§
4. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting this day; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
5. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after commencement; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.
6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to proceedings on the Bill.
7. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes a Motion to alter the order of proceedings or to recommit the Bill, the Question shall be put forthwith.
8. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown.
9. If at the sitting this day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.
10. If the House is adjourned at the sitting this day, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
The Local Government Bill was in Committee for more than 36 hours, over 15 sittings. Detailed scrutiny of more than 200 amendments and nine new clauses took place. Debate was conducted in good spirit: it was overwhelmingly constructive, and there was a general intention to improve the Bill, not to wreck it. An informal timetable was agreed, and it was used effectively and 400 without curtailment of debate on any point raised by the Opposition. There was no complaint, from either side of the House, about insufficient time having been allocated for debate. In fact, the Bill finished earlier than the timetable allowed. We spent an average of 37.5 minutes on each group of amendments. Last night, in five hours—six if we include the money resolution—we managed to consider just two groups of amendments.
Today, we will complete Report stage and Third Reading of the Bill. It has received widespread support from local government, the public and private sectors as well as the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. It is a measure of the isolation of the official Opposition that, despite widespread support urging us to enact the Bill, they sought last night to make a mockery of debate on the Bill. We saw their tactics in the Chamber last night. More importantly, we know that they had briefed journalists that they intended to use those tactics. I was told that they intended to disrupt proceedings.
All the huffing and puffing of Opposition Members—we saw much of it last night—is only so much hot air when we recall their enthusiasm for guillotining debate on the poll tax and the abolition of the Greater London council. That legislation was passed in the face of bitter opposition from local government, let alone the people of this country, in contrast to the support that this Bill has received. Their protests are exposed for the sham that they really are when we recall the use of 12 guillotine motions in one Session of Parliament when the Conservative party was in government.
Let us now stop the childish bickering and get on with debating the Bill. It is a serious matter and it deserves serious consideration. So far, it has not been treated seriously on the Floor of the House on Report by the Conservative party. We look forward to a constructive debate today.
3.51 pm§ Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)I detect a marked change of tone between the Minister today and the Leader of the House last night. The Minister expresses some regret at having to move the guillotine motion. There was no sense of regret from the Government last night. The guillotine was announced with glee and joy by the Government. They exulted in curbing discussion and debate in the House last night.
We are constantly reminded that the Labour party claims to be a people's party, but the Government behave more like the only party that rules the People's Republic of China than a party in a democratic state. I am sure that the Minister agrees that there must be a better way of conducting these affairs. Why, then, was no approach made to any Conservative Member about the slow progress made yesterday afternoon? No formal approach was made. If concerns had been raised, they would no doubt have been heeded.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale)I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. I had contact with his Whip on the Bill. I said that progress was slow and asked whether we were expected to go through the night and whether that was sensible.
§ Mr. JenkinAt no point did the Minister suggest that his patience was as short as it was or that he was so 401 looking forward to his early bed. It would have been better if the Government had engaged in some proper discussion rather than acting precipitately and with triumph in their eyes to crush discussion and debate.
There remain many substantive issues to discuss. Many of the issues will have to be raised in the other place. However, we know what will happen if the other place takes a different view from that of the Government—it will be treated with scorn and derision too, and set aside as though it had no right to any discussion. It has become characteristic of the Government that proper discussion and debate are stifled. I want to take only a little time on the motion, because we want to devote the time available to the substantive issues raised by the amendments rather than to the motion.
The motion is the worst kind of guillotine. At no point was there any discussion about how the time might be allocated to different parts of the Bill. Worse than that, the motion sets a limit of five hours on the conclusion of all the proceedings on the Bill, including on the guillotine. So this discussion on the guillotine comes out of the time available for discussion on the Bill.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)It has happened before.
§ Mr. JenkinI give way to the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SkinnerNot only has it happened before, but when the Tory Government were in power it happened quite regularly. Many of us on the Opposition Benches then used to curb whatever we had to say on the guillotine motion in order to spend more time on the principle of the debate. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to talk about autocratic regimes and all the rest of it. I was in the House when the Tory Government, who had 18 years, introduced guillotines on most of the privatisation legislation. They introduced a guillotine on the Single European Act. They introduced guillotines every single year. We had them coming out of our earholes. We have had only one guillotine since 1 May 1997. Who are the autocrats now?
