Skip to main content

Form Of Ballot Paper

Volume 301: debated on Monday 24 November 1997

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

This is the last chance that the Committee will have to sort out what is on the ballot paper. We have had a debate in which the case has been put that there is an overwhelming view in favour of alternatives being generally available. The Government keep on resisting. They will be in more trouble when the Bill goes to the other place, but we now have a final opportunity to consider the ballot paper.

As colleagues will be aware, we tried the other day to put to the Committee various alternatives. The Minister argued that, as yet, there was no commonly agreed formulation, other than the Government's. That is a bit rich in one respect: no one else agrees with the Government's formulation. Therefore, although civil servants and high-powered draftspeople have pored all over it, basically, the question in the schedule is the same as the proposal in the manifesto:
"Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?"
6.15 pm

The question does indeed have the merit of simplicity: all the issues of London and the future of London are to be determined through one question. The Scots had two questions. They managed perfectly well. They managed to produce a majority for Government policy even on both questions, so the Government cannot complain.

The Government won an overwhelming majority for the question about which there had been much prior agreement; my Scottish colleagues will bear testimony to the fact that the efforts to reach an agreement resulted in so much unanimity. The great benefit—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend—or hon. and learned Friend as he is now—the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—is that, as a result, what was approved will be much more secure.

We are trying to achieve for London a secure form of regional government. We do not want a "here today, gone tomorrow" form of regional government, so we want a question, or set of questions, that commands general agreement. We want to learn from the Scottish experience.

The Welsh experience teaches us that we need such general agreement. In Wales, there was no attempt at an agreement and there were differences of opinion. There was no convention and, as we know, the result was that the proposal—a single question—sneaked through. We could learn some lessons from the fact that, in Scotland, where there were two questions, there was much greater support than in Wales.

In the previous debate, the Minister implied that there could be no agreement between anyone else about what the alternative should be. I have told him that he must not count his chickens. We all started by tabling amendments that we believed were good starting points. Liberal Democrats tabled their amendments, and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who leads for the Conservative party, tabled an amendment that reflected the respectable and reasonable views of the Conservative party about what the way forward should be.

I have said to the Minister—it is not a secret—that Liberal Democrats are entirely willing to seek to reach an agreement about the form of two questions, and I believe that we will do so. If we do and there can be a widely supported pair of questions, the Minister will not be able to argue that that would be a less democratic and less acceptable alternative. That is why we want the schedule to be deleted for now—so that, on Report, we can return to what the questions are. It means that we will finish the Committee today, I hope not too late. We can then go on to Report, at the earliest, on Wednesday.

I remind the Committee that I had to raise a point of order earlier because the Government seemed to think that Report stages had been now done away with in this age of new Labour Governments. The Leader of the House did not provide for one in her statement on Thursday and, had I not raised it, I am not sure—unless some other colleague had raised it—whether there would have been provision for Report on Wednesday. This is a Committee on the Floor of the House, but the principle applies.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was diligent enough—perhaps remembering something at the back of his mind—to leave the Committee during the previous debate to check the figures about democratic mandates and democratic authority.

The Minister was gleeful in his misinterpretation of what I said. In the clause 1 stand part debate, I said that the Government did not have majority support among the British electorate. In fact, they do not have majority support among the London electorate either. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon, South, who went to collect the Library research note detailing the results and analysis of the general election. Page 8 shows the share of the vote cast for major parties by standard region—Conservatives 31.2 per cent; Labour 49.5 per cent. I knew that it was close. I was almost deceived by the Minister's suggestion that it was close on the Government's side of the argument, but it was not.

Of course, the Government get the majority of seats in the House because of our silly electoral system, but they do not have majority support among voters in the country, despite the fact that they think that they have a divine right—well, no, I do not really think that they think that. I was getting carried away with the argument, and I withdraw that remark. However, there is a danger that some people think that the Government have huge public support because of opinion poll ratings. In fact, they had the support of fewer than half the electors who voted throughout Britain and fewer than half the electors who voted in London. It would be even less than that as a percentage of the total electorate, given the number of people who did not vote.

