§ Amendment made: No. 114, in page 152, line 8, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Act of 1980'.—[Mr. Redwood]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]
9.23 pm§ Mr. Alex CarlileThe process leading to Third Reading began a long time ago, before the beginning of this parliamentary Session. Indeed, it was as long ago as 1992 that we heard from the then Secretary of State that local government in Wales was to be reformed. At that time, all parties shared a common purpose, which was to bring unitary local government to Wales. The then 843 Secretary of State made a declaration which, if not full of eastern promise, was certainly full of western promise. The declaration promised the people of Wales unitary local government based on natural communities. In the event, some natural communities, such as Merthyr Tydfil, Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire, are to have unitary local government, but others are not.
The history of the Bill will be viewed with interest by Welsh political historians. There are not many serious broken promises in Welsh political history which one can nail and which leave one bemused when one analyses why they were broken. One of the most significant promises that has been broken in Welsh political history is what will be known as the Llanfechain promise: the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), promised without equivocation or ambiguity that there would be a unitary Montgomeryshire. We have never had an explanation as to why that promise was broken. We have never been told the history of how the change of mind came about. We have never been given a proper insight into the thought processes of the Welsh Office and its Ministers.
At the last gasp, the Local Government Commission for England—the Government appear to accept this—proposed that Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and six other authorities smaller than Montgomeryshire in population should have unitary authority status. That decision is entirely consistent with the Secretary of State's views as declared in a Conservative party conference speech, of which he reminded us yesterday.
Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State was asked why what is good enough for Rutlandshire, Clackmannanshire and Huntingdonshire was not good enough for traditional communities in Wales. He did not give us an answer. I hope that in the last breath of the Bill in this House we shall be given a ministerial answer to that question.
In 1992, I thought that we would see an improvement in local government in Wales based on consensus. I am grateful for the support that Montgomeryshire has received from right hon. and hon. Members in all parties: the two Tory rebels in Committee, the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley); the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has equal cause for complaint with myself; and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who from an early stage made it clear that the Labour party would support unitary status for Montgomeryshire. Despite what was said earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Caerphilly has been entirely consistent in what he has said and done, and he deserves praise for that.
Unfortunately, those of us from Montgomeryshire, including the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Brecon and Radnor, will leave the Bill with a deep sense of disappointment. There was a great opportunity to do what was originally promised, but that promise has been broken, leaving us with a sense of deep frustration. I can only express the fervent hope and expectation that one day in the not too distant future we shall return to this issue and I shall be here to see Montgomeryshire restored as a council.
§ Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd, South-West)Sadly—or perhaps happily, in view of the late hour tonight—I was unable to be a member of the Committee. I had hoped that the Government would listen to all the members of the Committee representing Welsh seats on at least two major issues, the first being of importance to the whole of Wales and the second of great importance to the people of an area in my constituency, Llangollen.
The first issue is the lack of any provision for an all-Wales elected tier of government. The creation of unitary authorities makes almost no sense without a regional tier of government. Only a panoply of quangos of one sort or another can provide the services that need to be provided on a strategic basis. It is hardly surprising that the Government should set their face against any increase in democracy, however, as it is far easier to place stooges on quangos than to win elections in Wales, at any rate for their party.
The other issue that has not been dealt with is the placing of Llangollen in the new Denbighshire authority, against the wishes of its people as expressed in the referendum organised by Glyndwr council, of which Llangollen is a part. To set the record straight, the result of that referendum—without rounding up or down—was, on 68 per cent. of ballot slips returned, 58 per cent. in favour of Wrexham and only 42 per cent. in favour of Denbighshire. I remind the Government that they have been governing—I use the term loosely—for 15 years on much less than that majority, even if one measures the vote as a percentage of the total electorate, which seemed to be the Minister's response in Committee.
The Minister of State put forward another strange argument in Committee when he said:
As Llangollen and the other two areas belong to the old Denbighshire area which we are reviving and there is no clear majority against joining the new authority, we should let matters stand."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 April 1994; c. 155.]The Minister was, to say the least, confused with that argument since Wrexham was also part of Denbighshire prior to 1974.Hiding behind the decisions of the three community councils involved does not hold water either. The biggest —Llangollen town council—is now overwhelmingly in favour of Wrexham, and Llangollen rural district council's decision against was six to three, which is roughly the same proportion as Glyndwr's referendum of all residents. Llantysilio has at least been consistently opposed to Wrexham, although it clearly does not represent the views of those polled throughout Llangollen.
