§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)I beg to move,
That the draft European Assembly Constituencies (England) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.The Boundary Commission for England submitted its final recommendations for new European Parliament constituencies on 22 March and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State proposes that those recommendations be implemented without modifications. Article 2 of the order substitutes the constituencies described in the schedule for the existing European constituencies in England. If both Houses approve the draft order, it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council to be made. Article 1(2) provides that the order comes into operation immediately it is made, but does not affect the present constituencies until the next general election of European Parliament representatives on 14 June.This review has taken only 11 months to complete, which is a remarkable achievement. In that time the commission has had to consider 900 written representations, hold nine local inquiries and publish revised recommendations for 16 constituencies. Some hon. Members may recall that the commission was at first extremely doubtful whether it could complete the review in time for its proposals to be implemented at this year's elections because of the need to comply with these important but time-consuming procedures. The fact that the commission has nevertheless achieved its goal is entirely due to the hard work and dedication of the deputy chairman, Mr. Justice Walton, his fellow members, and their small staff, who also serve the Welsh commission. I am sure that the House will wish me to express our thanks to them, and to Mr. Speaker, as ex-officio chairman, for ensuring that the review was conducted as meticulously and expeditiously as possible.
My right hon. and learned Friend has received only 12 representations about six of the proposed 66 constituencies. This suggests that the final recommendations are acceptable to the vast majority of electors. Those representations have been carefully considered, but my right hon. and learned Friend has decided not to modify the commission's recommendations because the objections raised are similar to others considered and rejected by the commission during the review.
The final recommendations would leave the present Hereford and Worcester, London East and London North East constituencies unchanged and make a minor boundary alteration, involving no electors, to the Cornwall and Plymouth, and Devon constituencies. The remaining 61 constituencies would all be altered to varying degrees, although many of them would retain a substantial part of their present area and electorate.
Those changes have had to be made because of changes in the electorates of the present constituencies and alterations to the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies between 1977 and 1983. Part H of schedule 2 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 provides that no parliamentary constituency shall be divided between European constituencies and that each European 1070 constituency shall have an electorate as near the electoral quota as is reasonably practicable, having regard, where appropriate, to special geographical considerations.
The electoral quota for England in this review was 539,155. At the start of the review the electorates of the present European constituencies ranged from 456,965 in Liverpool, which is 15.2 per cent. below that quota, to 622,241 in Hampshire, West, which is 15.4 per cent. above the quota. The need to reduce that disparity and to align the existing boundaries with those of the new parliamentary constituencies, 119 of which were divided between European constituencies, therefore made substantial changes inevitable in some parts of the country.
However, the commission has attempted to minimise the effects of its proposals on local government areas and existing constituencies as much as possible, although it is not statutorily required to take account of county and London borough boundaries or the inconveniences attendant on any alternations, as it was during its review of parliamentary constituencies, which have wide and different statutory criteria.
§ Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage)While congratulating the Boundary Commission on its work, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind for future reference, especially with regard to what he said about local authority boundaries, the fact that sometimes the nomenclature that the commission chooses is clumsy? For example, the European constituency that contains Wantage and Newbury — my constituency of Wantage being in Oxfordshire and Newbury being in Berkshire—has been called Wiltshire. The commission refused to accept any suggestion for a different name. The good people of Wantage believe that that must have been done in Brussels rather than by a British Boundary Commission.
§ Mr. MellorYes, it sounds as though that might be so.
The paramount consideration before the Boundary Commission is simply parity of electorates, but the commission has also been able to increase the number of counties, districts and London boroughs which are undivided between constituencies. At present, 37 counties and London boroughs are undivided. Under the commission's proposals, 46 counties and London boroughs — including East Sussex, Norfolk and West Sussex, which will form separate constituencies—are undivided. Essex and Kent will each contain two whole constituencies, while the number of districts not divided between constituencies will rise from 262 to 284 if the commission's recommendations are implemented in full.
However, the final test is whether the commission has achieved a better standard of parity than it did in 1978. There is no doubt that it has. The electorates of the proposed constituencies range from 7.4 per cent. below the electoral quota in Cheshire East to 6.4 per cent. above in Essex North East, compared with a range of 9.7 per cent. below the 1977 electoral quota of 516,436, to 10.4 per cent. above in 1978. I understand that some people will naturally be disappointed that the commission rejected their own suggestions for new boundaries or names in their locality, but my right hon. and learned Friend and I consider that it has done a very good job in extremely difficult circumstances.
