§ Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)
I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 2, leave out lines 25 to 27 and insert—'(a) begin on the first Monday in July following the ordinary election; and'.
The Second Deputy Chairman
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 70, in page 2, line 25, leave out 'second'.
No. 65, in page 2, line 25, after first 'day', insert 'two months'.
No. 71, in page 2, line 28, leave out 'second'.
No. 66, in page 2, line 28, after first 'day', insert two months'.
No. 32, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 24 to 28.
§ Mr. Burstow
This debate should be relatively short and centre on the term of office of the mayor and the members of the assembly. The group of amendments raises issues on which we should like to probe the Government so as to ensure that we clearly understand their thinking on how those matters will operate. The effect of the amendments would be to provide for a transition period, from the time when the election of the mayor and the members of the assembly takes place to the time that they assume their responsibilities.
The amendments would also remove the Secretary of State's power to set the date on which the authority comes into being and starts to operate. The Bill as it stands provides for the Secretary of State, in effect, to act as mayor of London for about a month, during April, in the run-up to the elections for the Greater London authority, 923 and we do not believe that the Secretary of State should also have the power to change the start date of the authority. That is an unnecessary power and our amendments, if accepted, would make it clear that the assembly would commence its business and the mayor would start to act from July, so there would be no need for the Secretary of State to become involved.
I seek clarification on how Ministers envisage acting during the shadow period, when the new authority is in place but the members of that authority have not been elected. As we understand it, the authority will operate from 1 April. We must be clear about exactly how Ministers will discharge their powers on behalf of Londoners during that period. That is why we have tabled the amendments. I hope that the Minister will elaborate on how Ministers will be additionally accountable to London during that time and how we can ensure that we have the benefit of a transition period in future elections.
It has been said on several occasions that the Greater London authority presents an opportunity to experiment, innovate and try new methods of operation. The Liberal Democrats are entirely in favour of such experimentation, and we invite the Government to consider a further innovation in the workings of the GLA. Given that the legislation clearly separates the executive and scrutiny roles and that newly elected mayors will face a mammoth task, we believe that the legislation should provide a period of transition from a sitting mayor to a new incumbent mayor following an election to allow the latter to prepare for the task ahead.
The traditional model in general elections in this country, whereby an election is held and a losing Prime Minister must vacate his offices almost the same day, is ineffective and inefficient in the context of this institution. Yesterday, Ministers recognised correctly that we must examine each institution and construct it in a manner that is appropriate to the task that it performs. In this case, we believe that the Government should adopt that innovation.
The amendments seek to remove the power of the Secretary of State to decide the assembly's first meeting date and to put a clear date for that meeting in the Bill.
§ Mr. Ottaway
I speak to the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and myself, which are similar in intent to those tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
It is clear that several lesser appointments will be made in establishing the authority—I do not wish to demean those who will ultimately fill those appointments; they are part of the new assembly's essential machinery. The key appointments will not be made until after the elections. Like the Liberal Democrats, we believe that a time interval should be permitted to allow the mayor and his advisers to make those appointments in their own time. For that reason, we think that a two-month delay in commencing the mayor's term of office would benefit the appointment process. We are not alone in that view. A few weeks ago, the Evening Standard stated:There are genuine practical objections to an immediate handover, when the entire administrative structure to support the Mayoralty is being created from scratch.For once, the Conservative party and the Evening Standard are in accord. That newspaper has not supported us for many years and I am pleased that it is beginning to come around to our point of view.
924 I do not advocate the mooted delay of several months to allow the Government to put in place their public-private partnership for London Underground before the mayor takes office. I think that that transitional stage is a disaster waiting to happen, and it will no doubt form the basis of much debate in Committee. I do not think that the mayor's term of office should be delayed at the Government's convenience. It should be for the convenience and benefit of Londoners. Under the circumstances, a two-month interregnum between the election and the commencement of the term of office seems right and appropriate.