Glyndwr has also had a chequered history on the subject, voting only on the casting vote of the chairman to opt for Denbighshire and ignoring its referendum. The chief executive, Mr. Julian Parry, who now writes criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for some extremely minor errors of little consequence in Committee, and is militant in his ignorance of the referendum result, advised Glyndwr council as follows at its policy and finance committee on 23 June 1992:
Being south of the Llantysilio mountains/Horseshoe Pass, there is little community affinity or interaction between this area and north Glyndwr, local communities look to Wrexham as their main centre for most goods, services and employment, the existing pattern of communications and the geography/ topography being important relevant factors. The 3 845 town/community councils would prefer to remain part of a rural unitary authority rather than joining the new Wrexham unit. Whilst respecting this expressed preference, application of the relevant criteria results in your Sub-Committee recommending that this area has decidedly stronger relationships with Wrexham than with West Clwyd.I could not have put it better myself and I wonder how Mr. Parry thinks that things have changed in the interim.The people of Llangollen feel let down: they have voted and nothing has happened. Now we hear that the local government boundary commission for England is to mount an in-depth consultation with English residents over its review. Surely the same could be done for Wales. In any event, I hope that the anomaly of Llangollen can at least be put right, or the people of Llangollen will once again feel let down by this Government. Judging by the European election results in Wales, they feel let down in every other respect as well.
§ Mr. RowlandsI hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will not mind—we have shared their hurt and disappointment in Committee and on Report—if I say that at least the Bill is better in one respect than the Bill that started out. It is a better Bill in respect of schedule 1, part II page 53 where, under the title "County Boroughs", the "district of Merthyr Tydfil" is listed. It would be wrong not to recognise the significance and importance of that change.
I first came to the House in 1966. As a young, green and inexperienced Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in 1969, I wandered into the terrible world of local government reorganisation, when we attempted to introduce a unitary authority and found that we offended almost everyone on our own side, let alone the then Conservative Opposition Members. We therefore had to be man enough and sufficiently principled politicians to withdraw those proposals in 1969–70.
I was out of Parliament for a brief time, but returned at the tail end of a local government reorganisation measure to see the proud county borough status of Merthyr Tydfil removed by a Conservative Government with the Local Government Act 1972. It is a privilege to be still here 22 years later to get to my feet on Third Reading of the present Bill and talk about the restoration of the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil.
I must break it ever so gently to the Secretary of State that I suspect that he will not get too much of the electoral credit in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for the change. On the basis of the enormous achievement of Glenys Kinnock in the European elections—which I am sure will be repeated in the national elections—I doubt whether the Secretary of State will reap too much electoral benefit from the change. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to say that we were glad that he was a listening Secretary of State, at least in this respect. He has created a county borough which I believe will take the full opportunity of being a unitary authority and will regenerate and redevelop a community in a manner which I hope will be as colourful as in the past. Therefore, I can at least welcome that part of the Bill which recognised the spirit and character of the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil.
§ Mr. LlwydFirst, may I echo the words of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? I know that it was a great deal of hard work by the hon. Gentleman which brought about the change of heart by the Government, and I congratulate him on his success. I wish that that could also have been the case for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and for myself, but it was not to be.
I also add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) in congratulating the Minister of State on his service to the House in his present capacity. I am sure that we will all join in congratulating him if it is true that this evening is his final evening at the Dispatch Box.
§ Sir Wyn RobertsI thank the hon. Gentleman, and of course I relish the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Were not it for the matter of time and of delaying the House, I would have risen to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I must tell hon. Members that I have made no statement whatsoever about any impending retirement.
§ Mr. LlwydI do not wish to be niggardly, but I was going to couple that with a few remarks. I was going to say that, during his happy days of retirement—thinking of poetry and poets and possibly sitting on a river bank, fishing—the Minister might recall several questions which I put to him during discussions on the Bill which he has not yet answered.
On a serious note, the first flaw which my party sees in the Bill, as was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), is that there is no strategic all-Wales tier of government. My party makes no pretence. It wishes to see a fully fledged Parliament in Wales with tax-raising and legislative powers. But even in the terms of the amendment which was the subject of the debate, it would have been a great step forward. It would have halted the proliferation of quangos in Wales and would have given accountability in a true sense.
It is a matter of some regret that the amendment was not carried in Committee or on Report, but it was the initial response of my party and it remains our main response. There should have been an all-Wales, truly democratic tier responsible for strategic matters in Wales.