The way is now open for the elections on 14 June to be held on up-to-date boundaries. Not only is that right on grounds of principle, but it is vital that the political parties 1071 should know what the new constituency boundaries are, so that they can begin selecting their candidates. On that basis, I commend these recommendations to the House so that the uncertainty which has been a feature of the past year can be quickly ended.
§ Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Knowsley, North)The first thing that one ought to say about this order and the boundaries that it implements is that they are extremely late in the day in that the the elections to which they apply take place in less than two months' time. Nevertheless, we on the Opposition Benches give them a belated welcome. As the Minister has just said, there was considerable doubt and uncertainty at one time as to whether these boundaries would be implemented in time for the 1984 elections. Not so long ago, on 25 April 1983, the previous Home Secretary, now Lord Whitelaw, in a written answer, said in quite emphatic terms:
The commission sees no prospect of completing its review in time for its recommendations to be implemented at the 1984 elections."—[Official Report, 25 April 1983; Vol. 41, c. 212.]The same kind of doubt was expressed by the Under-Secretary of State when we debated the European Assembly election regulations on 26 January this year.This uncertainty as to whether the elections would be fought on the new boundaries has, of course, caused considerable doubt and confusion amongst the political parties and amongst registration officers. It has disrupted the selection of parliamentary candidates and, to a certain extent, disrupted also the formation of the new Euro-constituency parties that need to be established.
I suppose that it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the Tories knew all along that the elections were actually going to be fought on the new boundaries. It is not unremarked that it is their party alone that has not chosen candidates on the basis of existing constituencies but has frozen its candidate selection.
§ Mr. JacksonThat is not so.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkThe hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches may mutter, but it showed a surprising degree of confidence in the outcome of the Boundary Commission's proposals, which was in stark contrast with what Ministers were actually saying about whether those proposals would be implemented in time for the elections.
§ Mr. MellorI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I am bound to say to him—[Interruption.] That is better news than we have had so far in his speech. But perhaps I could say to him that my recollection of what I said on 26 January is that I made it clear that I believed that we would be fighting the elections on the new boundaries. We have been saying that consistently since the late summer and autumn. Of course, what my right hon. and noble Friend said on 25 April was based on the information then coming from the Boundary Commission.
It was able to expedite its work. As the hon. Gentleman understands, we have done our best to acquaint the House, and it is rather unfair of him to say what he has. If he reads the passage of 26 January upon which he relies I think that he will find that I made the position clear.
I suspect that the Labour party's difficulties in selecting candidates derive from the internecine strife of knifing those who are already there.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkThere has been no difficulty in selecting candidates. The only difficulty any party has had is in knowing for which constituencies they were being selected.
On 26 January I asked the Minister to remove the doubts and uncertainties and to give a categorical assurance, that we would be fighting the elections on the new boundaries. He was unable to give that assurance. I enumerated the procedures through which the Boundary Commission would have to go if its provisional proposals, which it had not then put before us, were objected to, if there were local inquiries and further representations. The Minister agreed that it was possible for those representations, local inquiries, and all the other matters that had to be gone through, to drag the procedures into June.
It is not unremarkable that there was, until recently, doubt and uncertainty that the Minister could not allay as recently as 26 January. Despite that, the Conservative party had the confidence to believe that it could operate on the basis that it would be fighting the elections on the new boundaries and did not select its candidates on the existing boundaries.
My suspicion is compounded by the fact that the delay has been absurd and unnecessary. In one respect the delay is attributable to the Government. The previous Labour Government tied the redrawing of the new Westminster boundaries into the redrawing of the European constituency boundaries for the Strasbourg election.
When elected in 1979 the Tory Government realised that if they were to fight the election on new redrawn Westminster boundaries, which we all knew would favour the Conservative party, they needed to uncouple the redrawing of the Westminster and the European electoral boundaries. They did that. As a result they had the Westminster boundaries early and were able to fight the 1983 election on the new boundaries which favour the Conservative party. That delayed the redrawing of the European constituency boundaries. That is part of the reason for the delay and it is directly attributable to the Conservative party. There may have been good, objective reasons for uncoupling them, but it was the Government's decision. The result is that we have two months' notice of the boundaries on which we will be fighting the June election.
Leaving aside the suspicions that the Opposition may have about the way in which the procedures have been carried out, it is absurd that we are having to fight an election in two months' time on boundaries that we know about only tonight. We have known the date of the election for some considerable time. It is not like Westminster election, which can come at any time.
