NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR

HC Deb 04 May 1999 vol 330 cc731-41

'.—A mayoral candidate of any registered political party cannot be returned as mayor unless, no later than the time of his nomination as candidate, the registered leader of that party has delivered to the Greater London Returning Officer, and has made publicly available—

1. (a) a sworn declaration describing fully that party's procedures for the selection of its candidate as mayor, and
2. (b) a certificate declaring that all persons participating in the selection process derived their authority solely from elective processes in which all the members of that party in Greater London, or in any part of it, were entitled to participate at all stages.'.— [Mr. Ottaway.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ottaway

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We now move from a young, thrusting, radical amendment to a young, thrusting, radical new clause. It is designed to give respectability and credibility to the method of selecting mayoral candidates and would provide that all those involved in the selection process, of whatever political party, are there to represent their party's members and are not imposed from the centre.

The Government office for London commissioned a report by Professor Dunleavy and Dr. Helen Margetts, entitled "Electing the London Mayor and the London Assembly". I want to read into the record one paragraph. It says:

It will be particularly important for the success of the London Mayor how the political parties go about making their candidate selection. If all the established parties follow OMOV procedures in picking candidates the eventual general election will seem much more legitimate to most people and the chance of there being dissident candidates from established parties will be reduced. If parties' internal procedures seem less legitimate then the election may not command such high levels of public support: dissident candidates will be more likely to stand against the official party nominees and more independent candidates could also stand, so the number of viable candidates would tend to grow. Given the importance of candidate selection procedures inside the parties for the direct election to an executive position, there is a case for the Government to require parties to follow OMOV procedures internally, which might require the registration of parties intending to offer Mayoral candidates also. The new clause is designed to accept that recommendation and enshrine it in the law.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Would the hon. Gentleman want that principle to be extended to his constituency, so that it was required in law that the people of Croydon, South should follow similar procedures?

Mr. Ottaway

Frankly, I am pretty relaxed about it, because that is what happens now.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

What about the selection process?

Mr. Ottaway

I could not agree with the recommendation more, because it is essential that the public believe in the system. As for our selection process, we have a first round, a second round and a final round, and everyone involved in the process is a party member, elected by other members as a representative. That is the only way in which one can get on to the committees.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Yes, but should that be enshrined in the law?

Mr. Ottaway

As I said, I am perfectly relaxed about that, because what I have described is what happens, except in the Labour party. The only way in which the recommendation can be enshrined in the law is for the House to accept the new clause. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great democrat and I am sure that he would not want a central diktat over the method of candidate selection for his party.

Mr. Simon Hughes

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Ottaway

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but time is too short, because of the guillotine.

The Labour party is similar to us, and its document, "Modernising Labour Groups and Local Government: a consultation paper on the Labour Party contribution to implementing Modern Local Government", says:

Is the choice of candidates for mayors purely a local decision? Conference has indicated its support for the principle of OMOV for the selection of mayors. This is included in the proposals for the election procedure for the Party's Mayor of London candidate. The party will need to set out procedures for shortlisting and selection criteria. So far, so good, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) could not disagree with that; but then we come to another document, "Greater London Authority Elections 2000", subtitled "London Assembly Selection Process". Incidentally, I am grateful to whomever in the Labour party is leaking this stuff to me. I do not suspect the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on this occasion, but it might have been one of his friends or supporters.

5.30 pm

Mr. Livingstone

It is unusual for us to get any Labour party documents.

Mr. Ottaway

In the case of this document, I am not surprised, because it states: The London Regional Board shall establish a selections board to compile a panel of interested candidates. The selections board shall consist of 4 members of the regional board from their own members"— So far, so good. However, it continues: 4 members of the NEC"— and that is not so good, because—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

They are elected.

Mr. Ottaway

They may be elected, but they are not elected by London members. They are elected by United Kingdom members. In our judgment and as recommended by the report to the Government office for London, those involved in the selection process should be exclusively from London. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Workington would suggest that he should be involved in the selection of candidates in Scotland. The third group on the selection board are to be 4 members who are prominent and senior Labour Party members in London, who will bring experience and expertise to the panel. There will also be four non-voting members on the panel. The document continues: The independent members and advisers shall be appointed jointly by the Regional Board and the NEC. That shows that the NEC will have a veto over who is selected, and that is the rub—and the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. In my party, everybody who takes part in the selection process does so as the result of a fair and democratic process.

The Labour party's selectors will be imposed by diktat from Millbank and the method of selection is designed to stop the hon. Member for Brent, East becoming the Labour mayoral candidate. The Labour party's proposals abuse the democratic process, damage the reputation of those of us who believe in democracy and damage the Labour party itself. Dr. Margetts and Professor Dunleavy are not out of step or freaks. They have articulated widespread concerns about the method of selection of candidates and it would be in the interests of the Labour party to take heed of what they have said.

Mr. Simon Hughes

New clause 1 is a good proposition. The case for it was made in Committee by us and has not been answered since. For the record, our system entirely accords with the proposal in new clause 1. The power to choose shortlist candidates and to put the candidates before the London membership, who will vote with one member, one vote, was delegated to the London region of the party. It alone, with no veto from the central party, has gone through the procedure and set up the rules. It has appointed the selection panel and undertaken the approval and interviewing, and it will produce the short-list on which the membership in London will vote.

The Labour party has been embarrassed, is embarrassed and will be embarrassed—

Mr. Campbell-Savours

You wish.

Mr. Hughes

I do wish, and I am glad, because the Labour party should not go down that road. The great new Labour party belief in devolution is a fig leaf because in fact a few people in the Cabinet and on the national executive are pulling the strings. We all know about that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone to Wales today because the Welsh election campaign cannot be allowed to run itself and the London election process can be vetoed by the national executive. If the Labour party were a modern democracy, it would support new clause 1. I look forward to its conversion, but I do not believe that it will happen soon.

Mr. Gapesd

We had a long discussion on this issue in Committee on 28 January. What was interesting then, and still appears to be the case, is that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats appear to wish to introduce a system of state control of political parties. If they had been in Czechoslovakia, or the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, they would doubtless have denounced actions taken by the state to determine how political parties determined their own internal processes for the selection of candidates. However, for opportunist reasons, they think that they can make some cheap political points by seizing on this issue, as we have just heard. They think that that looks good before the elections in Scotland and Wales, and that they can use the issue for their own purposes in the future.

The opportunism and rank hypocrisy of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are something to behold. It is outrageous to consider the state control of the way in which political parties choose candidates. If electors do not like the candidates put up by a political party, they will vote for other candidates from other parties; if they like that party's candidates, they will elect them. In a democracy, it is surely not for Parliament or the state to tell political parties how to determine their internal selection processes. For that reason, the new clause should be thrown out.

Mr. Wilkinson

I do not want my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) to feel isolated in any way. I am sure that the new clause meets the wishes of members of the Conservative party, and that it conforms to the natural, democratic instincts of people throughout London.

Labour Members regularly make a song and dance about transparency and openness. Now they have a chance to show that their rhetoric is matched by their behaviour in practice. If they are to live up to their speeches about transparency and accountability to the electorate, they should incorporate new clause 1 into the Bill.

The public are all too cynical about politics in this country. The first election for the London mayor and for the Greater London Authority as a whole represents an opportunity to ensure that the mayor—the figurehead to whom the whole of London will look up—will be elected by wholly democratic means. The processes behind that democratic election should be in the public domain, and those responsible for them must submit a sworn declaration—a testimony—verifying that they are bona fide and in accordance with the democratic principles in which the Conservative party believes.

My final point was alluded to indirectly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). People in London will want the mayor to be the people's choice in London. It is essential that London members of a political party will have the deciding influence over who is chosen as candidate. That requirement is made clear in the new clause, but it is manifestly not part of the Labour party's intentions for this election.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South has made the matter clear, and I am sure that the electorate will not forget it if the Government are remiss enough not to accept new clause 1.

Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

The important issue raised in the Dunleavy and Margetts report is that abuse of power by a political party may, in due course, reflect on and discredit the office of mayor of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked whether that issue required legislation, but legislation is used to correct an abuse, and so far the debate has shown that no abuse of party systems has taken place. The Labour party, like the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties, has a shortlisting system that will be voted on by its individual members.

I urge any hon. Member to come forward if he or she can find a statement from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the leader of the Labour party, or from the chair of the board of the London Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), that would prevent any candidate from standing, or influence the vote. There has been no statement by the Prime Minister to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) from putting his name forward or being selected.

Mr. Bercow

The hon. Gentleman says that no statement has been made to exclude the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) or any other candidate. Would it not be more accurate to say that no on-the-record statement of that sort has been made by any representative of the Government? Have not the Government been briefing against the hon. Member for Brent, East for as long as any of us can remember? Why do they not have the guts to put it on the record?

Mr. McDonnell

Unfortunately, I am not party to off-the-record briefings. There is no statement directly attributable to the Prime Minister, the chair of the London board or any member of the national executive committee to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing.

Mr. Livingstone

There is a statement on the record. I discovered it when I opened my copy of "Turn Again Livingstone", the new biography by John Carvel, price £6.99. He recounts a formal meeting with a Downing street senior official who works directly with the Prime Minister. Points about me were put and the reply was: Tony likes Ken. They can have an amiable chat. He feels it is a terrible waste that his abilities have not been put to work. He is rather depressed about it. I find all that very encouraging.

Mr. McDonnell

That proves that the Prime Minister is, if anything, trying to intercede on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East.

Do we need legislation at this stage to correct an abuse? As there has been no abuse of the system, and as the parties seem to be entering into the democratic spirit—exemplified, to some extent, by the new clause—in the selection of their candidates, I do not feel that legislation is required. However, if at some stage there are abuses of party political selection procedures, we may need to return to the matter. I put it on record that if there is interference in selections, we may need to return to this and I may promote a private Member's Bill.

All parties have a right of redress in respect of abuse from above in their selection systems. In the Labour party, it is the national executive committee. As they cast their votes, Labour party members will bear in mind the performance of NEC members on selection issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town knows, there is also the selection of the members and chair of the London board. There are democratic processes of recall. On that basis, I do not think that the argument for legislation at this stage has been carried.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The thrust of the Conservative new clause is that there is some impropriety in Labour party procedures. As chair of the board of the Greater London Labour party—I am sure that this was pointed out in Committee but I repeat it here—I stress that the board has overwhelmingly endorsed the procedures that we have arrived at. The London board is elected regularly by the 65,000 members of the regional party. The individuals who have been nominated to the selection panel, both from the board and from the NEC, jointly arrived at a consensus.

Mr. Ottaway

If that is the case, is the hon. Gentleman happy for the matter to be left to 63,000 members of the Labour party in London?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

There seems to be some suggestion that London Labour's 65,000 members—I beg to differ on the figure—will not have the final decision. They will.

Mr. McDonnell

There seems to be an insinuation that my hon. Friend seeks to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing. It is worth pointing out that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town has made no attempt to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East from standing. In many instances, he has given positive support to encourage democratic debate.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I am pleased to receive the endorsement of my hon. Friend. London Labour members will ultimately take the decision. The difficulty is that there are too many candidates; we cannot put all 20 or so to the London membership. The number on the final ballot paper will probably be no higher than four. That is our normal procedure for the selection of candidates. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East may well be on that shortlist. It is not a matter on which I can contribute. However, the Labour party is comfortable with its procedures. Whatever the conclusions, the one thing of which we are confident is that the Labour candidate will be mayor for London next May.

5.45 pm

Mr. Raynsford

I am surprised that the Opposition have seen fit to table this measure again, given our extensive debate on the subject in Standing Committee. As I explained in Committee, the measure would, in effect, require political parties to adopt internal selection procedures specified by the state in legislation. It would make the processes by which a particular party selected its mayoral candidate grounds for determining whether or not that candidate was in fact allowed to become mayor.

I am astonished that members of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties should be nailing their colours to the mast of state interference in the organisation of political parties. They know only too well that that is a slippery slope, which, once embarked on, can lead to the worst possible excesses. All too often, such excesses have stained democracy in parts of the world where state interference has been allowed. Members of parties that call themselves Conservative or Liberal Democrat should think very carefully before advocating state interference in the role and work of political parties.

As I made crystal clear in Committee, I cannot accept the measure. The procedure that each party adopts for selecting its candidates for any election must remain a matter for that party, not for the state. If the electors do not like the way in which a particular party selects its candidates, they will no doubt reflect their distaste when they come to vote. Furthermore, as I also pointed out in Committee, the measure could place a heavy burden on smaller parties. They may not have the resources to organise themselves on the lines proposed and might, therefore, find themselves unable to field a candidate, in which case the measure would have the effect of narrowing the electors' range of choice.

Mr. Bercow

Does the Minister not accept that, to a degree, candidate selection is already justiciable by the courts? The Labour party discovered that to its cost in the context of its women-only shortlist policy.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on the extremely visible difference that people see when they look at this place between the relatively reduced, but predominantly male, group of people on the Opposition Benches—men in suits—and the proper representation of women as well as men on the Government Benches. That is the result of the Labour party's commitment to ensuring equal opportunities.

As for the hon. Gentleman's question, it is of course right that political parties must act within the law. It is for the courts to decide. That is different from the state interfering in the processes by which political parties choose their candidates. I put it to Conservative Members, in the nicest possible way, that only members of parties that are in a terminal state of decline or are irredeemably confused could support such measures.

As I understand it, all three major parties will ensure that they have a democratic process for the selection of their candidates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has pointed out, the Labour party will elect its candidate on the basis of one member, one vote. That is clear. Furthermore, all parties will have a shortlisting process—although the Conservatives appear to be a bit confused about that.

In a press statement earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats admitted that they would be drawing up a shortlist of five candidates for mayor by March. They do not seem to have met that target, but never mind; they admit that they are going to draw up a shortlist. As for the Conservatives, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) is rather confused. In Committee, he said: The Tory party is not having any pre-screening panels. However, he continued: In the first round the executive of the Greater London area … will do a paper sift of candidates … If there are 50 candidates, they will reduce the number to, say, 20."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 January 1999; c. 104.] Although the Tories appear to be rather confused about how they are going to shortlist, shortlist they will, so there will be no problem about shortlisting by any political party.

The only argument being advanced relates to whether members of the party nationally should have an input into that process of shortlisting. It is purely the consequence of their party being incorrigibly anarchic, in the case of the Liberal Democrats, or in a state of terminal decline, in the case of the Tories, that Opposition Members believe that parties centrally should have no role to play in the selection of a candidate for the major post of mayor of London. The Opposition's proposals are opportunistic, inappropriate and disingenuous, and they deserve to be rejected.

Mr. Ottaway

What we are hearing is mock outrage masquerading as democracy. There is no doubt that the Conservative party selects its candidates only through those who are members of the party. There is no central diktat in the Conservative party, nor in the Liberal Democrat party; it is the Labour party that is being undemocratic. The Minister says that he believes in one member, one vote, but that is only if that one member lives at No. 10 Downing street. We shall divide the House on this new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 285.

Division No. 162]	[5.51 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Allan, Richard	Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Amess, David	Brady, Graham
Ancram, Rt Hon Michael	Brake, Tom
Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James	Breed, Colin
Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)	Browning, Mrs Angela
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Ballard, Jackie	Burnett, John
Bercow, John	Burstow, Paul
Blunt, Crispin	Butterfill, John
Boswell, Tim	Cable, Dr Vincent

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies	King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
(NE Fife)	Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Cash, William	Lansley, Andrew
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Leigh, Edward
(Chipping Barnet)	Lidington, David
Clappison, James	Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)	Llwyd, Elfyn
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)	Luff, Peter
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Cran, James	MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Curry, Rt Hon David	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Maples, John
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
& Howden)	May, Mrs Theresa
Day, Stephen	Moss, Malcolm
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen	Norman, Archie
Duncan Smith, Iain	Ottaway, Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Page, Richard
Faber, David	Randall, John
Fabricant, Michael	Robathan, Andrew
Fallon, Michael	Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Fearn, Ronnie	Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	St Aubyn, Nick
Fraser, Christopher	Sanders, Adrian
Gale, Roger	Sayeed, Jonathan
Garnier, Edward	Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Gibb, Nick	Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Gill, Christopher	Spicer, Sir Michael
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl	Spring, Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa	Streeter, Gary
Gray, James	Swayne, Desmond
Green, Damian	Syms, Robert
Greenway, John	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Grieve, Dominic	Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Gummer, Rt Hon John	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie	Townend, John
Hammond, Philip	Trend, Michael
Hawkins, Nick	Tyler, Paul
Hayes, John	Viggers, Peter
Heald, Oliver	Walter, Robert
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Wardle, Charles
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David	Waterson, Nigel
Horam, John	Whitney, Sir Raymond
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Whittingdale, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)	Wilkinson, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)	Willis, Phil
Jack, Rt Hon Michael	Wilshire, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Woodward, Shaun
Jenkin, Bernard	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Johnson Smith,
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Tellers for the Ayes:
Keetch, Paul	Sir David Madel and
Key, Robert	Mr. Tim Collins.

NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Bennett, Andrew F
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Berry, Roger
Allen, Graham	Best, Harold
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Betts, Clive
Anderson, Janet(Rossendale)	Blackman, Liz
Atherton, Ms Candy	Blears, Ms Hazel
Atkins, Charlotte	Blizzard, Bob
Austin, John	Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Banks, Tony	Boateng, Paul
Barnes, Harry	Borrow, David
Barron, Kevin	Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Bayley, Hugh	Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Beard, Nigel	Bradshaw, Ben
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret	Brinton, Mrs Helen
Bell, Martin (Tatton)	Buck, Ms Karen
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)	Burden, Richard
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Healey, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Hepburn, Stephen
Cann, Jamie	Heppell, John
Caplin, Ivor	Hesford, Stephen
Casale, Roger	Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Hill, Keith
Clapham, Michael	Hinchliffe, David
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)	Hodge, Ms Margaret
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)	Hood, Jimmy
Clelland, David	Hoon, Geoffrey
Coffey, Ms Ann	Hope, Phil
Cohen, Harry	Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Coleman, Iain	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Colman, Tony	Hoyle, Lindsay
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Corbyn, Jeremy	Humble, Mrs Joan
Corston, Ms Jean	Hutton, John
Cousins, Jim	Iddon, Dr Brian
Cranston, Ross	Illsley, Eric
Crausby, David	Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Jenkins, Brian
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Cummings, John	Johnson, Miss Melanie
Cunliffe, Lawrence	(Welwyn Hatfield)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)	Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair	Jones, Ms Jenny
Darvill, Keith	(Wolverh'ton SW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Dawson, Hilton	Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Dean, Mrs Janet	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Denham, John	Keeble, Ms Sally
Dismore, Andrew	Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dobbin, Jim	Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank	Kelly, Ms Ruth
Doran, Frank	Kemp, Fraser
Dowd, Jim	Khabra, Piara S
Drew, David	Kidney, David
Drown, Ms Julia	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)	Kingham, Ms Tess
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Kumar, Dr Ashok
Efford, Clive	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ellman, Mrs Louise	Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ennis, Jeff	Laxton, Bob
Etherington, Bill	Lepper, David
Field, Rt Hon Frank	Leslie, Christopher
Fisher, Mark	Levitt, Tom
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Fitzsimons, Lorna	Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Flint, Caroline	Linton, Martin
Flynn, Paul	Livingstone, Ken
Follett, Barbara	Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek	Lock, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Love, Andrew
Fyfe, Maria	McAvoy, Thomas
Galloway, George	McCabe, Steve
Gapes, Mike	McCafferty, Ms Chris
Gardiner, Barry	McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
George, Bruce (Walsall S)	(Makerfield)
Gerrard, Neil	McDonagh, Siobhain
Gibson, Dr Ian	McDonnell, John
Godsiff, Roger	Mackinlay, Andrew
Goggins, Paul	McNulty, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin	Mactaggart, Fiona
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	McWalter, Tony
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)	McWilliam, John
Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Grocott, Bruce	Mallaber, Judy
Grogan, John	Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Gunnell, John	Marsden,Gordon (Blackpool S)
Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)	Marsden,Paul (Shrewsbury)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet	Martlew, Eric
Heal, Mrs Sylvia	Maxton, John

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael	Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Meale, Alan	Smith, Miss Geraldine
Merron, Gillian	(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Miller, Andrew	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mitchell, Austin	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Moffatt, Laura	Snape, Peter
Moran, Ms Margaret	Soley, Clive
Morley, Elliot	Spellar, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)	Squire, Ms Rachel
Mountford, Kali	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mudie, George	Steinberg, Gerry
Mullin, Chris	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)	Stoate, Dr Howard
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)	Stott, Roger
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)	Stringer, Graham
Olner, Bill	Stuart, Ms Gisela
Organ, Mrs Diana	Sutcliffe, Gerry
Palmer, Dr Nick	Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Pearson, Ian	(Dewsbury)
Pendry, Tom	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Perham, Ms Linda	Temple-Morris, Peter
Pickthall, Colin	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Pike, Peter L	Timms, Stephen
Plaskitt, James	Tipping, Paddy
Pond, Chris	Todd, Mark
Pope, Greg	Trickett, Jon
Pound, Stephen	Truswell, Paul
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)	Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Primarolo, Dawn	Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Prosser, Gwyn	Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Purchase, Ken	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Quinn, Lawrie	Vaz, Keith
Radice, Giles	Vis, Dr Rudi
Rapson, Syd	Walley, Ms Joan
Raynsford, Nick	Ward, Ms Claire
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)	Wareing, Robert N
Robertson, Rt Hon George	Watts, David
(Hamilton S)	White, Brian
Roche, Mrs Barbara	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Rooker, Jeff	Wicks, Malcolm
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Ruane, Chris	(Swansea W)
Ruddock, Joan	Wills, Michael
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)	Winnick, David
Ryan, Ms Joan	Wise, Audrey
Salter, Martin	Wood, Mike
Sawford, Phil	Worthington, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian	Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Sheerman, Barry	Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Wyatt, Derek
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)	Tellers for the Noes:
Skinner, Dennis	Mr. David Jamieson and
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)	Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.