§ Mr. JenkinIt might be necessary to put guillotines on the hon. Gentleman's interventions; they are becoming so long now that he is in his dotage. On the substantial point he made, the Conservative party's attitude is changing. [Interruption.] Goodness me, the Labour party has changed its attitude on a large number of matters and have adopted Conservative views. It seems strange for the hon. Gentleman to justify joining in with what happened last night on the basis that he loathed it when we were doing it to him. We should all agree that there is a better way.
One of the ideas that the Select Committee on Procedure came up with was the timetabling of Bills. At no point did the Government ask us to consider a more constructive timetable for the Bill. We ended up with the least satisfactory kind of guillotine, which may suit the despots in the Whips Office, but does not suit democratic discussion in this country.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)I rise to express my concern at the decision to move a timetable motion. It is typical of the Government that, on 402 the day when British service men might be going into action in Kosovo, the Government should be doing two things: first, they are truncating the vote on an important local government measure; and secondly, they are denying hon. Members an opportunity—even though pressure was exerted last night—to discuss Kosovo today on the rearranged business. It is typical of the Labour Government that they have done both those things.
The Bill is important, but we have been granted only five hours to discuss the remaining parts of it. We should remember that the Report stage is when hon. Members who were not members of the Committee have an opportunity to influence thinking. We have a substantial number of amendments and new clauses to discuss—there are 10 groups, containing more than 70 amendments. We know full well that if we divide on any one of those amendments, that time will come out of the allocated timetable.
§ Ms Armstrongrose—
§ Mr. HoggI shall give way in a moment.
The time for this debate will also come out of that timetable, as, no doubt, will the right hon. Lady's intervention.
§ Ms ArmstrongI welcome the right hon. and learned Member to local government debates. It is a pity that he did not show his face yesterday.
§ Mr. HoggI was here yesterday, listening in a despairing frame of mind because Labour Back Benchers did not participate at all. That was one of the points to which I wanted to draw your attention, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made the point that the Government will get their way in any case. That is true, but participation in debate is an opportunity to highlight, and focus on, errors in a Bill. The Bill is important and its errors are not going to be addressed. When the Bill goes to another place, I hope that it will be debated extensively, as it should be, because their lordships will know that it has not been properly debated in this place.
One or two provisions in the Bill raise issues of fundamental importance. The Henry VIII clause—clause 15—is a scandal; it enables the Government to disapply legislation and to give powers to local authorities as they think fit. The only statutory mechanism that the Government are obliged to employ is the affirmative resolution procedure. However, as you will know better than most people, Madam Speaker, that procedure is unamendable. The Government are giving themselves powers to disapply legislation or to create new powers and obligations, subject only to the affirmative resolution procedure. I regard that as an absolute scandal. That matter, along with many others, should be the subject of extensive debate. To allow only five hours in which to debate 10 groups of amendments and the timetable motion, and to have such Divisions as the House might think appropriate, is in no sense an appropriate way to treat a democratic assembly.
§ 4 pm
§ Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)I do not want to take too much time, as I think that we should be spending our time debating the Bill. However, I hope that when the 403 Minister replies she dissociates the Liberal Democrats from her remarks about Opposition Members wasting time. Yesterday evening, only one Liberal Democrat Member spoke, and that for only about 10 minutes.
§ 4.1 pm
§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)I congratulate the Minister for Local Government and Housing on the way in which she moved the guillotine motion. The right hon. Lady addressed one of the issues that the House traditionally has to weigh, which is whether there is any question of delay in the conduct of the Report stage. However, she addressed little else: for example, she did not tell us that an unconscionable length of time had originally been spent on the Bill. Library notes used to advise us on guillotines, telling us how many hours had been spent on each stage of a Bill before a guillotine had been judged to be appropriate.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out the historic reasons as to why it is appropriate that, on Report, the full range of Members of the House can bring to bear their views and judgment on the individual clauses and parts of a Bill. Following on from that, I wish to support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). It is intolerable to place before the House a guillotine motion that is constructed in such a way that it incorporates the Standing Order that allows three hours to debate it into the total time allowed for debate on the Bill, including Third Reading.