I hope that the Government will, possibly uncharacteristically, be modest about the mandate with which they come to the Committee. I hope that they will accept our argument that we could do better in relation to the referendum and better than the question on the ballot paper.

I read out—I could see that it was to the delight of Labour Members—the submissions from Labour party members, branches, constituencies, regions and Members of the European Parliament, whose overwhelming view was not contradicted. I did not hear the Labour party rebutting that and saying what a wonderful set of proposals these were.

While we were voting, I chatted to my assistants, who were diligent workers in Marsham street library on Friday afternoon. I asked them whether what the Minister had said about the overwhelming response being supportive of the Government's proposals was right. I concede that I have not looked at the responses, but three people went on my behalf to do so on Friday afternoon. They were keen to be there first when that library door was opened. In fact, they were the only people there and had the place to themselves. They told me that those submissions did not reveal overwhelming support for the Government's proposals; they revealed a number of different views, as I would have expected. This is the first proposal; it is the consultation.

By Wednesday, when we come to Report, we may get further revelations about what is in the box now that we have found the key and been able to open it. All that I know is that I could—but I am considerate by nature—delight the House by regaling the Minister and his colleagues with the views of Labour party members not only on whether there should be a directly elected mayor, but on what the ballot paper should say. Almost without exception, all the Labour party submissions from which I quoted in my speech on clause 1 stand part—I have them all with me—argue for more than one question. They argue that because they believe that the electors should decide.

I pay tribute to members of the Labour party, the Conservative party and my party for saying, "Look, we will have a different party position on this and come to different views after our party deliberations, but there is a variety of views in London."

I ask hon. Members to give us an opportunity to look again at the wording on the ballot paper; to look, above all, at the proposal that there should be only one question; and to look at what hon. Members from both sides, including the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), believe is the key question— whether to go for the constitutional innovation of a directly elected mayor. I am not saying that it should not happen; I am not saying that it is nonsense, but it is a constitutional innovation. For heavens sake, let Londoners vote on whether they want it, and the only way to do that is to allow more than one question.

I hope that we shall vote to remove the question currently proposed, to delete the schedule and to allow us to reach agreement on two questions that will enable Londoners— not this place, certainly not the Government—to decide.

I shall be brief. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the schedule is unsatisfactory. We have debated the general point, but received only unsatisfactory replies. There are two separate questions on two issues. The proposed question rolls those two issues into one. It asks the public whether they are in favour of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. That cannot be satisfactory and no one other than Ministers thinks that it is. Nothing could be easier than to divide the question into two to cover an elected mayor and an elected assembly.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey slightly misjudges the Government's position. The Government will not agree to any amendment that is tabled. Whether we can or cannot agree on an amendment is not what the Government are about—they intend to stick absolutely to the formula in the Bill. It would be better if the Minister were entirely frank about that and did not try to base his defence on some technical argument that it is not good in this or that respect. We all know, and he knows above all, that there is no amendment that he, with Labour's majority, will accept.

I raised this point during Second Reading and everything that I have heard in Committee so far has not answered it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question, as posed in the schedule, is ambiguous? The way that it is written is that if there is a yes vote, there will be a separately elected assembly and an elected mayor. There is nothing to stop the assembly voting for the mayor, which is what I understand the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wants, but we do not want. If the Government are to be unambiguous beyond doubt, they must change the form of the question on the ballot paper by inserting, "a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly."

As I said on Second Reading, my hon. Friend makes a strong point. If it is to be one question and if it is to be utterly and absolutely clear, it must say, "a directly elected mayor and a directly elected assembly." There is no doubt about that.

The Minister will deceive the House if he suggests that there is some form of words that can be invented, agreed and proposed that will satisfy him. He knows as well as I do that he just wants one question. That is why it has been devised and why this schedule is so deeply unsatisfactory. We will vote against it.