It is a simple procedure to redraw the boundaries. The commissioners say that in their report. It is just a matter of fitting the Westminster boundaries into the electoral quota determined for the United Kingdom. It would therefore have been possible to have an early result had the Government provided more resources and manpower to the Boundary Commission instead of depleting it of its resources immediately it had concluded the review of the Westminster boundaries.
We have the boundaries now and I should like to join the Minister in thanking the commissioners for the work they have done and the manner in which they have done it, operating under the great difficulties — as I acknowledge — of the time scale left them by the 1073 Government's actions and policies. But now we have them, even if they have come before us only two months before the election.
§ Mr. MellorThe hon. Gentleman has quoted what I said on 26 January, and it might be of some assistance if I read a short passage from my speech to ascertain whether it accords with the argument that he advanced. I said:
We have tried to inform the House, at different stages, of how we see the situation. For some months it has been our view that the Boundary Commission will be able to present to the Home Secretary, in time for him—given normal circumstances — to be able to lay the relevant orders before the House, proposals that would enable the June elections to be held on new boundaries."—[Official Report, 26 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 1160.]
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkI do not dissent from that. I read that passage in Hansard and I was in the Chamber when the Minister uttered it. The Minister will acknowledge that that is not a guarantee, and it was a guarantee for which I asked.
§ Mr. Kilroy-SilkThe Minister will acknowledge also that on 26 January I stated facts from which he did not dissent. I said that it was theoretically possible and practicable for the Boundary Commission's proposals not to be implemented in time for the statutory procedures to be applied by those wishing to make objections, and the hon. Gentleman conceded that point. Even as late as the debate of 26 January, we did not know for certain—this is factually correct — that we would be fighting the elections on the new boundaries.
We now have the proposals before us—we shall be implementing them tonight—but many of those who would have wished to object to them have been deterred from doing so. They have weighed in the balance their objections against the disruption that they may cause by delaying their implementation.
As the Minister has said, substantial changes have been made in the constituency boundaries. Only three of the 66 Euro-constituencies in England have their boundaries unchanged. Of the remainder, 22 have slightly altered boundaries and 39 have been modified substantially. One of the constituencies which has been modified substantially is in the Northumbria and Tyne and Wear area, where the boundaries have been altered only in the past few months with the final revised proposals submitted by the commissioners. It is absurd and anomalous that a major city such as Newcastle is divided down the middle in a peculiar way between two European constituencies. That seems illogical to me as someone who does not represent a constituency in the north-east and does not come from that area. However, I have read the report and studied the map, and that is the impression with which I am left. It is an alteration that appears to have been highly unacceptable to the local authorities and Members in that region. It is remarkable that the proposals were submitted by a Conservative councillor at the last moment and accepted in toto by the commission.
I shall demonstrate how the concertinaing of the period between announcement tonight of the new boundaries and the elections has prevented the making of some substantial claims. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is in his place 1074 for I have no doubt that he will flesh out what I am about to say. He has written a strong letter to the commissioners dissenting from their proposals. I shall quote from a letter sent to the commissioners by the North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, which was written by Mr. F. S. Watson, the secretary or chief legal adviser. He wrote:
In the Council's opinion, however, the revised proposals produce an entirely unacceptable situation, firstly at Newcastle where the City is now proposed to be further divided between two European constituencies and secondly, so far as the revised proposals affect the two Parliamentary constituencies of Tynemouth and Wallsend where the Commission would appear to have ignored completely the predominant links between these two constituencies and the community of Tyne and Wear.I shall quote also from a letter from the city of Newcastle upon Tyne to the secretary of the Boundary Commission for England. It is signed by the director of administration, Mr. Brockington. It states:I am instructed to object in the strongest possible terms to the revised proposals for the Northumbria and Tyne and Wear European Assembly Constituencies.It is unthinkable that the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, the regional capital of the North East of England, should be divided between two separate constituencies.No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will wish to fill out that point in greater detail. There are strong local feelings in some parts of the country that what the commissioners have proposed is unacceptable and, in many ways, indefensible, but because of the restricted time scale, those local authorities, hon. Members like my hon. Friend and other individuals do not feel it incumbent upon them to make the representations that they would have made otherwise. The Government are responsible, and must accept that responsibility.However, we now have the boundaries at last. The doubt and uncertainty have been removed. I hope that much more interest will be shown by the electorate in the elections in June than was shown in the last elections. I hope that there will be a good turn-out. In any event, the Labour party will fight every seat, and win more than it did last time. We shall ensure that there will be a large, articulate and forceful British Labour presence in Strasbourg and the Council of Europe so that influence can be used to promote the principles of justice and equality and to further peace in Europe.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)I should like to refer to the Northumbria and Tyne and Wear problem. In some ways it was impossible for the Boundary Commission to solve the problem. The mere existence of the Tyne Bridge constituency itself ensures that either the city of Newcastle or the town of Gateshead is divided in whatever unit is created. Both the old and new proposals and any rival proposals involve a splitting up of the county of Tyne and Wear. That is inherent in the decision to go for single-member constituencies on a scale that involves the parcelling out of huge county areas such as that. There is no doubt that all the proposals for the Tyne and Wear area have serious geographical disadvantages—both the boundaries that form the previous constituencies and the ones proposed show that.
