§ Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("(d) for or in connection with enabling electors to vote in the poll at such polling stations or other places as may be prescribed, at such times as may be prescribed, on such one or more days preceding the date specified in or provided under subsection (1) above for the poll as may be specified in the order.
( ) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph (d) of subsection (4) above includes provision for such enactments or statutory instruments as may be specified in the order to have effect with such modifications as may be so specified.
( ) In this section "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order under this section.")
Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5, 7 to 11 and 586 to 611.
§ Mr. Raynsford
This group of amendments deals with a range of matters relating to the election of the mayor and Assembly. It provides for a system of early voting, amends the Representation of the People Act 1983 to take account of the new electoral arrangements—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Raynsford
This group of amendments will amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to take account of the new electoral arrangements that the Bill introduces; provide for the filling of a vacancy in the office of mayor in particular circumstances; and give the Secretary of State powers, by order, to set limits on campaign expenditure and to incur expenditure on the Greater London Authority's first election in advance of the appointment of the Greater London returning officer. The group also includes a number of drafting or technical amendments.
552 I commend the amendments to the House. If any hon. Member wishes to raise a point of detail, I shall be happy further to explain the amendments.
§ Mr. Woodward
We have various concerns about this group of amendments, particularly its late introduction and precipitate consideration in another place. However, because of the short time that the Government have afforded for debate on the Bill, I shall address my remarks specifically to Lords amendment No. 2, on early voting, which seeks to introduce a completely novel system at the first election to a completely novel authority. We oppose the amendment.
We support sensible measures to increase the often dismal turnout at local elections—turnout at Britain's local elections is often the lowest of all European Union member states. We also do not in principle oppose the concept of early voting. In June 1998, in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Conservative party largely supported the principle. However, we believe that introducing early voting at the first London election would be one experiment too far.
It has already been decided that an untried, untested system of electronic counting will be used at the election. It is debatable whether computer scans, rather than hand-counted votes, will increase transparency of the process. Voters already feel perplexed by the election, thanks to the convoluted electoral system giving each Londoner four votes. Few members of the public—indeed, few hon. Members—could properly explain the system to be used for electing Assembly members, and I suspect that only a few more hon. Members could wax more lyrical about the supplementary vote to be used to elect the mayor.
It would be ironic if the early voting experiment, which is designed to increase turnout, has the opposite effect of decreasing turnout, making voters feel even more distant from the process. A simpler process would have keener followers.
Contrary to an argument advanced by the Government, the experiment will be of no use to those analysing the impact of early voting on turnout. There has never been a Greater London Authority election. The place to run a trial of early voting is surely in local government elections, in which a change in turnout could be compared with results over many years.
As I said, the experiment could diminish turnout below the levels of interest that this high-profile, personality-driven campaign might otherwise attract—however, with no baseline comparison to make, we shall never know. If early voting is to be explored as an option, we should favour pilot projects. The first election for a mayor and Assembly for London should not be a pilot project for anything other than itself.
Clause 3 is badly drafted and vague. I wrote to the Minister for some clarification on the clause, as I thought that it might be helpful to have such clarification before this debate. On Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), replied:The Government Office for London wrote to the London Boroughs and the Common Council in August seeking initial comments on outline proposals…I have placed a copy of the letter in the House Library. We are considering the responses received".—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 81.]553 The House is therefore being asked today to pass legislation before the Government have even finished considering responses to the outline proposals.
The clause, without going into any further detail, would give the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers—we have become rather used to those with this rather autocratic Government—to allow voting at places other than polling stations. The Secretary of State would have the power to set polling hours and to permit early voting on any number of days prior to polling day. That runs counter to the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that that should apply only from the Monday of polling week onwards. The Secretary of State has the power to make changes to enactments. The amendment mentions little about safeguards, and I look forward to the Minister telling us about those this afternoon.
There is nothing to ban exit polling of early voting. Is it the intention of the Minister so to do? It is clear that the early release of exit polling data can and does materially affect election results. We do not know who will pay the extra bills for early voting. I imagine that the Minister for Housing and Planning—taking part not in his advisory role, but once again at the Dispatch Box—will inform us. Who will pay for the guarding of ballot boxes outside polling hours? What will be the implications for the police?