There are numerous questions that have not been answered which I believe should have been. I am afraid that there are many flaws in the Bill. One that comes to mind is the absence of strategic planning, about which numerous bodies of professional and expert opinion are concerned. But I shall not go over the same old ground, as we have debated that matter this evening.
A further flaw may be the lack of cohesion, on unitary development plans, among unitary councils. Area committees may be a poisoned chalice—we do not know, and we are quite unsure about many matters to do with them.
I must say, with the greatest respect to the Minister, that earlier today I put to him five specific points about redundancy, TUPE and transfer generally. I have not had one reply. I regret that bitterly because at least one of those matters was put to me by council advisers in Wales. It was of the utmost importance that those matters should have received a reply and I deeply regret the fact that they have not.
§ Sir Wyn RobertsI had a great deal of ground to cover, but I was under the impression that I had given at least a framework of an answer to the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. I shall, however, look carefully at what I said and, if points are still outstanding, I shall write to him.
§ Mr. LlwydI am grateful to the Minister. It may assist him to know that those points were raised towards the beginning of my speech. I am not trying to score points. I sincerely asked for answers and should be grateful for them in due course. Many thousands of people in Wales are extremely concerned about the position.
I still have misgivings about voluntary organisations, which have lobbied hard and are concerned about their futures under the present set-up. I moved an amendment in Committee to deal with that point and I am far from assured that their futures are guaranteed in any shape or form. Likewise, many people have contacted hon. Members on both sides of the House about support for the arts. There is little comfort for them, either.
Earlier today, I mentioned the role of community councils. I was reassured in part by the Under-Secretary of State and I sincerely hope that, in due course, the guidance to unitary authorities will include specific provision on the matters incorporated in an earlier amendment.
I feel extremely sad this evening at the loss of Meirionnydd, where seven centuries of government have gone by the board. The same applies to Montgomery, with which we are good neighbours. Both are proud communities which respect their traditions and have a great deal of cultural integrity. I am sure that they will be grossly disappointed at what has been transacted this evening.
I have said before and shall say briefly again that the Bill does not have the consensus of the Welsh people. In those circumstances, it must be wrong. To be workable, it must have the consensus of the people of Wales. After all, it is designed to deliver services to them. It does not have that consensus for many reasons, some of which I mentioned earlier. The Bill is flawed and I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery: I honestly believe that we shall shortly be back here discussing local government again.
I conclude with a point of particular concern to me—the maxim, "Tra mor tra Meirion", which will doubtless be referred to again. We in Meirionnydd have stood the test of time and I shall stand up in this Parliament or, I hope, one nearer home, and look at the matter anew in the not too distant future. The people of Meirionnydd will not allow 700 years of their proud history to be done away with at the whim of a Conservative Government.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesYou, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be interested in my first point. The Minister of State has vigorously denied the comment in this morning's Western Mail prophesying his retirement. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has penned a word for him, which the Minister of State, even if no one else on the Government Bench, will appreciate:
Mae Wyn wedi mynd and ddim wedi trigo; dim ffws, dim ffwdan, heb ddagrau, heb ei gof.It means, "For the very good of the Minister; the Minister is going, no fuss, no fuss."If the Minister is to retire, we shall miss him for his personal qualities and his decisive approach in Committee. 848 There were many occasions in Committee when he was having difficulty discussing the arguments that we made to him and he invariably started his remarks by saying, "Well, I should think", or "Well, I would imagine". He had a couple of variations. He sometimes used to say, "Well, off the top of my head", or, "I will consider that point and reply in a moment." He never did reply, of course. There was one marvellous moment when we were debating what has become known as the "Powys pudding". When he was referring to the Government scheme for area committees, he said, "Those are the areas that we want to pacify." He was referring to those five districts of mid-Wales.
I take the opportunity to thank my Front-Bench colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Tor hyphen faen, as it has now become known as a result of the passage of the Bill. I also thank my Back-Bench colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) who, at an early stage in the proceedings, managed to achieve a richly deserved prize as a result of the diligent campaign that he waged on behalf of his town of Merthyr Tydfil. We all appreciate that he was not exactly striving for his political life. He has something in the order of a 30,000 majority and, dare I say it, even if he had lost the battle he would still have won his seat, although with a perhaps slightly reduced majority, at the next general election.
