HC Deb 04 July 2000 vol 353 cc282-93 '( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a form of proportional representation for elections to local authorities in England and Wales. ( ) No statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) above shall be made unless it has been approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster

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

Members present who served on the Committee that considered the Bill will be well aware that a considerable amount of our time was spent debating what measures could be taken to improve the public's interest and involvement in local government, and in particular what measures could be taken that would improve turnout at local government elections.

It became increasingly clear that it is the Government's view—erroneous, in my opinion—that turnout at local elections is likely to be increased as a result of their measures to change the decision-making structure of local government. The view that was expressed from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to some extent supported by Conservative Members, was that such moves were unlikely to make any change in the turnout at local elections, but that two measures might go some way to achieve that much desired aim. The first, as I said earlier, would be to increase the power of local government to ensure that it could take steps to respond to the concerns of the people that it sought to serve; the second would be to change the electoral system.

Mr. Michael Thrasher of Plymouth university, an expert in these matters, has estimated that where a form of proportional representation for local government elections is introduced it will be likely to increase turnout by about 7 per cent. That may not seem a particularly significant increase, but given that the starting point is in the order of about 30 per cent., that is a rather more significant increase than it might at first appear.

It was not merely to increase turnout at local elections that we tabled the new clause, however. We did so because we believe that in local government, as in all other spheres of government, the electors have a right to ensure that their voice is heard, and heard in the sense that the parties that they represent, and seek to represent by their votes, are appropriately represented in that particular governing body. The House is well aware that, at present, there are, up and down the land, a number of local councils that are, in effect, one-party states. There are a number of examples where that one-party state is a Labour one-party state, examples where it is Conservative, and even examples where it is Liberal Democrat.

I was speaking only the other day to the leader of Richmond upon Thames council, who pointed out that he has on his council something like 80 per cent. of the seats, having achieved for Liberal Democrats fewer than 50 per cent. of the votes.

Confronted with the problems of an unfair electoral system, it is interesting to note that the Government have already responded. They have seen to the introduction—perhaps not in the form that Liberal Democrats would like—of proportional representation for the European elections, for the Greater London Assembly elections, for the elections for the National Assembly for Wales and for the Scottish Parliament. Of course, for elections to the Assembly and for local government in Northern Ireland, there has been a form of PR for some time. Shortly, we shall see Labour party support in Scotland for the introduction of PR for local government.

Mr. Wigley

In the normal run of events, I would very much want to support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Assembly for Wales, so why would the new clause provide for orders to be introduced by a Secretary of State, but make no provision whatever for the power to be used by the National Assembly for Wales in the way other measures in the Bill make such provision?

Mr. Foster

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Perhaps, he rightly shows a possible deficiency in the package of measures that we have introduced. It is up to him to introduce additional proposals to rectify that possible omission, but I am delighted that he said that we would have his support for the measures, subject to the further provision being made. I remind him that there will be a further opportunity in another place to attend to that matter. Were he to arrange for that to be done, he would have the support of my colleagues in another place. I am grateful to him for raising this point.

Having seen the Government's interest in moving towards PR in a number of the tiers of governance in this country, I merely seek to give them the opportunity to introduce it for the tier of local government. As I have said, there are many good reasons for doing that. One would certainly be to bring to an end the problem of the many councils—about 90—that are run by a single party with 80 per cent. or more of the seats. Indeed, there is a further problem with the nature of the current system. It does not very often lead to changes in political control. Some 55 local authorities have been under the same political control for more 20 years.

Most fair-minded Members of the House would accept that there are problems to be addressed and might accept that the introduction of PR may go some way to solving them. If they do not wish to be fair-minded in that sense and are merely concerned with their own party political interest, it is worth reflecting that continuation of the first-past-the-post system may lead to significant problems for some of the parties represented in the House.

Research shows that, following the most recent local government elections, a continuation of the first-past-the-post arrangement could lead to a significant reduction in the Labour party's representation in local government in subsequent years. If there is merely a concern about party issues, the Labour party at least might wish to do something about the electoral system. Again, according to the research, first-past-the-post systems were primarily responsible for the dramatic fall in the number of Conservative councillors from 1979 to 1997. Their number more than halved.

10.30 pm

The question then is what support there might be for such measures. Interestingly, support is very wide ranging. The Local Government Association—whose chairman I shall return to in a moment—the Local Government Information Unit, the New Local Government Network, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, the Scottish Council Foundation and others have spoken of the merits of moving to PR for local government.

Politicians of all parties have expressed support for PR. It will come as no surprise that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have, over the years, made comments in support. However, it is perhaps more instructive to note the views of those such as Sir Jeremy Beecham, who said in 1998: In too many town halls today there is no effective opposition. The introduction of a reformed local electoral system, which will give representation to opposition parties and which more accurately reflects their electoral performance, is needed. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), in a document that he wrote with Mr. Andrew Adonis, advocates the introduction of PR to break up single-party states and to make sure that decisions are scrutinised by a viable opposition. The Minister of State has continually expressed concern about scrutiny.