We are again debating the single question. During the last Parliament, I participated in many debates with the two Ministers on the Treasury Bench. They have heard me say a lot of things and, I hasten to say, I have heard them say a lot of things. In consequence, I cannot remember whether they have heard me tell the story of another single question, when Professor Joad, as he then was not, sat the scholarship at Oxford and was asked to write for three hours on the question, "Can a good man be happy on the rack?", to which Professor Joad, as he then was not, wrote for a minute and a half the single sentence, "If he were a very good man and it were a very bad rack, yes; if not, no." The referendum question—when we come to the referendum, next May, as it is most likely we shall—is more readily answerable in a minute and a half.

In the debate on clause 1 stand part, I asked the Minister another single question why he was so confident that the Government were right in their single formulation? Although I acknowledge that he may be a very good man, that also remains a very good rack. And answer came there none on that occasion. The debate on the schedule affords him a chance to redeem his earlier silence—now that he has had the opportunity to think about it—and he will still be within Joad's three hours. If the answer is too difficult or will take him more than three hours to answer, I shall ask him a simpler question why is it that—as I mentioned in the debate on Second Reading—clause 1 mentions
"a Greater London Authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor"
whereas, curiously, the schedule asks
"Are you in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Assembly, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?"?
There must be some reason why that curious rearrangement has occurred. I, personally, should be happy to hear it.

6.30 pm

We are debating the single schedule to the Bill, which proposes the form of the question to be voted on in the referendum. It asks Londoners whether they are

"in favour of the government's proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly"—
yes or no?

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) questioned why the Government did not include the phrase "a directly elected mayor". As I said, at least six weeks before the date of the referendum we will publish a White Paper spelling out in detail the electoral arrangements. All Londoners will have an opportunity to study the White Paper, which we will ensure is made available widely.

We will ensure also that summary copies are distributed to every London household, so that Londoners have the information on which they can form a judgment. They will be able to consider the proposed electoral arrangements and reach their view on whether to vote in favour of them.

The Minister has answered a question, but not the question asked by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). Simply put, what is the objection to adding—if not in our Committee, in a Committee in the other place—the two words "directly elected"? What is the draftsman's objection to adding those two words?

The objection is that they are unnecessary. The electoral system will be clearly explained in the White Paper. The question refers to "an elected mayor" and "a separately elected assembly" to make it quite clear that there will be separate elections for the mayor and the assembly.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) raised the interesting image of a good man on the rack. He will recall that Conservative Members recently elected a leader—although I will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to judge whether he is a good man or whether he is on the rack—but that, subsequently, the Conservative party felt that the wider endorsement of the party membership was required. As I recall it, the mechanism that was proposed was a dual question, merged into one "Are you in favour of the new Leader of the Opposition, and are you in favour of all that he is doing?"

I am sure that Conservative Members, having experienced that single question, will now tell the House that such questions are wrong, and that there should have been two separate questions so mat Conservative party members could have voted separately on the separate propositions. Their case against a single question is pretty unconvincing, because their own practice does not support the case that they have been arguing.

The Government believe that more than one question is not appropriate, and that one question is right. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster rightly asked me to give reasons for our belief, and I propose to do so.

Fundamentally, there are four reasons. The first is that we spelled out our proposals in the Green Paper, and we invited comments on 61 separate questions. Despite the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—I urge his researchers to do a little more thorough digging—the responses to those questions show strong support for the proposal for a separately elected mayor and assembly. It is quite clear that there is such support, and we believe that we are working with the grain of public opinion, as demonstrated by opinion polls.

The second point is that—as I have said repeatedly, including in the debate on clause 1 stand part—there is no simple second question. There are five possible permutations on the question whether to have a mayor and an assembly first, to have a mayor and an assembly, each separately elected; secondly, to have a mayor alone, with no assembly; thirdly, to have an assembly alone, with no mayor; fourthly, to have a mayor with an assembly comprised of borough leaders—which is the Opposition's preferred formulation; and fifthly, to have a mayor elected out of an assembly. The permutations raise five separate issues, and no single formulation has yet been produced to satisfy all of them.

I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the interesting progress of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on the issue over the course of this Committee stage. He started by making his own proposal on a two-question referendum—which, as was demonstrated in last Wednesday's debate, has serious flaws. His proposal simply reflected the Liberal Democrats' view that the mayor should be elected from within the assembly—which was totally unacceptable to the Conservative party.

Recognising Conservative Members' opposition and attempting to gain their support for his proposition, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey expressed sympathy for the Conservatives' formulation of two questions, despite the fact that the Conservative party's proposals would open the door to an outcome—a mayor without an assembly—that the Liberal Democrats totally oppose and which virtually everyone who has examined the issue realises is completely unrealistic.

Subsequently, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made what he called a "blind offer" to support whichever two options arose as favourites in the consultation, without even knowing what those options might be. His researchers have been diligently looking through the consultation responses, so perhaps we will soon hear what those options are, although we have not heard them yet.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey finally offered to go and think about another possible question and agree the wording with the official Opposition. Significantly, no agreed wording has yet appeared, although it may. After all this time and consideration, however, Opposition Members' inability to come up with one simple alternative second question speaks volumes for the practicalities involved.

Will the Minister confirm that, whichever two questions might be proposed, the Government would oppose them and insist on one question?

No, I will not. I have made it quite clear that we are proceeding in an appropriate and considered manner, examining the options in the light of our manifesto, of responses to the consultation and of the enormous practical difficulties that those who argue for second questions are having in devising an agreed formula. As I said, there is no agreed simple second question. If the right hon. Gentleman can propose such a question, I shall happily give way to him so that he can tell us what it is.

Willingly or not, the hon. Gentleman is making an important statement. He is saying that, in principle, he is prepared to accept two questions. That is my understanding of what he has just said.

I noted that the right hon. Gentleman declined entirely to offer an alternative second question, thus proving my point. The Government are pragmatic and not dogmatic about the matter. We said that we believe that a single question is correct and proper, but we consulted and listened to people's views. We have received 1,200 responses to our consultation, some of which have dealt with the issues, although others have not. We have also talked at endless meetings. I have spoken to very large numbers of people, and I have been entirely unconvinced of the merits of a second question. That is the position.

The Minister made a very clear statement, for which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and I am grateful. We will go away, do our bit and be constructive about it. I give the Minister an undertaking that, with the support of Labour Members if possible, we will devise a two-question option that will be ready in time for deliberations in the other place, if not in time for the Report stage—which we may not have, for reasons that the Minister knows as well as I do.

The hon. Gentleman made the same proposal last week, but, in the five days since then, nothing has been forthcoming. I do not blame him for that—he probably has other things to do—but if the matter was such an overriding priority, I do not doubt that a form of words that satisfied the hon. Gentleman could have been included in an amendment. So far, the evidence is that no formulation has been devised that encapsulates the varied concerns of the people who believe that there might be a second question.

My third point—this is in response to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—is that some of the permutations would be unworkable. In my view, it would be improper for a Government to put forward a proposition that they believed to be unworkable—that would be constitutional nonsense.

Fourthly, we are trying to present to the people of London, in line with our manifesto commitment, a clear proposition on which they can make a considered judgment. It is our considered view that the question as spelled out in the schedule does that. I warmly commend the schedule.

Question put, That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 297, Noes 157.

Division No. 94]

[6.40 pm


Abbott, Ms DianeBarron, Kevin
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)Bayley, Hugh
Ainger, NickBeard, Nigel
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Alexander, DouglasBegg, Miss Anne
Allen, GrahamBell, Martin (Tatton)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)Bennett, Andrew F
Armstrong, Ms HilaryBenton, Joe
Ashton, JoeBermingham, Gerald
Atkins, CharlotteBest, Harold
Austin, JohnBoateng, Paul
Banks, TonyBradley, Keith (Withington)
Barnes, HarryBradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Brinton, Mrs HelenGordon, Mrs Eileen
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Buck, Ms KarenGriffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Burden, RichardGrocott, Bruce
Burgon, ColinHall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Butler, Mrs ChristineHamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Byers, StephenHanson, David
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)Healey, John
Campbell-Savours, DaleHenderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Cann, JamieHepburn, Stephen
Caplin, IvorHeppell, John
Casale, RogerHesford, Stephen
Cawsey, IanHewitt, Ms Patricia
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)Hill, Keith
Chaytor, DavidHinchliffe, David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)Hodge, Ms Margaret
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)Hoey, Kate
Home Robertson, John
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)Hoon, Geoffrey
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)Hope, Phil
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)Hopkins, Kelvin
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Clelland, DavidHowarth, George (Knowsley N)
Clwyd, AnnHoyle, Lindsay
Coaker, VernonHughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Coffey, Ms AnnHughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Coleman, IainHumble, Mrs Joan
Colman, TonyHurst, Alan
Connarty, MichaelHutton, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)Illsley, Eric
Cooper, YvetteIngram, Adam
Cousins, JimJackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Cox, TomJackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Crausby, DavidJamieson, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)Jenkins, Brian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)Johnson, Alan (Hull W amp; Hessle)
Cunliffe, LawrenceJohnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Dalyell, TamJones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)
Darling, Rt Hon AlistairJones, Helen (Warrington N)
Darvill, KeithJones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Davidson, IanJones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)Keeble, Ms Sally
Dawson, HiltonKeen, Alan (Feltham amp; Heston)
Dean, Mrs JanetKeen, Ann (Brentford amp; lsleworth)
Denham, JohnKelly, Ms Ruth
Dismore, AndrewKemp, Fraser
Dobbin, JimKennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Donohoe, Brian HKidney, David
Doran, FrankKilfoyle, Peter
Dowd, JimKing, Andy (Rugby amp; Kenilworth)
Drew, DavidLadyman, Dr Stephen
Drown, Ms JuliaLaxton, Bob
Dunwoody, Mrs GwynethLepper, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)Leslie, Christopher
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)Levitt, Tom
Edwards, HuwLewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Efford, CliveLiddell, Mrs Helen
Ellman, Mrs LouiseLinton, Martin
Ennis, JeffLivingstone, Ken
Fatchett, DerekLock, David
Fitzsimons, LornaMcAllion, John
Flint, CarolineMcAvoy, Thomas
Foster, Rt Hon DerekMcCabe, Steve
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)McCafferty, Ms Chris
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Galloway, GeorgeMcDonagh, Siobhain
Gardiner, BarryMacdonald, Calum
Gerrard, NeilMcFall, John
Gibson, Dr IanMclsaac, Shona
Godsiff, RogerMcKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Golding, Mrs LlinMackinlay, Andrew

McNulty, TonySawford, Phil
MacShane, DenisSedgemore, Brian
Mactaggart, FionaShaw, Jonathan
McWalter, TonySheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mahon, Mrs AliceShort, Rt Hon Clare
Mandelson, PeterSingh, Marsha
Marek, Dr JohnSkinner, Dennis
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Marshall-Andrews, RobertSmith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe amp; Lunesdale)
Martlew, Eric
Maxton, JohnSmith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Meale, AlanSmith, John (Glamorgan)
Merron, GillianSmith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Michael, AlunSoley, Clive
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)Southworth, Ms Helen
Milbum, AlanSquire, Ms Rachel
Miller, AndrewStarkey, Dr Phyllis
Moonie, Dr LewisSteinberg, Gerry
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)Stevenson, George
Morley, ElliotStewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mountford, KaliStinchcombe, Paul
Mudie, GeorgeStoate, Dr Howard
Mullin, ChrisStraw, Rt Hon Jack
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)Stringer, Graham
Naysmith, Dr DougStuart, Ms Gisela
Norris, DanSutcliffe, Gerry
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Olner, BillTaylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Osborne, Ms SandraTaylor, David (NW Leics)
Palmer, Dr NickTaylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Pearson, IanThomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pendry, TomTimms, Stephen
Perham, Ms LindaTipping, Paddy
Pickthall, ColinTodd, Mark
Pike, Peter LTouhig, Don
Plaskitt, JamesTrickett, Jon
Pollard, KerryTruswell, Paul
Pond, ChrisTurner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Pound, StephenTurner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Powell, Sir RaymondTwigg, Derek (Halton)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)Walley, Ms Joan
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)Ward, Ms Claire
Primarolo, DawnWareing, Robert N
Prosser, GwynWatts, David
Purchase, KenWhite, Brian
Quin, Ms JoyceWhitehead, Dr Alan
Quinn, LawrieWilliams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Rapson, Syd
Raynsford, NickWilliams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)Wills, Michael
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)Winnick, David
Rogers, AllanWise, Audrey
Rooker, JeffWood, Mike
Rooney, TerryWray, James
Rowlands, TedWright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Roy, FrankWright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Ruddock, Ms JoanWyatt, Derek
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ryan, Ms Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Salter, Martin

Mr. Greg Pope and

Savidge, Malcolm

Mr. Clive Betts.


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Arbuthnot, JamesBrady, Graham
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)Brazier, Julian
Baldry, TonyBrooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ballard, Mrs JackieBrowning, Mrs Angela
Beith, Rt Hon A JBruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Beresford, Sir PaulBruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Blunt, CrispinBurnett, John
Body, Sir RichardBurns, Simon
Boswell, TimBurstow, Paul

Butterfill, JohnLyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Cable, Dr VincentMacGregor, Rt Hon John
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)MacKay, Andrew
Cash, WilliamMaclean, Rt Hon David
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)McLoughlin, Patrick
Madel, Sir David
Chidgey, DavidMalins, Humfrey
Clappison, JamesMaples, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Clifton-Brown, GeoffreyMay, Mrs Theresa
Cormack, Sir PatrickMichie, Mrs Ray (Argyll amp; Bute)
Cotter, BrianMoore, Michael
Cran, JamesMoss, Malcolm
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)Nicholls, Patrick
Day, StephenÖpik, Lembit
Duncan, AlanOttaway, Richard
Duncan Smith, IainPage, Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir PeterPaice, James
Evans, NigelPaterson, Owen
Faber, DavidPickles, Eric
Fabricant, MichaelPrior, David
Fallon, MichaelRandall, John
Flight, HowardRedwood, Rt Hon John
Forth, Rt Hon EricRendel, David
Foster, Don (Bath)Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir NormanRoe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Fraser, ChristopherRuffley, David
Gale, RogerRussell, Bob (Colchester)
Garnier, EdwardSt Aubyn, Nick
Gibb, NickSayeed, Jonathan
Gill, ChristopherShephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gillan, Mrs CherylShepherd, Richard
Gray, JamesSimpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Green, DamianSoames, Nicholas
Greenway, JohnSpelman, Mrs Caroline
Grieve, DominicSpicer, Sir Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon JohnSteen, Anthony
Hague, Rt Hon WilliamStreeter, Gary
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir ArchieStunell, Andrew
Hammond, PhilipSwayne, Desmond
Harris, Dr EvanSyms, Robert
Hawkins, NickTapsell, Sir Peter
Hayes, JohnTaylor, Ian (Esher amp; Walton)
Heald, OliverTaylor, John M (Solihull)
Heath, David (Somerton amp; Frome)Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tavler Sir Teddy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon DavidThompson, William
Hogg, Rt Hon DouglasTownend, John
Horam, JohnTredinnick David
Howard, Rt Hon MichaelTrend, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)Tyler, Paul
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tyrie, Andrew
Hunter, AndrewViggers, Peter
Jack, Rt Hon MichaelWallace, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)Walter, Robert
Jenkin, BernardWaterson, Nigel
Johnson Smith,Webb, Steve
Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyWhitney, Sir Raymond
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)Whittingdale, John
Key, RobertWiddecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)Wilkinson, John
Kirkbride, Miss JulieWilletts, David
Kirkwood, ArchyWillis, Phil
Laing, Mrs EleanorWilshire, David
Lansley, AndrewWinterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Leigh, EdwardWinterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Letwin, OliverYeo, Tim
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Lidington, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Mr. Adrian Sanders and

Loughton, Tim

Mr. Donald Gorrie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule agreed to