We are on Third Reading. It is the end of the Commons stage of the Bill. There is only one conclusion that I can reach, however: it is an unacceptable Bill. It has been passed by what I consider to be a completely unsatisfactory Commons procedure and it has been piloted—if that does not give rise to a contradiction in terms—by Ministers of whom the best that I can say is that they were wise enough not to stray too far from their civil service briefs.
The central criticism of the Bill is that it did not create a Welsh assembly and our own tier of government. That, I believe, must be the starting point of reform of Welsh government.
The Bill was not based on any principle. There was no meaningful consultation with the people of Wales or with Welsh local government. The Bill certainly did not build on natural communities, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said. The local authority structures, the boundaries and numbers, were arbitrary, taken out of the air, changed from week to week, from year to year. Councils expressed the clearest outrage against the Bill, although the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State managed to say, "I am right when I say that we have received few objections to our proposals for Rhondda- Cynon-Taff'. All that I can say is that he could not have listened to what we were saying. There was absolute outrage in those communities, yet the Minister has ignored them. There has been, as late as last night, a complete rejection of our new clause 11, which would have restored some element of democracy to local government reform.
The Bill is a shambles. It took years in preparation, with all the consultation, yet amendments have fluttered down on it like confetti. There were dozens of amendments in the Lords and what seemed like hundreds of Government amendments in Committee. We have had dozens of amendments on Report; whole clauses have been put into the Bill in the past 24 hours; whole clauses have been taken out of the Bill, almost at random. We have had tonight a massive change in the Government's policy on area committees, reducing by 50 per cent. the threshold that was 849 necessary. Whatever else it does, it does not show that this is a thought-out piece of legislation, designed to improve government in Wales.
At the end, there are enormous areas of uncertainty. Area committees and staff transfer are unclear. There is an enormous centralisation of power in the Welsh Office—44 new powers are conveyed to the Secretary of State. We have a new super-quango in the residuary body. The Bill is not for local government; it undermines local government and it has enormous implications for service delivery. It was opposed by 32 of 36 Welsh Members of Parliament.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for his words of thanks to myself and my colleagues. If it has done one thing—and the Government should take note of this—the Bill has ensured that Members of Parliament representing Wales have started to identify a common enemy. We, I think, have learnt that we have a common interest, and a common interest that is not shared by the Conservative party. I hope that that kernel of trust and common working will bear greater fruit in the years to come.
The Bill has been carried on the basis of English Members of Parliament, and of Standing Order No. 86. It was a packed Committee, but the only meaningful change it made has been reversed on the Floor of the House tonight. What price democracy?
The Bill will be costly and it will cause great uncertainty. When it is enacted, all Opposition Members must ensure that it becomes the starting point of a process of reform of Welsh local government, not the end. We will need a new settlement for local government. We will also need a new contract between local government and central Government, which must be based on removing the shackles on local government, of restoring its independence, of recognising the plurality that exists in our public institutions and of understanding that local government exists both to represent the people of its areas and to improve the quality of life.
Above all, we must restore those things that are lacking in Welsh public life—openness and honesty. There must be confidence in the view that there can be democratic control of public affairs and that people can be trusted to run not only their own councils but their own country.
§ Mr. RedwoodI thank all those who have contributed to the making of the Bill—hon. Members, local councillors and their officers, organisations and individual members of the public. A great deal of attention has been paid to the Bill and it is the better for that. Special thanks go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for piloting the Bill through long hours of debate in Committee.
Local government should be government for local people by local people. The crucial decisions will be taken by the new shadow authorities that will be elected next May. Many of the points that Opposition Members wanted clarified are matters that should be decided by local people and we are giving them those decision-making powers. I believe that they have every chance of doing a good job.
The success of the venture rests on councillors and officers, old and new. I have concluded that the elections should be on 4 May 1995, the usual first Thursday in May for local elections and the day on which, in other circumstances, elections to the existing authorities would 850 have taken place. I believe that that will be welcomed by the political parties in Wales, which I have consulted on the issue.
The new authorities will need to recruit their chief officers as soon as possible to plan for the future. They will also need to establish small planning teams to prepare the new authorities' budgets and draw up their service delivery plans. Those people can be seconded from existing local authorities, which will no longer have the same need to plan for the future. Their service plans will set out what the authorities will do.