Given that the Government have clearly weighed that matter, let us suppose that the debate on the guillotine motion runs for three hours and that, quite appropriately, the House decides to divide on it. If that happens, the Government are telling the House and the country at large that consideration of all the clauses of the Bill and Third Reading is to be completed in only about one hour and 40 minutes. I do not believe that that can be the Government's intention.
I should like to think that this is an example of the mindless imposition of a poorly drafted guillotine. The two acts are quite separate. First, there is the question of why the Government think it appropriate and necessary to impose a guillotine; I am opposed to the use of guillotines, but the Government nevertheless make out a case. Secondly, there is the appropriate and proper consideration of the issues relating to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was unerringly inaccurate in his assertion that today's guillotine is the first of this Parliament. The Labour Government have taken it into their head that it is wholly appropriate to guillotine even constitutional measures that are taken on the Floor of the House, and we have already had two guillotines on such measures. The Government should reflect on their action, despite the fact that the majority that is assembled will be sufficiently formidable to carry the guillotine motion. The Bill commands considerable support, both on the Government Benches and throughout the country, so there is no point in conducting such a major piece of legislation in this way. However, as on every great issue that faces the House, there is always another side to the argument. Surely it is not inappropriate that the other side should be able to have its say?
404 The intervention of the hon. Member for Bolsover encapsulated what has become the defence of a Government who turn to guillotines to an increasing extent—that two wrongs make a right. Criticism was rightly expressed at the time of the conduct of the three Governments between 1979 and 1997 who, to an increasing extent, imposed guillotines as a measure of the management of the House. The Minister, then in Opposition, opposed those measures at the time, but now, when she has the honour to serve the Government and therefore the interests of the people, she is prepared to bring forth this most onerous and hideous guillotine.
Reflect on it: that is all that I say to the Government. If the House decided to take its time on this issue, the way in which the Government have constructed the guillotine would reduce the entirety of the rest of the debate, including Third Reading, to one hour and 40 minutes. It is therefore not good enough to say that two wrongs make a right.
§ Mr. HoggDoes my hon. Friend agree that, if we were to have a substantial number of Divisions on any of the amendments, we would not have time to debate Third Reading?
§ Mr. ShepherdMy right hon. and learned Friend made that point eloquently. It is one which has haunted debates on guillotines. The right hon. Lady and the other occupants of the Government Front Bench are fully aware of that. It is the very onerousness of the guillotine that suggests that there is a determination to restrict proper and appropriate debate.
I started by praising the right hon. Lady—
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)Does my hon. Friend think that, in spite of everything that he has said, the Government may well have an opportunity, or may be forced, to take a different view from the one that they are now taking when the Bill returns from another place? If their lordships decide that it is their duty to examine carefully the parts of the Bill that we shall not be able to consider as a result of the guillotine, the result may be a large number of amendments coming back to us. I would hope that we shall then have an opportunity properly to consider those amendments, however an inadequate substitute that might be.
§ Mr. ShepherdIndeed, one of the duties of any second Chamber is to try to take up those areas of great pieces of legislation that have not been properly scrutinised, or which that Chamber judges the House of Commons has not had the opportunity to examine. Every guillotine is an argument to the House of Lords that the work has not been done properly in this place.
That is the crux of new Labour and the signal to the world, which is almost a cant. New Labour believes in a people's Government. It says that it believes in people, people, people. Yet when it comes to the traditional processes of advising, arguing and informing the House, the Government seek a guillotine.
That charge was made against other Governments whom I served. I thought that the guillotine was wrong then, as I tried to tell the right hon. Lady. The business managers should consider the way in which the guillotine has been constructed. Her argument may be fair, and the 405 House will judge that and, in turn, whether there was unnecessary, imprudent and improper delay yesterday. Nevertheless, the business managers could have constructed a guillotine that allowed reasonable discussion of the parts of the Bill that the Government acknowledge are of importance to the country and to the structure of the Bill. This guillotine is bad and it should be rejected.