One of the biggest concerns in the boroughs is the risk of personation—multiple voting by the same individual, whose multiple appearance over several days is not recognised by officials at the polling station. What specific steps is the Minister taking to prevent that? Or is this yet another area for consideration which the Government have not yet considered? We are being asked to pass a measure which—like much of the Bill—the Government have not thought through.
§ Mr. Bercow
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly incumbent upon the Government in this case immediately to provide practical reassurance that their procedures do not provide scope for personation, in view of the fact that, in another area of Government legislation, the Government are undoubtedly guilty of providing exactly such scope for personation—namely in relation to petitions for grammar schools?
§ Mr. Woodward
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope the Minister will take those matters seriously. The Government have a lot of experience of canvassing individuals for their votes. Perhaps more consideration has been given to running the campaigns of individual members of the Labour party than to the proper business of the Minister—the consideration of his responsibilities for organising early voting and telling the House today what the implications and safeguards will be.
The Government office for London wrote to electoral registration officers on 10 August this year, outlining the proposal to allow early voting from 9 am on Thursday 27 April to 5 pm on Sunday 30 April. Polling hours would be 9 am and 9 pm on Thursday to Friday, and 9 am and 5 pm on Saturday and Sunday. With the polls open on Sunday, there would be three clear days before polling day proper. Why is the experiment not conforming to the advice of the Home Affairs Committee, which proposed having one early polling station per borough, located centrally? This is an experiment too far.
554 This is already a highly complex new situation in London. Why have the Government not looked at ways of making proxy and, in particular, postal votes more easily obtainable for Londoners—as that very probably would be a far better solution for London next year? We should retain an open mind on closely monitored trials for early voting where the impact on turnout patterns can be measured, but not in this election. This amendment carries high risks and high costs, and the House should not agree to it.
§ Mr. Forth
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). What disturbs me more than anything is that this radical measure is being slipped in at this stage, when the House cannot do justice to it. Any change to our electoral and voting procedures is of great importance and should be made only after great thought and with caution. To suggest such a general and loose wording is completely unacceptable, and I hope that the House will oppose the amendment for that reason.
In any case, I am not convinced that we need to make voting easier for the electorate. I do not take a patronising attitude to voters which assumes that they are incapable of getting to voting station in the generous hours that are currently allowed to them. I do not start from the same assumption as many: that our voters are stupid or incapable of getting to a polling station.
Even if I made such an assumption, and thus patronised the electorate, the provisions of the Lords amendments would not be the right way to deal with the problem. I would want more reassurance than the amendments could possibly provide about the security of such an approach to voting. As soon as we start to spread voting procedures physically and chronologically, we are in danger of losing the control that has been such an integral and important part of the voting process since it began in this country.
The risks outweigh any potential or claimed benefits of the dubious proposal to extend the voting process by the means that the Lords amendments describe so vaguely and inadequately. We have no idea whatpolling stations or other places as may be prescribed, on such one or more days preceding the date specifiedmeans. The process threatens to become dangerously out of control and could jeopardise the foundations of our electoral system, which we have rightly taken for granted because of the excellence of the provisions to which we are accustomed, and of the work of electoral registration officers and others. The Lords amendments, which the Government support, are unacceptable. The House should throw out Lords amendment No. 2, and insist on proper consideration before it is brought back.
§ Mr. Brooke
Arrangements in my constituency have always been in advance of those in the rest of the country. When the Great Reform Act 1832 was passed, the franchise in Westminster declined because its parameters were more liberal than the Act's provisions.
In 1784, at the end of the first week's polling in a six-week campaign, my predecessor, Mr. Charles James Fox, was 300 votes behind in an electorate of about 6,000. The Duchess of Devonshire was brought in, and in the next five weeks kissed every tapman and navigator between Hounslow and Temple Bar, and Mr. Fox was returned. The state of the poll was made known regularly 555 during the six weeks. In 1846, although polling occurred at least on one day, the result of the poll was declared at every hour, so that both parties knew what was happening.