I have a further complaint about the Tyne and Wear and Northumbria proposals — the use of the term "Northumbria", which is passing increasingly into our nomenclature without adequate justification. The term is 1075 historically used to describe an area that is much larger than the county of Northumberland—indeed, stretching down to the Humber. Its use is normally related to the description of institutions that are larger than Northumberland, such as the area of the police authority. The constituency that is called Northumbria is almost, but not quite, all the historic county of Northumberland. Northumberland would have been the better, and proper, title for it. However, that is a small niggle. There are more important arguments, but they are insoluble. The Boundary Commission could not have pleased everybody in dividing up Tyne and Wear in the way in which the system requires.
§ Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the absolute principle on which Conservative Members and the boundary commissioners who support them proceeded is wholly wrong? They divided the city of Newcastle in two to produce one seat that is wholly Labour and another that is marginally anybody's.
§ Mr. BeithThe other seat is marginally in favour of the alliance. I am delighted about that.
The Boundary Commission came across the problem when the seat of Tyne Bridge was first created. It joined together part of the city of Newcastle with a piece on the other side of the river Tyne. The problems have continued since then. They are inherent in the dividing up of the country into single-member constituencies for the European elections. The order defines single-member constituencies for those elections. Problems of geographical definition are not the only ones that arise from taking that step.
The greatest problem of all that arises from single-member constituencies is that it is impossible to produce a fair representation of the votes cast if the country is divided in that way—in the case of England 66, or 81 in the case of the country as a whole. It is simply not possible for the range of opinion across the country to be fairly represented under such a system.
The Boundary Commission has, by and large, and subject to a few criticisms, done its work well. I do not accept that in making the particular decision on Tyne and Wear it was motivated by support for any particular political party. There is not the slightest evidence of that. I consider that it was going about its job, as it always does, in a wholly impartial manner. I do not always agree with it, but I think that it carries out its work properly and impartially.
But it engaged in a process of producing a system of single-member constituencies which cannot ensure a fair result at the end of the day. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), who keeps interrupting from a sedentary position, seemed to suggest that the boundaries should be so organised as to produce the desired result, that if it is desired that a particular constituency be Labour, the boundary is pushed a bit further, and so on. What one should be attempting to do is ensure that the number of seats won reflects the number of votes cast. That is the basis on which the election should be conducted, and it cannot be done on the basis of single-member constituencies. In particular, it cannot be done for so small a total number of seats.
§ Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston)Could the hon. Gentleman clarify his thinking on the general principle he 1076 is enunciating? Is he saying that whatever system one tried of alternative voting patterns one could not achieve the kind of proportional result that he is seeking on a single-member constituency basis and that any alternative form of voting aiming to achieve that outcome would be incompatible with single-member constituencies? If that is the general principle he is enunciating, he is ruling out quite a large number of forms of electoral voting that are practised in many other countries.
§ Mr. BeithThe proposition that the hon. Gentleman is testing is true in relation to so small a number of seats. I do not believe that one can produce a satisfactory system incorporating single-member constituencies which relates in the end the votes cast to the seats won. It simply cannot be done because we are not dealing with a large enough total number. For example, if one were to use a mixed system with single-member constituencies topped up from a list system, as in Germany—and I am merely replying to a challenge, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
§ Mr. Christopher Hawkins (High Peak)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this a debate about the boundaries that should be adopted within the electoral system we have in Britain or is it a lecture on proportional representation?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)I am listening very carefully and it is for the Chair to decide whether an hon. Member is in order or out of order.
§ Mr. BeithI was endeavouring to respond as quickly as I could to a challenge from the Opposition Front Bench. I will simply complete my reply by saying that if, for example, one were to use instead of the system of boundaries set out in this order a system involving topping up, the number of single-member constituencies would have to be that much smaller within the total number of seats—say 40 or 50 seats—and the constituencies would have to be even larger, and the whole system would be that much more unsatisfactory. The alternative vote which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East canvasses from a sedentary position offers no guarantee of an ultimate relationship between results and votes cast. What it does prevent is the election in a given constituency of an individual on a minority of the votes cast.
But this is not the occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. to go into great detail on this matter. I know that you would criticise me if I did so. I have done it on a previous occasion and I shall do it on many subsequent occasions.
All I seek to say tonight is that the Boundary Commission, although it did its work in a proper manner, as it was charged to do, was embroiled in a vast gerrymander. The basis of that gerrymander is the decision to ensure that single-member constituencies be used, and the outcome of that at the last election was that the Conservative party got half of the votes and three-quarters of the seats, and the Labour party was quite seriously under-represented in Europe. Who knows what the end result will be from the votes cast in this election? The relationship is almost a random one, but it is a fairly confident prediction that there will not be much relationship between the votes cast and the seats won. That will be the case in this country, unlike any others in the Community. It will happen in England, Scotland and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland, and I do not believe that that is anything which those who believe as firmly as I do in British democracy can reasonably defend.
§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to draw attention to certain deficiences in the way in which the boundary commissioners have conducted their affairs with regard to the proposals for London.
First, the boundary commissioners have a duty to review European Assembly constituencies where there have been major changes in Westminster parliamentary constituencies. In the case of the Euro-constituency of London West, that has not occurred.
Secondly, the new London West electorate is about 17,000 below the electoral quota, whereas the previous figure was much closer to the quota.
Thirdly, the European Assembly constituencies were determined for the first time only five years ago. I do not believe that in that period there have been major demographic changes necessitating the sweeping alterations propsed by the commissioners.
Fourthly, the commissioners are required to publish a notice in such manner as they think best calculated to bring their proposals to the attention of those concerned. With regard to London West, the local papers were not even informed, so it is not surprising that the local people were not fully aware of what was at stake, especially as the proposals were announced on 29 July, on the eve of the summer holidays last year.
Fifthly, the commisioners exceeded their statutory duties by publishing a press release on 29 July which incorrectly referred to the relevant provisions of the 1978 Act. The press release suggested that
the Commission has no power to take into account any considerations (for example the breaking of local ties) other than… parity of electorates between the proposed constituencies.That is not the case, so the commissioners misled local electorates.Sixthly, in 1978–79 the Boundary Commission rightly regarded London as a special geographical consideration, but in two Euro-constituencies under the present proposals the Greater London area boundary is entirely ignored and parts of Surrey are included. I believe that that is wrong.
Seventhly, one expects any inquiry held to be such as to command the confidence of those with a complaint to make. The chairman, however, is an assistant commissioner and combines the role of defendant, judge and jury. Objectors have no opportunity to cross-examine a commissioner representative or to make any criticism of the proposals, as that would be seen as a criticism of the chairman of the inquiry.
Lastly, it is difficult for electors who have genuine cause for complaint to put their point of view across, because ultimately they have no recourse to the courts.
Therefore, with regard to London and especially London West — an extraordinary and incongruous amalgam of half an inner borough, Hammersmith, with outer London boroughs—the proposals have not secured the confidence of local electors. That fact should be made known to the House.
§ Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East)There could be no more appropriate occupant of the Chair than your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I make the point that the whole House knows that I am about to make. Whatever the division of opinion between the parties about the rest of the country, the division between 1078 ourselves in Tyne and Wear and the county of Northumberland cannot be countenanced. I am talking not about Right versus Left, or right versus wrong, but about corruption versus decency. The division that has been made in Newcastle is corrupt—no more and no less than that. [Interruption.] The hon. Members on the Social Democratic and Liberal party Bench are jeering and trying to intervene from a sedentary position because they know that the division suits themselves and that it damned well does not suit everyone who lives in the area.
§ Mr. BeithThe reason why I seem somewhat critical of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that I regard the allegation that the boundary commissioners behaved corruptly in this matter as wholly mistaken and wrong. It would not have been made outside these walls.
§ Mr. BrownWhatever the position, the boundary commissioners' decision to divide the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in two is widely resented there. It is resented in the riverside community — which is very much a whole—and in the area which I represent.
The reason why that decision is resented is not hard to discern. The decision makes a safe Labour seat on the river and a very marginal Tory, or perhaps Liberal, seat in the Northumberland hinterland, but it does so by dividing the city in two in a totally artificial way, and by dividing the district authorities.
I recognise some of the faces on the Government Benches. Hon. Members may try to mask their faces with their Order Papers, but I recognise them. They know that what I say is true. They know that not only will that boundary mean that the Northumberland seat will be highly marginal, but that it has been deliberately placed so as to ensure that the population of Tyneside — the riverside population which I represent—will not have its full say in the affairs of the European Community. An artificial line has been drawn through the middle of—the middle of Newcastle. There is no justification for drawing that boundary through the middle of Newcastle——
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must not keep repeating "the middle of Newcastle".
§ Mr. BrownAs the representative of the east of Newcastle, I would be the last person to repeat "the middle of Newcastle", to the annoyance of the House.
You must be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is considerable resentment on Tyneside at the way in which the boundaries have been drawn. People there are asking why districts on the river have not been included in one area or the other. It would have been possible for north Tyneside and south Tyneside to be in one district, and Gateshead and Newcastle district to be in another, so that district boundaries were not crossed. You are being jeered at, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the hooligan element in the alliance because they think that the boundary suits them. Democracy should not be decided by what suits the opportunistic elements of the alliance.
The original commission proposals were reasonable. The commissioners accepted Newcastle, north Tyneside, south Tyneside and Gateshead as separate districts, yet we are being advised to overthrow that, to treat it with contempt and to introduce a boundary that divides the city of, Newcastle in half. Newcastle does not want to be divided. It wants to be represented in its entirety in Europe by Dr. Gordon Adam. Having said that, I resume my seat.
§ Question put:
1079§ The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 8.
1080| Dlvision No. 230] | [11.58 pm |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Favell, Anthony |
| Amess, David | Forth, Eric |
| Ancram, Michael | Franks, Cecil |
| Ashby, David | Freeman, Roger |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Gale, Roger |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Baldry, Anthony | Gorst, John |
| Bellingham, Henry | Gregory, Conal |
| Benyon, William | Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) |
| Berry, Sir Anthony | Ground, Patrick |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Gummer, John Selwyn |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Harris, David |
| Bright, Graham | Harvey, Robert |
| Brinton, Tim | Hawkins, C. (High Peak) |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'foik) |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) | Hawksley, Warren |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Hayes, J. |
| Burt, Alistair | Hayward, Robert |
| Butcher, John | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Butterfill, John | Heddle, John |
| Carlisle, John (N Luton) | Hickmet, Richard |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hind, Kenneth |
| Chope, Christopher | Hirst, Michael |
| Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n) | Holt, Richard |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Howard, Michael |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) |
| Conway, Derek | Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) |
| Coombs, Simon | Hunt, David (Wirral) |
| Cope, John | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Couchman, James | Jackson, Robert |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Jones, Robert (W Herts) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. | Key, Robert |
| Durant, Tony | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Evennett, David | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Lang, Ian |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Fallon, Michael | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) | Stern, Michael |
| Lester, Jim | Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) |
| Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) | Stevens, Martin (Fulham) |
| Lord, Michael | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| McCurley, Mrs Anna | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Major, John | Sumberg, David |
| Marland, Paul | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Mather, Carol | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Mellor, David | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Merchant, Piers | Trotter, Neville |
| Mills, lain (Meriden) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Moynihan, Hon C. | van Straubenzee, Sir W. |
| Murphy, Christopher | Viggers, Peter |
| Neubert, Michael | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Newton, Tony | Walden, George |
| Page, Richard (Herts SW) | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Renton, Tim | Waller, Gary |
| Robinson, Mark (N'port W) | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Watson, John |
| Ryder, Richard | Watts, John |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Wheeler, John |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Whitfield, John |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Wilkinson, John |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Wolfson, Mark |
| Speed, Keith | Woodcock, Michael |
| Speller, Tony | Yeo, Tim |
| Spencer, Derek | |
| Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Douglas Hogg. |
| Stanbrook, Ivor |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | Penhaligon, David |
| Bruce, Malcolm | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) | |
| Howells, Geraint | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Johnston, Russell | Mr. A. J. Beith and M. Michael Meadowcroft. |
| Kennedy, Charles |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the draft European Assembly Constituencies (England) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 28th March, be approved.