§ 4.8 pm
§ Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)Last night, the usual channels effectively failed to provide us with an orderly conduct of business that would have enabled us to debate all the groups of amendments that were before us. I regret that and the fact that we are having to have a debate today on a blunt instrument, the guillotine. I think that it will deny us the opportunity properly to scrutinise the Bill during the five hours that are available to us.
Right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the more serious clauses in the Bill that will arise later in our consideration of it. They are right to be concerned. Given the guillotine and the absence of any structure in terms of the time that we might take on each group of amendments, we might find that some of the more serious powers—not least the Henry VIII clause, which will give sweeping powers to Ministers—will go undebated on the Floor of the House. We might not have a chance to debate—let alone divide the House on—various aspects of that clause.
Five hours is not enough to do justice to an important Bill to which the Minister rightly attaches great store. Those outside, while rightly welcoming the Bill because it will remove compulsory competitive tendering from the statute book, have anxieties that we should be addressing. They extend to the introduction of the council tax benefit subsidy clawback and to the basis upon which the Government intend to take to themselves powers to cap local authorities. Those are serious matters and the amendments that relate to them should be debated and tested. We will not have the opportunity to do that.
I urge the Government to think again and to take the opportunity during today's business to try to reopen channels so that we can have a serious debate, even if it is, sadly, to be time limited. A guillotine as blunt as this one will do our democracy no good and will do no favours to those who will have to live with the effect of these local government proposals.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 162.
409| Division No. 129] | [4.10 pm |
| AYES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Benn, Rt Hon Tony |
| Ainsworth, Robert ((Dov'try NE) | Bennett, Andrew F |
| Allen, Graham | Benton, Joe |
| Anderson, Janet (Rossendale) | Bermingham, Gerald |
| Armstrong, Ms Hilary | Best, Harold |
| Atkins, Charlotte | Betts, Clive |
| Austin, John | Blackman, Liz |
| Barnes, Harry | Blizzard, Bob |
| Barron, Kevin | Blunkett, Rt Hon David |
| Battle, John | Boateng, Paul |
| Bayley, Hugh | Borrow, David |
| Beard, Nigel | Bradley, Keith (Withington) |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Bradshaw, Ben |
| Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough) | Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) |
| Brown, Russell (Dumfries) | Fyfe, Maria |
| Browne, Desmond | Galloway, George |
| Buck, Ms Karen | Gapes, Mike |
| Burden, Richard | Gardiner, Barry |
| Burgon, Colin | Gerrard, Neil |
| Butler, Mrs Christine | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Byers, Rt Hon Stephen | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Caborn, Richard | Goggins, Paul |
| Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Gordon, Mrs Eileen |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) |
| Caplin, Ivor | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Casale, Roger | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Grocott, Bruce |
| Chaytor, David | Grogan, John |
| Church, Ms Judith | Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) |
| Clapham, Michael | Hall, Patrick (Bedford) |
| Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) | Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) |
| Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) | Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet |
| Heal, Mrs Sylvia | |
| Clark, Paul (Gillingham) | Healey, John |
| Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) | Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N) |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) | Heppell, John |
| Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) | Hesford, Stephen |
| Clelland, David | Hewitt, Ms Patricia |
| Clwyd, Ann | Hill, Keith |
| Coaker, Vernon | Hinchliffe, David |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Hodge, Ms Margaret |
| Coleman, Iain | Hoey, Kate |
| Colman, Tony | Hood, Jimmy |
| Connarty, Michael | Hoon, Geoffrey |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Hope, Phil |
| Cooper, Yvette | Hopkins, Kelvin |
| Corbett, Robin | Howarth, Alan (Newport E) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Corston, Ms Jean | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Cousins, Jim | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Cranston, Ross | Humble, Mrs Joan |
| Crausby, David | Hurst, Alan |
| Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley) | Hutton, John |
| Cryer, John (Hornchurch) | Iddon, Dr Brian |
| Cummings, John | Illsley, Eric |
| Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) | Ingram, Rt Hon Adam |
| Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire | Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough) |