I assume from Lords amendment No. 2 that what I have described constitute the evils of conservatism, and that what we are promised in the next century are the benign benefits of radical modernisation. However, I must disagree.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is as informative as ever, but he failed to make it clear that Charles James Fox was not his immediate predecessor, for which we—and probably he—are grateful.
We welcome Lords amendment No. 2 and the thrust of the group of amendments. I want merely to reflect an aggravation for voters. People often realise too late that an election will be held and that they will not be in their constituencies. I hope that the Lords amendments will provide for orders to be made to allow people who know that they will be away, and have only just discovered that a poll is to be held, to register and cast their vote by post or proxy up to the last minute. Inability to do that is a perpetual frustration.
People regularly claim that they would have voted if they had known about the election in time. If we can do something about that, we will improve the reliability of an election's outcome, its reflection of the community's views and the credibility of the exercise by maximising the number of people who vote.
§ Mr. Wilshire
The Minister said that the proposal was for early voting. That put me in mind of, "Vote early, vote often." That is at the heart of why I am opposed to it. It is foolish in the extreme and simply asking for trouble to try to do yet more things on an occasion when we are voting for a mayor and an Assembly of a type that we have never had before, with two ballots on the same day using two different systems. That is to play fast and loose with the electoral process. When politicians start tinkering with the electoral process alarm bells should start ringing all over the place.
Having been a councillor, I understand why people would like more than 30 per cent. to vote in council elections, but I have observed that in a general election, using exactly the same system, for some mysterious reason 70 per cent. are able to cope. I simply do not buy the idea that when there is a local election it becomes impossible for those same people to vote again. The simple explanation for only 30 per cent. bothering to vote is that only 30 per cent. could care less. The moral is not to play fast and loose with the electoral system but somehow to make local government more relevant and important to electors. If the Assembly and the mayor are to be so important, so popular and so good, 70 per cent. will surely turn up, so why worry? If we use the same system and only 30 per cent. turn up, the message to the Government will be clear.
I am seriously worried about tinkering in this way. If we are to go down this route, because the majority says that we should, we should settle for the principle that every elector can vote at only one place rather than having electors running all over the place whenever and wherever 556 they like. How else will the candidates have any chance of checking on personation? Voting early and often becomes much more likely if there are lots of different polling places.
We should limit the number of voters who can vote at any one place. How on earth can a returning officer and a presiding officer cope with anyone on the entire register being able to turn up, without either chaos ensuing, producing a flawed result, or queues forming that are so long as to put people off voting?
§ Mr. Wilkinson
The amendment might be thought frivolous but it is deadly serious, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made plain. Any monkeying about with the electoral system should be undertaken only after the most careful scrutiny and with plenty of notice. The amendment has simply been popped into the Bill at the Government's behest to suit their convenience, because they realise that the Assembly and the mayoralty are not likely to arouse much public interest and they have to find a way of getting more people to vote.
The concept of a multiplicity of polling places belittles the seriousness and importance of a voting day as an occasion. Voting is one of the most important functions that a citizen can fulfil. We should not trivialise it. The Labour party talks about voting in supermarkets and other public places—no doubt hairdressers will be next—but that will make it like filling in a national lottery form rather than exercising a democratic franchise on which the good governance of the country depends.
There is a very real danger of personation if the polling process takes place over several days. I am sure that it will be argued that if the turnout persists in being low, even with early polling, we ought to have late polling. That happened when I was an observer at an election in Peru. I do not think that it affected the result but it is not good electoral practice to have late polling or polling over several days—we heard earlier about exit polls influencing a result—as political and economic circumstances can change and make a material difference to the outcome. That is why traditional voting hours make good sense.
One of my memories of the February 1974 general election may make people realise how important the problem of impersonation is. Had I won at that election, I would not tell this story, but one of my Pakistani supporters came up to me in the university ward in Bradford, West and said, "Mr. John, Mr. John, I have done very well. Not only have I voted for you, but I have voted on behalf of my brother, who is in Pakistan, and my uncle, who died last year." I can tell that story because I did not get in, and it reveals the seriousness of the problem of personation.