In this evening's debate we have seen again just how short of ideas and confidence in its own views the Labour party in Wales has become. Today's decision of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to nominate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and then to vote for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for the leadership of the Labour party—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)Order. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's latter remarks have to do with Third Reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. RedwoodThose remarks are extremely important because it was a foolish decision by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It means that the policies that he has been advancing may be ditched by the new leader. It certainly means that the person whose job is on the line at the moment is the hon. Gentleman. He backed two horses in a three-horse race and hoped that the two horses would not notice that he had backed each of them. What will he say to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when he next meets her—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. When I last intervened, I meant what I said. Will the right hon. Gentleman now get back to Third Reading of the Bill?
§ Mr. RedwoodI shall try to ensure that I meet your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Labour party's proposals have centred round the creation of an unnecessary tier of government in Wales —the assembly.Throughout our debates Labour Members have failed to come clean on whether they support their friends in the counties who want fewer, larger strategic unitary authorities, or their friends in the districts who want more, smaller unitaries. The hon. Member for Caerphilly never managed to assert his discipline over his own party around a single clear proposal for local government in Wales. Labour Members have attacked the Government's proposals from a whole range of contradictory directions in an attempt to conceal the absence of any thought-through alternative. They have the audacity to say in the House that they dislike centralising powers and duties in the Welsh Office, when time and again in Committee and on the Floor of the House they have demanded that I take more centralising powers and give greater clarity over things which local government should decide for itself.
Tonight we have seen a Labour party that could not even deliver a vote on the main boundary issue that was fiercely debated in Committee; a Labour party that could not keep its troops here for this Welsh business; a Labour party that has clearly decided that Wales does not matter or can be taken for granted. The vote on Powys shows that not even all the Welsh Labour Members stayed for that critical debate and Labour's total vote fell below the number of Welsh Labour Members of Parliament. What a disgrace 851 when we are told that this is a critical piece of legislation and one that the Labour party should have modified or removed from the statute book. The Labour party has failed tonight in a big way.
We shall carry our Bill. It is good legislation for Wales and it will produce much better local government for Wales. The Opposition are there in tatters behind the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but perhaps not for much longer because he has failed to deliver the vote and failed to deliver the goods and he has no idea how he would like local government in Wales to be conducted.
We have a vision, a view of better local government in Wales. I commend it to the House.
§ Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 20.
852| Division No. 264] | [9.55 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Faber, David |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Fabricant, Michael |
| Amess, David | Fishburn, Dudley |
| Arbuthnot, James | Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Freeman, Rt Hon Roger |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Baldry, Tony | Hague, William |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Harris, David |
| Bates, Michael | Heald, Oliver |
| Batiste, Spencer | Hendry, Charles |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Howarth, Alan (Strat?rd-on-A) |
| Booth, Hartley | Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Boswell, Tim | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Bowis, John | Jessel, Toby |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Brazier, Julian | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Bright, Graham | Key, Robert |
| Browning, Mrs. Angela | Kilfedder, Sir James |
| Butler, Peter | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Knapman, Roger |
| Carrington, Matthew | Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) |
| Carttiss, Michael | Kynoch, George (Kincardine) |
| Clappison, James | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
| Coe, Sebastian | Legg, Barry |
| Congdon, David | Lidington, David |
| Conway, Derek | Lightbown, David |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Cope, Rt Hon Sir John | Luff, Peter |
| Cran, James | Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) | MacKay, Andrew |
| Davies, Quentin (Stamford) | Maitland, Lady Olga |
| Deva, Nirj Joseph | Malone, Gerald |
| Devlin, Tim | Mans, Keith |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Dover, Den | Merchant, Piers |
| Duncan, Alan | Mills, Iain |
| Duncan-Smith, Iain | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Evennett, David | Neubert, Sir Michael |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley | Thurnham, Peter |
| Page, Richard | Trend, Michael |
| Patnick, Irvine | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Waller, Gary |
| Redwood, Rt Hon John | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Richards, Rod | Waterson, Nigel |
| Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn | Watts, John |
| Robinson, Mark (Somerton) | Whittingdale, John |
| Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Ryder, Rt Hon Richard | Wilkinson, John |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Willetts, David |
| Spencer, Sir Derek | Wolfson, Mark |
| Sproat, Iain | Wood, Timothy |
| Stephen, Michael | |
| Sumberg, David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Sweeney, Walter | Mr. Sydney Chapman and |
| Sykes, John | Mr. Bowen Wells. |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| NOES | |
| Barnes, Harry | Llwyd, Elfyn |
| Bayley, Hugh | Mackinlay, Andrew |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret | Madden, Max |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Dafis, Cynog | Rendel, David |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Flynn, Paul | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | |
| Harvey, Nick | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Mr. Simon Hughes and |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.