| Darling, Rt Hon Alistair | Jenkins, Brian |
| Darvill, Keith | Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle) |
| Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) | Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Davidson, Ian | |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) | Jones, Helen (Warrington N) |
| Dean, Mrs Janet | Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) |
| Denham, John | Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW) |
| Dismore, Andrew | |
| Dobbin, Jim | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Donohoe, Brian H | Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak) |
| Doran, Frank | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S) |
| Dowd, Jim | Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa |
| Drew, David | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Drown, Ms Julia | Keeble, Ms Sally |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston) |
| Edwards, Huw | Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) |
| Efford, Clive | Kelly, Ms Ruth |
| Ellman, Mrs Louise | Kemp, Fraser |
| Ennis, Jeff | Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree) |
| Ewing, Mrs Margaret | Khabra, Piara S |
| Field, Rt Hon Frank | Kidney, David |
| Fisher, Mark | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Fitzpatrick, Jim | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Fitzsimons, Lorna | King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green) |
| Flint, Caroline | Kingham, Ms Tess |
| Follett, Barbara | Kumar, Dr Ashok |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | Ladyman, Dr Stephen |
| Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) | Lawrence, Ms Jackie |
| Foster, Michael J (Worcester) | Lepper, David |
| Leslie, Christopher | Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N) |
| Levitt, Tom | Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S) |
| Lewis, Ivan (Bury S) | |
| Lewis, Terry (Worsley) | Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW) |
| Linton, Martin | Roche, Mrs Barbara |
| Livingstone, Ken | Rogers, Allan |
| Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C) | Rooker, Jeff |
| Lock, David | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Love, Andrew | Rowlands, Ted |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Roy, Frank |
| McCabe, Steve | Ruane, Chris |
| McCafferty, Ms Chris | Ruddock, Joan |
| McDonagh, Siobhain | Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) |
| McDonnell, John | Ryan, Ms Joan |
| McGrady, Eddie | Savidge, Malcolm |
| McGuire, Mrs Anne | Sedgemore, Brian |
| McIsaac, Shona | Shaw, Jonathan |
| Mackinlay, Andrew | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| McNulty, Tony | Shipley, Ms Debra |
| MacShane, Denis | Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) |
| Mactaggart, Fiona | Singh, Marsha |
| McWalter, Tony | Skinner, Dennis |
| McWilliam, John | Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Smith, Angela (Basildon) |
| Mallaber, Judy | Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S) |
| Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter | Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale) |
| Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S) | |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Smith, John (Glamorgan) |
| Martlew, Eric | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Maxton, John | Snape, Peter |
| Meacher, Rt Hon Michael | Soley, Clive |
| Meale, Alan | Spellar, John |
| Merron, Gillian | Squire, Ms Rachel |
| Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley) | Starkey, Dr Phyllis |
| Milburn, Rt Hon Alan | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Miller, Andrew | Stevenson, George |
| Mitchell, Austin | Stewart, David (Inverness E) |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | Stewart, Ian (Eccles) |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Stinchcombe, Paul |
| Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N) | Stoate, Dr Howard |
| Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W) | Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin |
| Morley, Elliot | Straw, Rt Hon Jack |
| Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Stringer, Graham |
| Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) | Stuart, Ms Gisela |
| Mountford, Kali | Sutcliffe, Gerry |
| Mudie, George | Swinney, John |
| Mullin, Chris | Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck) | |
| Murphy, Jim (Eastwood) | Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S) |
| Naysmith, Dr Doug | Taylor, David (NW Leics) |
| O'Brien, Bill (Normanton) | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W) |
| O'Hara, Eddie | Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W) |
| Olner, Bill | Tipping, Paddy |
| Osborne, Ms Sandra | Todd, Mark |
| Palmer, Dr Nick | Touhig, Don |
| Pearson, Ian | Trickett, Jon |
| Pendry, Tom | Truswell, Paul |
| Pike, Peter L | Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE) |
| Plaskitt, James | Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown) |
| Pond, Chris | Twigg, Derek (Halton) |
| Pope, Greg | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Pound, Stephen | Vaz, Keith |