§ Mr. Randall
I echo what has been said by my hon. Friends. I am appalled that such an innovation should be brought into the Bill at such a late stage. We had many happy hours on the Standing Committee, and, if the Government had wanted to introduce such a system, I cannot understand why they did not do so then. There are important questions that should have been be debated, but knowing the Liberal Democrats' propensity to debate such matters for ever, I have a slight feeling of dread that if that had happened, we might still be in the Standing Committee 557 now. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats have accepted the amendment so easily; its wording is so wishy-washy, and would allow so many different things to happen, that it should be rejected straight away.
All sorts of questions have been raised, and I agree with what has been said about exit polls. There is always a bandwagon effect, and we should be careful to ensure that exit polls are not made public, or perhaps do not take place at all.
As a former campaigning agent, I have some advice for the Minister. In my experience, it is difficult enough to cope with one election day, so if he had to deal with an election taking place over several days he might lose even more of his hair. Will schools that are used as polling stations be shut for considerable periods? Will supermarkets be used, or even furniture stores? There are some very important matters to discuss.
I cannot understand why the people of London are to be treated as guinea pigs. The main meat of the Bill—the Assembly and the mayor—already makes them guinea pigs, and the people in my constituency are not particularly happy about that. They will be even less happy about having the new arrangement thrust in at the last moment as well.
Why is that happening? Is it a desperate attempt to get more core Labour voters to turn out? I suggest that the reason why they do not come out now is not because they have not got time, but because they do not want to. Keeping the polling stations open for longer, and on other days, will make no difference.
I have great respect for the Minister after all those hours on the Standing Committee. I know that he is an honourable man and he did an excellent job. I therefore ask him whether he will kindly withdraw the amendment—although I do not know whether he can do that, as it is a Lords amendment. I promise that if the Government agree to withdraw it—or not to agree with it, or whatever—I shall say no more about it, but will put it down to campaigning exuberance and the Minister's desire to please his master.
§ Mr. Raynsford
We have had an interesting debate, which seemed to reveal a degree of panic in the Conservative party at the idea of anything designed to make it easier for people to vote. The suggestion that early voting will discourage turnout is nonsense, and the idea that civilisation will end if we break the habit of allowing people to vote in local elections only on the first Thursday in May was well demolished by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), with his delightful descriptions of voting patterns in the 18th and 19th centuries.
All that this modest proposal will do is to give powers to the Secretary of State to introduce an arrangement for voting in advance. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly pointed out, the amendment is simply a response to the problem of people finding, relatively late in the campaign, that they will be away but have not registered in time for a postal or proxy vote. To cover that eventuality, this modest proposal is designed to make it easier for some people to retain their democratic rights. I find it astonishing that the proposal should have been treated as it has been by the Conservatives.
558 In response to the question put by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I can confirm that we are consulting with local authorities on the best way to achieve advance voting. They have practical considerations to take into account, but we wish to engineer it so that—
§ Mr. Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman thinks that it is funny that we are talking seriously with local government about how to introduce arrangements that will work and enable people to vote who otherwise could not. He may regard the failure of democracy, when people cannot vote, as gerrymandering: we do not. It is in everyone's interests that people should be able to vote if they are entitled to do so. I am appalled by the hon. Gentleman's casual attitude and the smirk on his face when I am talking about serious matters.
§ Mr. Raynsford
No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had a smirk on his face while we were making serious proposals to make it possible for people to vote who would otherwise find that their democratic rights are denied. The Labour party believes in democracy, but the Conservative party has once again shown its contempt for democracy and why it is the party of conservatism.
§ Mr. Woodward
If the Minister so strongly believes in one member, one vote, why will he not allow it to be used for the selection of the Labour party candidate for mayor?