§ The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson)
The Government share the belief of the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that there should be a breathing space between the mayor and the assembly being elected and taking up the duties that the people of London will have placed on them by virtue of electing them. I am happy to consider the hon. Gentlemen's proposals before the Bill reaches its later stages.
The assembly will have direct responsibilities for appointing senior officials because it will be necessary to create an executive. It is proposed that there should be a shadow secretariat. I use that term in its widest sense. There will also be a need for the mayor to make appointments to the many executive committees that will be directly responsible to him. We simply need to consider the time that should elapse between the election of the mayor and the assembly and the commencement of their duties.
I turn now to amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 70. It is clear that there needs to be a pause because, as Government Members have made abundantly clear, the Bill proposes a new form of city-wide government, and the mayor and assembly will be responsible for designing a strategy to improve the quality of life in London by improving its transport and dealing with many of the other issues that we have already discussed. However, such a pause will be necessary only after the first election, which will take place in May 2000.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made a point about whether there would be additional ministerial responsibilities during that interregnum.
§ Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham)
It is interesting that the Minister says that a pause will be necessary only after the first election because if there were a change of mayor, the new mayor would want to make appointments. He or she would not be able to do so before the election, so the same problem would emerge. The secretariat would remain the same, but the advisers appointed by the mayor would surely change and there would need to be time to make that change.
§ Ms Jackson
I find the hon. Lady's intervention bemusing. There is no pause in central Government after an election. There is no pause in local government after an election. The business that is the responsibility of local authorities and central Government goes on whether or not the political power in local authorities or the party in Government changes. The necessary structures that facilitate the work of political representatives sent to those offices by the will of the people support and sustain day-to-day business.
§ Mrs. Lait
I do not want to prolong the debate, but I want to tease out this issue. We are discussing a unique 925 institution in which we are separating the executive from the legislature. In a parallel institution, the American presidency—a different institution from the one that I cited last night—there is a delay of two or three months while the new President puts in place the people that he has nominated. I view the role of the mayor, as part of the executive, as similar to that of the American President, so a new mayor would need time to make appointments.
§ Ms Jackson
I can only ask the hon. Lady to consider the lack of similarity between our proposals and the office of President of the United States. That point was made last night when we were debating another amendment. We are not creating a similar institution, and the powers of the mayor and the assembly are not the same as those of the President of the United States.
The country does not grind to a halt after an election. The governance of the country is seamless. The day after a general election, there is no apparent change for the people of this country. The same is true in respect of local authorities. The kind of changes to which the hon. Lady is referring—changes of direction and of policy, very often coloured by political perspectives—are the responsibility of the people elected to high office, whether they be the Prime Minister, the leader of a local authority or, in this instance, the mayor, but the day-to-day business does not change.
I entirely understand that the introduction of the changes to which the hon. Lady refers takes time, but there is no necessity for an artificial break between election and the taking on of responsibilities, other than in the original, innovative, first-time-ever election for this particular form of city-wide government.
§ Mr. Burstow
Will the Minister clarify something that she said at the outset? She suggested that she would be willing to reflect further on the matter. They are not exactly the words that she used, but the implication was that this was an issue to which the Government were willing to give further thought. Perhaps I have leapt in too soon and she was going to say exactly to what the Government were going to give further thought, but, having heard the exchanges on this particular point, it appears that the substance of the amendment—the issue of transition—is not one about which the Government are ready to think again. Will the Minister give us a little more comfort and say that it is still an issue open to debate and further consideration?
§ Ms Jackson
I am sorry if I have not made the position clear to the hon. Gentleman. There is undoubtedly a meeting of minds between us on the fact that there should indeed be a period between the declaration of the results of the first-ever election of a mayor and an assembly and their taking on their full responsibilities. There should of course be such a period for the reasons that I have already touched on—the appointing of senior officials, the necessity for the mayor to appoint chairmen to the committees that are directly accountable to him, and, to repeat a phrase that I have already used, the actual creation of the necessary systems to ensure that the mayor 926 and the assembly will be able to carry out the duties placed on them thanks to their election to high office by the people of London.
The clear difference of opinion arises over whether that should be a permanent fixture at every election after the first. We are prepared to take away and consider proposals about the length of time between the election result being declared and the mayor and the assembly fully taking on their responsibilities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard that, will withdraw the amendment so that we can return to the issue. However, the Government are not prepared to accept that the proposed period between the election result and the mayor and assembly being fully in place should be a fixture in perpetuity at future elections of the mayor and assembly for London.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)
The Minister has made that very clear, and the Committee is grateful. I must press her on a linked point in order to understand the first part of what she said, which was about the first time around. Is she now also saying that the Government are willing to accept that for the first time around—we shall leave future elections to be dealt with later—the GLA will come into existence after the elections rather than before, so that the sequence will be elections followed by start date? If that is the case, it is a very helpful and welcome statement.
§ Ms Jackson
I am delighted to be able to respond to the hon. Gentleman with a categorical and enthusiastic yes. There will be no mayor, no assembly and no Greater London authority until the election results have been declared. In the light of that, I trust that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will withdraw the amendment relating to the time between the election result being declared and the mayor and the assembly having the reins firmly in their hands, so that we can return to the issue later. The Government believe that that is necessary, but would want to examine it in more detail.
I hope, too, that amendments Nos. 70, 65, 71 and 66 will not be pressed. We have no intention of returning to them, for the reasons that I have already given.
Amendment No. 32 would remove clause 3(6). I would be grateful if it were not moved, so that we can return to the issue on Report. I shall be perfectly honest: I would require the expertise of parliamentary counsel because it is possible that clause 3(6) is unnecessary. I hope that both the hon. Members for Croydon, South and for Sutton and Cheam will accept the proposal that I have put to them.
§ Mr. Ottaway
The Minister made it crystal clear in the first 30 seconds of her speech that she was making a concession. Willingly, we shall not press our amendments.
§ Mr. Davey
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and I looked too much alike.
927 The Minister has taken an important initiative by showing that the Government are prepared to listen.
§ Mr. Davey
The Minister says that this is not the first time that the Government have shown that they are prepared to listen. However, it is certainly the first time in this Committee that we have seen signs that they are prepared to discuss matters outside the Committee and consider ways in which, together, we may improve the Bill, on a joint and consensual basis, to paraphrase their words in the Green Paper. We welcome that, and are certainly willing to withdraw the amendment—and, later, not move amendment No. 32.
I would, however, like to press the Minister on one point. She says that she agrees with ourselves and the Conservatives that it will take time to set up the authority and make all the appointments following the elections. Will she say on which date she thinks the authority will be established following the elections? I would be grateful if she intervened now. Given that she has not, I hope that we can establish that point very quickly. It would be helpful to future proceedings in Committee. Although we may need to decide later how that date is incorporated in the Bill, the information should be put in the public domain as soon as possible. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes
I anticipate that this debate will be no longer than the previous one. We shall make good progress on this, as on other issues.
We shall vote against clause 2 standing part of the Bill not because there has been no welcome concession from the Minister—for which we are glad—but because the clause deals with some of the matters with which we have just disagreed.
Ministers and the Committee know that we have accepted that the referendum decided certain things, such as the creation of the Greater London authority, of which we have always been in favour; that there should be a mayor, which we have always accepted; and that there should be an assembly, for which we have always argued. We have some problem not with the superstructure, but with the infrastructure. We had three objections and now we have two; we are making good progress.
We canvassed yesterday on the first of our objections—the size and make-up of the assembly. I shall not cover the ground again. We have a difference of view about that and we are on the record as to what that is. It would be illogical and inconsistent for us, having said yesterday that we did not think that things should be like this, to vote today that things should be as stated in clause 2.
928 Secondly—again, I shall not elaborate—we said yesterday that we preferred another electoral system. We had a good, interesting debate last night about electoral systems. I believe that there was acceptance across the Committee that appropriate systems must be chosen for the body concerned. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) made that point, perfectly reasonably, as did the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton).
Nevertheless, there is a difference of view between us. We have a preferred system; the Government have chosen their system. That is a perfectly honourable position, but there has not, on this issue, been the consensus that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that we were in danger of achieving more often than I had expected.
Thirdly, before we started to debate the Bill this afternoon there was a disagreement about the start date, but we have made progress on that, for which we are grateful. We have one agreement and two matters on which we have so far disagreed—it is two to one against. On that basis, subject to any other hon. Member wishing to speak, we ask the Committee to vote that clause 2 does not stand part of the Bill, so that we may come back and get it into a shape that is more to our liking.
I anticipate that we may not win this time, but Liberal Democrat Members are ever hopeful. Given that, yesterday, we saw the great Labour-Conservative coalition working against us—the most recent example—we believe that we can continue to make progress and gradually break down the barriers of the old, tribal political divides. We look forward to that, but it does not mean that we cannot have the odd distinction of view and the odd difference of opinion. They are honourable distinctions, and soon I shall ask that the Committee be allowed to decide on them.
§ Mr. Ottaway
The Conservative party was in the same Lobby as the Labour party last night. We were united in our opposition to proportional representation as a method of election—
§ Mr. Ottaway
It will be obvious from yesterday's debates that we disagree with the Government on several fundamental issues in clause 2. In the circumstances, we wish to divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.
§ The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
We have had some very interesting debates on clause 2. We have considered the titles of the mayor and assembly; a proposal for the direct election of a deputy mayor; the size and composition of the assembly; and a range of alternative—and, in some cases, mutually incompatible—voting systems, all proposed by the Liberal Democrats, plus another variation proposed by the Conservatives.
§ Mr. Hughes
The Minister, as so often in life, tells the truth but not all the truth. Those systems were indeed all proposed by us but, as I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to concede in his usual generous spirit, they were proposed as alternatives, in descending order of preference.
§ Mr. Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman stresses that they were presented as alternatives, in descending order of preference, but most hon. Members still have no idea which is the preference of the Liberal Democrat party.
We have also considered the timing and implementation of our proposals. We have agreed to give further consideration to the timing of the full implementation of the new Greater London authority at its first appearance. We have said that, at future elections, the traditional British system whereby the Government change very quickly without a period of transition will prevail, but in the initial stages it is right that there should be an opportunity for the new authority to be set up. We have listened to the views expressed and we shall come back with revised proposals, as we have undertaken to do.
§ Mr. Hughes
We are grateful. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Transport in London, a question, and then the nature of the debate did not afford her the chance to reply. May I suggest that the beginning of July 2000 might be a nice date to start the GLA working?
§ Mr. Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman should have contained himself. I was about to respond to the point that his hon. Friend had made, to make it clear that, as yet, we have no clear predisposition as to the precise date, but we have listened to the views expressed by hon. Members in meetings outside the House and in today's debate, and we shall let the House know our conclusions in due course.
The Government have listened but, sadly, the opposition parties have not. The Liberal Democrats intend to divide on the clause despite the clear indications that were given yesterday evening when their proposals were the subject of Divisions. They might note, given the particular amendments to which they are still partial, that the Government majority on a Division yesterday evening on an amendment was 224, followed by one of 417. I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats appear not to have listened to the clear will of the Committee.
The Opposition continue to peddle the concept of a deputy mayor. Having read a recent article written by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he explored matters relating to London government and the future of the Greater London authority and all the things that the Conservative party apparently thinks are important, it was fascinating to note that there was no mention of a deputy mayor. Either the right hon. Gentleman is not on message or the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is not.
We do not regard the position of either of the opposition parties on these issues as consistent and effective. Given the decisions that were taken following Divisions last night, I have already given a clear indication of the preference of the Committee. I urge my colleagues to support the Government's proposition that clause 2, as presented, stand part of the Bill.
§ Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 308, Noes 167.933
|Division No.40]||[4.46 pm|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)|
|Ainger, Nick||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)|
|Allen, Graham||Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)|
|Armstrong, Ms Hilary||Dawson, Hilton|
|Ashton, Joe||Dean, Mrs Janet|
|Atherton, Ms Candy||Denham, John|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Dewar, Rt Hon Donald|
|Austin, John||Dismore, Andrew|
|Banks, Tony||Dobbin, Jim|
|Barnes, Harry||Dobson, Rt Hon Frank|
|Barron, Kevin||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Bayley, Hugh||Doran, Frank|
|Begg, Miss Anne||Dowd, Jim|
|Bell, Martin (Tatton)||Drew, David|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Drown, Ms Julia|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Benton, Joe||Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)|
|Berry, Roger||Edwards, Huw|
|Best, Harold||Efford, Clive|
|Betts, Clive||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Blackman, Liz||Ewing, Mrs Margaret|
|Blair, Rt Hon Tony||Fatchett, Derek|
|Blunkett, Rt Hon David||Field, Rt Hon Frank|
|Boateng, Paul||Fisher, Mark|
|Borrow, David||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Fitzsimons, Lorna|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Flint, Caroline|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Flynn, Paul|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Follett, Barbara|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Burgon, Colin||Foster, Michael J (Worcester)|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Fyfe, Maria|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Galloway, George|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Gapes, Mike|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Gardiner, Barry|
|Campbell—Savours, Dale||Gerrard, Neil|
|Caton, Martin||Gilroy, Mrs Linda|
|Cawsey, Ian||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Godsiff, Roger|
|Chaytor, David||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Chisholm, Malcolm||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Clapham, Michael||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Gunnell, John|
|Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Clelland, David||Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet|
|Clwyd, Ann||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Coaker, Vernon||Healey, John|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)|
|Coleman, Iain||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Colman, Tony||Heppell, John|
|Connarty, Michael||Hesford, Stephen|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Cooper, Yvette||Hoey, Kate|
|Corbett, Robin||Home Robertson, John|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Hope, Phil|
|Cousins, Jim||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Cox, Tom||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Cranston, Ross||Hoyle, Lindsay|
|Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)||Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)|
|Cryer, John (Hornchurch)||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Cummings, John||Hutton, John|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Illsley, Eric|
|Darvill, Keith||Ingram, Adam|
|Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)||Norris, Dan|
|Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)||O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)|
|Jamieson, David||O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)|
|Jenkins, Brian||Osborne, Ms Sandra|
|Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)||Palmer, Dr Nick|
|Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)||Perham, Ms Linda|
|Jones, Helen (Warrington N)||Pike, Peter L|
|Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)||Plaskitt, James|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||Pond, Chris|
|Jowell, Ms Tessa||Pope, Greg|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Powell, Sir Raymond|
|Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)||Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Kelly, Ms Ruth||Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)|
|Kemp, Fraser||Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Khabra, Piara S||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Kidney, David||Purchase, Ken|
|Kilfoyle, Peter||Quinn, Lawrie|
|King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)||Radice, Giles|
|King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)||Rammell, Bill|
|Kingham, Ms Tess||Raynsford, Nick|
|Ladyman, Dr Stephen||Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)|
|Lawrence, Ms Jackie||Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)|
|Laxton, Bob||Rooker, Jeff|
|Leslie, Christopher||Rooney, Terry|
|Levitt, Tom||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Roy, Frank|
|Linton, Martin||Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)|
|Livingstone, Ken||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|Lock, David||Salter, Martin|
|Love, Andrew||Savidge, Malcolm|
|McAllion, John||Sawford, Phil|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McCabe, Steve||Shaw, Jonathan|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Sheerman, Barry|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Macdonald, Calum||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|McDonnell, John||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McFall, John||Singh, Marsha|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Skinner, Dennis|
|McKenna, Mrs Rosemary||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)|
|McNulty, Tony||Smith, John (Glamorgan)|
|MacShane, Denis||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Soley, Clive|
|McWalter, Tony||Southworth, Ms Helen|
|McWilliam, John||Speller, John|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Squire, Ms Rachel|
|Marek, Dr John||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)||Stevenson, George|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Martlew, Eric||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Meacher, Rt Hon Michael||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Meale, Alan||Straw, Rt Hon Jack|
|Merron, Gillian||Stringer, Graham|
|Michael, Alun||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Miller, Andrew||Swinney, John|
|Mitchell, Austin||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Moran, Ms Margaret||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)||Timms, Stephen|
|Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)||Tipping, Paddy|
|Morley, Elliot||Todd, Mark|
|Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)||Touhig, Don|
|Mountford, Kali||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Mudie, George||Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)|
|Mullin, Chris||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Naysmith, Dr Doug||Wareing, Robert N|
|Watts, David||Wise, Audrey|
|White, Brian||Wood, Mike|
|Whitehead, Dr Alan||Woolas, Phil|
|Wicks, Malcolm||Wray, James|
|Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)||Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)|
|Wills, Michael||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Winnick, David||Mr. David Hanson and|
|Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)||Mr. Keith Hill.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Green, Damian|
|Allan, Richard||Greenway, John|
|Amess, David||Grieve, Dominic|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael||Hague, Rt Hon William|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)||Hammond, Philip|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Hawkins, Nick|
|Baker, Norman||Hayes, John|
|Baldry, Tony||Heald, Oliver|
|Beggs, Roy||Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)|
|Beith, Rt Hon A J||Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Bercow, John||Horam, John|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Howard, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)||Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)|
|Brake, Tom||Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)|
|Brand, Dr Peter||Hunter, Andrew|
|Brazier, Julian||Jack, Rt Hon Michael|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Key, Robert|
|Burnett, John||King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Burns, Simon||Kirkbride, Miss Julie|
|Burstow, Paul||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Cable, Dr Vincent||Laing, Mrs Eleanor|
|Cash, William||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)||Lansley, Andrew|
|Chidgey, David||Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)|
|Chope, Christopher||Lidington, David|
|Clappison, James||Lilley, Rt Hon Peter|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Livsey, Richard|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey||Loughton, Tim|
|Collins, Tim||Luff, Peter|
|Colvin, Michael||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Cotter, Brian||McIntosh, Miss Anne|
|Cran, James||MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Day, Stephen||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Donaldson, Jeffrey||Malins, Humfrey|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Maples, John|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Maude, Rt Hon Francis|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian|
|Evans, Nigel||May, Mrs Theresa|
|Faber, David||Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)|
|Fallon, Michael||Moore, Michael|
|Flight, Howard||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Forsythe, Clifford||Norman, Archie|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Oaten, Mark|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Öpik, Lembit|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Ottaway, Richard|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Page, Richard|
|Gale, Roger||Paice, James|
|Garnier, Edward||Paterson, Owen|
|George, Andrew (St Ives)||Pickles, Eric|
|Gibb, Nick||Randall, John|
|Gill, Christopher||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair||Rendel, David|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Robathan, Andrew|
|Gorrie, Donald||Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)|
|Gray, James||Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)|
|Ross, William (E Lond'y)||Thompson, William|
|Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)||Townend, John|
|Russell, Bob (Colchester)||Tredinnick, David|
|Sanders, Adrian||Trend, Michael|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Tyler, Paul|
|Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)||Wallace, James|
|Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)||Walter, Robert|
|Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)||Wardle, Charles|
|Spicer, Sir Michael||Webb, Steve|
|Spring, Richard||Wells, Bowen|
|Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Steen, Anthony||Whittingdale, John|
|Streeter, Gary||Wilkinson, John|
|Stunell, Andrew||Willis, Phil|
|Swayne, Desmond||Wilshire, David|
|Syms, Robert||Yeo, Tim|
|Tapsell, Sir Peter||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Taylor, John M (Solihull)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Taylor, Matthew (Truro)||Mrs. Caroline Spelman and|
|Taylor, Sir Teddy||Sir David Madel.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.