| Powell, Sir Raymond | Walley, Ms Joan |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Wareing, Robert N |
| Prescott, Rt Hon John | Watts, David |
| Primarolo, Dawn | White, Brian |
| Prosser, Gwyn | Whitehead, Dr Alan |
| Purchase, Ken | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Quinn, Lawrie | Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen) |
| Radice, Giles | Wills, Michael |
| Rammell, Bill | Winnick, David |
| Rapson, Syd | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Raynsford, Nick | Wise, Audrey |
| Woolas, Phil | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth) | Mr. David Hanson and |
| Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock) | Mr. David Jamieson. |
| Wyatt, Derek |
| NOES | |
| Allan, Richard | Harris, Dr Evan |
| Ancram, Rt Hon Michael | Hawkins, Nick |
| Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James | Hayes, John |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Heald, Oliver |
| Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E) | Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Baker, Norman | Horam, John |
| Baldry, Tony | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Ballard, Jackie | Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) |
| Beggs, Roy | Hunter, Andrew |
| Beith, Rt Hon A J | Jack, Rt Hon Michael |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Body, Sir Richard | Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) |
| Boswell, Tim | Key, Robert |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Brady, Graham | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Brake, Tom | Laing, Mrs Eleanor |
| Brand, Dr Peter | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
| Brazier, Julian | Lansley, Andrew |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Leigh, Edward |
| Browning, Mrs Angela | Letwin, Oliver |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Lidington, David |
| Burnett, John | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Burns, Simon | Livsey, Richard |
| Burstow, Paul | Loughton, Tim |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) | Luff, Peter |
| Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas | |
| Cash, William | MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew |
| Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Malins, Humfrey | |
| Chope, Christopher | Maples, John |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh) | Mates, Michael |
| Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey | Maude, Rt Hon Francis |
| Collins, Tim | Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian |
| Corrnack, Sir Patrick | May, Mrs Theresa |
| Cotter, Brian | Moore, Michael |
| Cran, James | Moss, Malcolm |
| Davey, Edward (Kingston) | Norman, Archie |
| Davies, Quentin (Grantham) | Oaten, Mark |
| Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden) | Öpik, Lembit |
| Page, Richard | |
| Day, Stephen | Paterson, Owen |
| Donaldson, Jeffrey | Pickles, Eric |
| Duncan, Alan | Prior, David |
| Duncan Smith, Iain | Randall, John |
| Evans, Nigel | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Faber, David | Rendel, David |
| Fabricant, Michael | Robathan, Andrew |
| Fallon, Michael | Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry) |
| Fearn, Ronnie | Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) |
| Flight, Howard | Rowe, Andrew (Faversham) |
| Forsythe, Clifford | Ruffley, David |
| Forth, Rt Hon Eric | Russell, Bob (Colchester) |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | St Aubyn, Nick |
| Fox, Dr Liam | Sanders, Adrian |
| Fraser, Christopher | Sayeed, Jonathan |
| Garnier, Edward | Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian |
| George, Andrew (St Ives) | Shepherd, Richard |
| Gibb, Nick | Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk) |
| Gill, Christopher | Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns) |
| Gorman, Mrs Teresa | Soames, Nicholas |
| Gray, James | Spicer, Sir Michael |
| Green, Damian | Spring, Richard |
| Greenway, John | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Grieve, Dominic | Steen, Anthony |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John | Streeter, Gary |
| Hague, Rt Hon William | Stunell, Andrew |
| Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie | Swayne, Desmond |
| Hammond, Philip | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton) | Webb, Steve |
| Taylor, John M (Solihull) | Wells, Bowen |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | Whittingdale, John |
| Thompson, William | Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann |
| Tonge, Dr Jenny | Wilkinson, John |
| Townend, John | Willetts, David |
| Tredinnick, David | Wilshire, David |
| Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield) | |
| Trend, Michael | Woodward Shaun |
| Tyler, Paul | Yeo Tim |
| Viggers, Peter | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Wallace, James | |
| Walter, Robert | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Wardle, Charles | Sir David Madel and |
| Waterson, Nigel | Mrs. Caroline Spelman. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That the following provisions shall apply to remaining proceedings on the Local Government Bill: