first. It is important that, in order to give greater protection and to safeguard the interests of shareholders, investors and the companies themselves, we do not give discretion to directors to the extent that the Conservatives propose. We have to constrain it; we have to ensure a balance. We believe that we have got that balance right; we believe that we should stick to it.

David Howarth: The point that I wanted to make was that amendment No. 402 tightens the law by adding the requirement of honesty. That is what is missing from the present draft. However, if the Conservatives were to press their amendment on multiple directorships, I would vote with the Government and oppose it.

Amendment negatived.

It being Seven o’clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clause 176

Duty to avoid conflicts of interest

Amendment proposed: No. 402, in page 80, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 305.
Division No. 309]
[7 pm


Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Alexander, Danny
Amess, Mr. David
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr. John
Barrett, John
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Binley, Mr. Brian
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brake, Tom
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr. Jeremy
Browning, Angela
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Butterfill, Sir John
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Campbell, Mr. Gregory
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Clark, Greg
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Curry, rh Mr. David
Davey, Mr. Edward
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Duddridge, James
Duncan, Mr. Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evans, Mr. Nigel
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Mr. Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne

Field, Mr. Mark
Foster, Mr. Don
Francois, Mr. Mark
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gidley, Sandra
Goldsworthy, Julia
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Greenway, Mr. John
Gummer, rh Mr. John
Hague, rh Mr. William
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harvey, Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Holmes, Paul
Horam, Mr. John
Howarth, David
Huhne, Chris
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Jones, Mr. David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keetch, Mr. Paul
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mr. Mark
Lansley, Mr. Andrew
Laws, Mr. David
Leech, Mr. John
Letwin, rh Mr. Oliver
Lidington, Mr. David
Loughton, Tim
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Maclean, rh David
Main, Anne
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Maples, Mr. John
Mates, rh Mr. Michael
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McCrea, Dr. William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mercer, Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, David
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Oaten, Mr. Mark
Öpik, Lembit
Osborne, Mr. George
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, Mr. James
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penrose, John
Pickles, Mr. Eric
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Reid, Mr. Alan
Rennie, Willie
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Rogerson, Mr. Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rowen, Paul
Ruffley, Mr. David
Russell, Bob
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, Mr. Nicholas
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spicer, Sir Michael
Spink, Bob
Spring, Mr. Richard
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Swinson, Jo
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Matthew
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Viggers, Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Walter, Mr. Robert
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Webb, Steve
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Mark

Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Yeo, Mr. Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. David Evennett and
Angela Watkinson

Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Janet
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Balls, Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, Andy
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Chapman, Ben
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clelland, Mr. David
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Darling, rh Mr. Alistair
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Eagle, Angela
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Gilroy, Linda
Godsiff, Mr. Roger
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr. Tom
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon

Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr. Jimmy
Hope, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hughes, rh Beverley
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Ingram, rh Mr. Adam
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kelly, rh Ruth
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Kennedy, rh Jane
Khabra, Mr. Piara S.
Khan, Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Knight, Jim
Lammy, Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Malik, Mr. Shahid
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Marshall, Mr. David
Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McCartney, rh Mr. Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, Dr. Alasdair
McDonnell, John
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Meacher, rh Mr. Michael
Meale, Mr. Alan
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan
Miliband, Edward
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Mountford, Kali
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Price, Adam
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, rh John
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Martin
Seabeck, Alison
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Simpson, Alan
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
Smith, John
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Stewart, Ian
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Stringer, Graham
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, rh Keith
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watson, Mr. Tom
Watts, Mr. Dave
Weir, Mr. Mike
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Williams, Hywel
Wills, Mr. Michael
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:

Liz Blackman and
Huw Irranca-Davies
Question accordingly negatived.
Next Section Index Home Page