§ Mr. Raynsford
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the subject of this debate. I will take no lessons from him on democracy. We are talking about making it easier for people to vote in the GLA elections in May next year and I shall not be diverted by him into another channel. He should know that. If he spent more time doing his own job properly, instead of making cheap gibes at other people—including a distasteful personal attack in which the Deputy Speaker had to intervene in an earlier debate—the hon. Gentleman would do the House a service. Perhaps he might show a little more judgment in future.
This modest measure is designed to ensure that we help people to vote who otherwise would be unable to do so. That may increase the turnout or it may not. I cannot guarantee that it will achieve the objective of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and improve the reliability of the outcome. That is hoping for too much from measures that are modest but appropriate. I hope that the House will endorse them.
§ Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 119.561
|Division No. 294]||[5.43 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary|
|Ainger, Nick||Austin, John|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Barnes, Harry|
|Alexander, Douglas||Barron, Kevin|
|Allan, Richard||Battle, John|
|Allen, Graham||Bayley, Hugh|
|Beard, Nigel||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)|
|Bell, Martin (Tatton)||Edwards, Huw|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Efford, Clive|
|Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)||Ennis, Jeff|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Etherington, Bill|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Field, Rt Hon Frank|
|Berry, Roger||Fisher, Mark|
|Best, Harold||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Betts, Clive||Fitzsimons, Lorna|
|Blackman, Liz||Flint, Caroline|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Flynn, Paul|
|Blizzard, Bob||Follett, Barbara|
|Blunkett, Rt Hon David||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Boateng, Paul||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Borrow, David||Foster, Michael J (Worcester)|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Foulkes, George|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Gapes, Mike|
|Brake, Tom||Gardiner, Barry|
|Breed, Colin||Gerrard, Neil|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)||Godman, Dr Norman A|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Godsiff, Roger|
|Burden, Richard||Goggins, Paul|
|Burstow, Paul||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Gordon, Mrs Eileen|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)|
|Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Grogan, John|
|Cann, Jamie||Hain, Peter|
|Caplin, Ivor||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Casale, Roger||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Caton, Martin||Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)|
|Cawsey, Ian||Hanson, David|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet|
|Chaytor, David||Heal, Mrs Sylvia|
|Chidgey, David||Healey, John|
|Clapham, Michael||Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)|
|Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)||Hepburn, Stephen|
|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||Hope, Phil|
|Corbett, Robin||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Howarth, Alan (Newport E)|
|Corston, Ms Jean||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Cotter, Brian||Hoyle, Lindsay|
|Cousins, Jim||Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)|
|Cranston, Ross||Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)|
|Crausby, David||Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Cryer, John (Hornchurch)||Hurst, Alan|
|Cummings, John||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Illsley, Eric|
|Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire||Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Darling, Rt Hon Alistair||Jamieson, David|
|Davey, Edward (Kingston)||Jenkins, Brian|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)||Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)|
|Dawson, Hilton||Jones, Helen (Warrington N)|
|Denham, John||Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)|
|Dismore, Andrew||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)|
|Dobbin, Jim||Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)|
|Dobson, Rt Hon Frank||Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Keeble, Ms Sally|
|Doran, Frank||Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)|
|Dowd, Jim||Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)|
|Drew, David||Kemp, Fraser|
|Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)||Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce|
|Khabra, Piara S||Quinn, Lawrie|
|Kidney, David||Radice, Rt Hon Giles|
|King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)||Raynsford, Nick|
|Kirkwood, Archy||Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)|
|Kumar, Dr Ashok||Rendel, David|
|Ladyman, Dr Stephen||Roche, Mrs Barbara|
|Lawrence, Ms Jackie||Rooker, Jeff|
|Laxton, Bob||Rooney, Terry|
|Lepper, David||Rowlands, Ted|
|Leslie, Christopher||Ruddock, Joan|
|Levitt, Tom||Russell, Bob (Colchester)|
|Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)||Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)|
|Lewis, Terry (Worsley)||Ryan, Ms Joan|
|Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen||Salter, Martin|
|Linton, Martin||Sarwar, Mohammad|
|Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)||Savidge, Malcolm|
|Love, Andrew||Sawford, Phil|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Sedgemore, Brian|
|McCabe, Steve||Shaw, Jonathan|
|McCafferty, Ms Chris||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|Short, Rt Hon Clare|
|McDonagh, Siobhain||Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)|
|McDonnell, John||Singh, Marsha|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Skinner, Dennis|
|McIsaac, Shona||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McKenna, Mrs Rosemary||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Mackinlay, Andrew||Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)|
|McWalter, Tony||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|McWilliam, John||Snape, Peter|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Soley, Clive|
|Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)||Squire, Ms Rachel|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Martlew, Eric||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Meale, Alan||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Merron, Gillian||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)||Stringer, Graham|
|Milburn, Rt Hon Alan||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Miller, Andrew||Stunell, Andrew|
|Moffatt, Laura||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Moran, Ms Margaret||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)|
|Mountford, Kali||Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)|
|Mudie, George||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Mullin, Chris||Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)|
|Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)||Timms, Stephen|
|Naysmith, Dr Doug||Tipping, Paddy|
|O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)||Todd, Mark|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)||Touhig, Don|
|Olner, Bill||Trickett, Jon|
|O'Neill, Martin||Turner, Neil (Wigan)|
|Öpik, Lembit||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Organ, Mrs Diana||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Osborne, Ms Sandra||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Pearson, Ian||Tyler, Paul|
|Pendry, Tom||Tynan, Bill|
|Perham, Ms Linda||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Pickthall, Colin||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Pike, Peter L||Wareing, Robert N|
|Plaskitt, James||Watts, David|
|Pollard, Kerry||Webb, Steve|
|Pond, Chris||White, Brian|
|Pope, Greg||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Pound, Stephen||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Powell, Sir Raymond||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)|
|Prosser, Gwyn||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Purchase, Ken||Wills, Michael|
|Wilson, Brian||Wray, James|
|Winnick, David||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)||Wyatt, Derek|
|Wood, Mike||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Woolas, Phil||Mr. Kevin Hughes and|
|Worthington, Tony||Mr. Tony McNulty.|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)|
|Amess, David||Loughton, Tim|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Luff, Peter|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas|
|Baldry, Tony||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Beggs, Roy||McIntosh, Miss Anne|
|Bercow, John||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Blunt, Crispin||Madel, Sir David|
|Body, Sir Richard||Malins, Hurnfrey|
|Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)||Maples, John|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia||Mates, Michael|
|Brady, Graham||Maude, Rt Hon Francis|
|Brazier, Julian||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||May, Mrs Theresa|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Moss, Malcolm|
|Burns, Simon||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)||Norman, Archie|
|O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)|
|Clappison, James||Ottaway, Richard|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)||Page, Richard|
|Collins, Tim||Paice, James|
|Colvin, Michael||Paterson, Owen|
|Cran, James||Pickles, Eric|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||Prior, David|
|Davies, Quentin (Grantham)||Randall, John|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Duncan, Alan||Robathan, Andrew|
|Duncan Smith, Iain||Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)|
|Evans, Nigel||Ruffley, David|
|Faber, David||St Aubyn, Nick|
|Fabricant, Michael||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Fallon, Michael||Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Shepherd, Richard|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|Fox Dr Liam||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Gale, Roger||Spring, Richard|
|Garnier, Edward||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Gibb, Nick||Swayne, Desmond|
|Gill, Christopher||Syms, Robert|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Gray, James||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Green, Damian||Townend, John|
|Greenway, John||Tredinnick, David|
|Grieve, Dominic||Trend, Michael|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Hawkins, Nick||Viggers, Peter|
|Heald, Oliver||Wardle, Charles|
|Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David||Waterson, Nigel|
|Horam, John||Wells, Bowen|
|Howard, Rt Hon Michael||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)||Whittingdale, John|
|Jack, Rt Hon Michael||Wilkinson, John|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Willetts, David|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Wilshire, David|
|Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|Key, Robert||Yeo, Tim|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Laing, Mrs Eleanor|
|Lait, Mrs Jacqui||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)||Mr. John M. Taylor and|
|Lidington, David||Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.562
§ Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5 agreed to.
§ Lords amendment No. 6 disagreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 11 agreed to [one with Special Entry].