On the Conservative Benches, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has spoken a number of times about his support for PR. On one occasion he said: What I don't understand is why the government hasn't simply opted for proportional representation. He went on to argue that PR is far simpler than holding referendums, and that as we are beginning to have PR in other tiers of government, we should introduce it to local government.

Turning to the Labour Benches, while it is well known that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Home Secretary, rejects the introduction of PR for Westminster, at least at present, he has said: But I've also always said that there's a very different case when it comes to the voting systems at a local level. I also have quotes from various members of Plaid Cymru, the party of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and from members of other parties.

That is instructive, but is also useful to know what the media are saying about PR. The Mirror has argued in favour of it so that no party can ever totally dominate for years. Mr. Peter Riddell in The Times has argued that without PR, Labour will continue to be embarrassed by its one-party local states. Support has come from the Local Government Chronicle, Mr. Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer, editorials in The Independent and various writers in The Guardian.

Again, that is all very well, but academics who see the matter in a different light have also provided support for the argument. Professors George Jones and John Stewart are among those who have argued in favour of PR. Interestingly, support also comes even from the world of business and commerce. For example, Lord Haskins, chair of Northern Foods, said: Strong local government needs the backing of the local community, and the best possible people as councillors. Proportional representation is one of the best ways to achieve this. There is growing support on both sides of the House, throughout the media and among the population at large for the introduction of PR.

Proportional representation at local government level would ensure a fair voting system in this country in which people's votes really would count. Only when people feel that their votes will count are they likely to even bother to go out to vote. To those who are concerned about turnout and the involvement of local people in local government, I strongly suggest that the introduction of PR would go a long way to resolve their concerns.

Although my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have a clear view as to our preferred option—the particular form of PR that we want—I stress that we have not incorporated that in the new clause. We have left the matter open for wide-ranging debate before the House discussed the regulations that we propose and before the Secretary of State introduced them. By its very nature, the new clause is enabling. It would enable much wider debate before the introduction of a form of PR, but PR is what local government and local people need and deserve.

Mr. Neil Turner

I am not opposed to proportional representation per se. [Interruption.] We need to look at an institution before deciding whether PR is particularly relevant to it. I would oppose PR for institutions that legislate or deliver services because the stability, clarity and transparency of strong government are important to them.

Proportional representation clearly goes against the whole history and tradition of government in this country. Each of us holds a constituency surgery, and people want to see their Member of Parliament or councillor. They want to be able to confront us and to have the comfort of saying, "I'll withdraw my vote if you don't do what I want you to do." That might not be a particularly strong threat to some of us, but we would all be personally affronted by such a remark. It would be no good thing if we were able to say, "I'm third on the list, so you can withdraw your vote to your heart's content. It will make no difference to me."

The argument has been made that PR would increase turnout, but the evidence is mixed at best. The Greater London Authority elections this year produced no increase, yet they were held under a form of PR. Equally, it is arguable that the form of PR used in last year's European elections reduced turnout. If there is no evidence that PR would increase turnout, would it increase effectiveness? Again, we can look at the evidence.

Audit Commission performance indicators show whether hung councils or those with strong representation from one party are more effective. Hon. Members should look at the graphs for low-cost, high-delivery councils and for high-cost, low-delivery councils and put a spread over them. They show no correlation whatever between performance and status, whether councils are hung, strongly controlled or marginal. There is no correlation between a council's effectiveness and the type of control.

Mr. Don Foster

Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to read the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's most recent document, "Findings"? If not—it was circulated to all hon. Members only in past few days—may I suggest that he would be well advised to read it before continuing with that line of argument?

Mr. Turner

I have not seen the document, but I will look at it. My experience in the Greater Manchester area is that authorities such as Stockport, which is largely a hung council, and my own, which is strongly Labour, both provide effective services at low cost.

The argument for proportional representation by the fair votes campaign confuses equality with equity. There is no doubt that proportional representation would produce a lot more councils where there is no overall control—hung councils. That will mean that the least popular party will effectively become the most powerful, because it is that party, rather than the electorate, which will decide the form of administration. The third party will always have power because it will decide whether to join the second or the most popular party to become the administration.

The way that the electorate decides in this country means that the third party is usually the Liberal Democrats, so it is no surprise that they support a fair votes campaign that would give them access to power by the back door, when they are so consistently rebuffed at the front door.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)

The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) may not be against proportional representation per se, but he advanced some powerful arguments against the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster).

It is important that people should be strongly motivated to vote in local elections. From my experience, the most important aspect is that, when they vote, they know that they can change those who control the council or local government. Low turnouts in local elections are usually associated with elections by thirds, which mean that, even if everybody in all the council wards voted for a particular minority party, they still would not be able to achieve a change in the control of the council.

Councils for which there are all-out elections every four years tend to have a higher rate of voter participation than councils that are subject to elections by thirds, quarters or halves, as the Government propose. The way to make people feel that their vote counts is by means of a system where, through the ballot box, they can change the control of their own local government.

Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If 40 per cent. of people voted in an election once every four years, and if 40 per cent. voted in an election by thirds one year, one year and one year, rather more people would vote for that council at least once over a four-year period than in an all-out election once every four years. Splitting the election into thirds increases the number of people who vote over a four-year period.

Mr. Chope

If everyone is allowed to vote once a year for four years, rather than once every four years, they will be able to vote more frequently and their collective votes will be more numerous.

That misses the point that I am making, which is that, when people vote, they know that their vote can change the control of their local government. If they do not feel that their vote will be able to change the control, they are less motivated to go out and put their vote in the ballot box. That is why the experience of local government in this country shows that local authorities where there are all-out elections tend to have a much higher turnout than authorities that have elections by thirds.

In my constituency, there are two district councils, East Dorset district council and Christchurch borough council. Last year, there were all-out elections and people realised that they could defeat the Liberal Democrats and change control of those two councils. That is what they did, both in East Dorset and in Christchurch, and now both those councils are run by the Conservatives.

10.45 pm
Mr. Loughton

The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) seems to be under the illusion that if people vote every year and the turnout is 40 per cent., it is a different 40 per cent., each year, making a total of 120 per cent. It is, of course, the same 40 per cent. who are likely to vote each year. The evidence suggests, if anything, that voter fatigue means lower turnouts if people have to turn out for many elections. Hence the turnout on a four-year basis tends to be higher, as my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Chope

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.

If we need to get more people involved in local government, why do we not keep the system simple? Nothing could be simpler than a system whereby the candidate who receives the most votes wins. Everybody understands that. The Liberal Democrats seem to want to change the system so that it is far more complicated. We need to attract people to vote in local elections. If we keep the system simple, we are more likely to be able to attract their interest. Therefore, I strongly oppose the new clause.

Mr. Loughton

During the Committee stage, alas, time constraints prevented us from being regaled by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) with the regular feature that the Liberals trot out, that of proportional representation, so the hon. Gentleman has been slightly indulged here this evening, but his case has been no more forceful.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of one-party states where the party had been in power for 20 years, and when people turned up to vote it made no difference. The conclusion was that a PR system would mean more seats, particularly for Liberals, and that more Liberal councillors would be a good thing for him.

The hon. Gentleman also tried to tempt our support by saying that the dramatic fall, as he put it, in the number of Conservative councilors—by some 50 per cent between 1979 and 1997—which has largely been reversed in the past three years, I hasten to add, was due to the voting system working against us. We are not complaining about it. If anybody should be in favour of PR purely for their own reasons, it would be us, but we are not, because we do not believe that it brings about a strong result. The hon. Gentleman was flailing around, quoting all sorts of unknown professors. I am sure they have produced all sorts of wonderful treatises to back up his argument.

Then the hon. Gentleman made another great, sweeping statement, that there is growing support from all sections of the public at large for what he inevitably calls "a fair voting system"; that only if the public feel that their votes count will they vote, but there is no evidence to suggest that, where the experiments have taken place, that is happening.

The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) quite neutrally, as he put it, made a very good case that we have had the experiments with the devolved Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland, which have produced low turnouts, with only 25 per cent of the population of Wales voting in favour of the Assembly. There is a hung Parliament and a hung Assembly, and the turnout was no greater than would be expected in any normal election, despite a form of PR being used. In the European Parliament elections, where we had a form of PR for the first time ever, there was a record low turn-out.

The hon. Member for Wigan also mentioned the London Assembly. The turn-out there was a derisory 33 per cent., and we have a hung Assembly. As the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said in a written answer last week: Almost 300,000 people did not use their second preference vote for the Mayor… About 130,000 did not cast a vote for a constituency assembly member and about 70,000 did not cast a vote for a London assembly member.—[Official Report, 29 June 2000; Vol. 352. col. 599W.] Now the hon. Member for Bath is suggesting that we should extend this failed system, which has certainly done anything for increased turn-outs. One of the biggest bugbears for the Government, shared by all sides of the House, is how we can increase turn-outs at elections. There is no proof that any proportional representation systems have done anything to improve the turn-out.

Our fear is that the creeping experimentation with PR that is getting into every sphere of new forms of governance, such as the new assemblies and local government bodies, has Westminster as its next and ultimate target. Apparently, as part of the deal stitched together between the minority Labour Administration and the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Parliament has commissioned a report into using PR for Scottish local elections. Leaks of the report have started to emerge and I wonder whether the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is in a position to provide a progress report and tell us when its findings will be made available.

We have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Bath to tempt us to experiment with further forms of PR in local government. I can perceive no evidence that there is growing support for it from all sections of the public. As for the whole business of having more elections, we have found time after time that election fatigue contributes to lower turnouts: we saw that last year, when we had European Parliament elections, local elections and elections in Scotland and Wales. The result of the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be that the least popular party became the most powerful. Backdoor merchants that they are, the Liberal Democrats want to promote PR, but we should have none of it.

In the few minutes that the Minister has left to respond to the debate, I hope that she will take on the subject of the findings of the Scottish report.

Ms Armstrong

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the Minister will not do as the hon. Gentleman asks, seeing as the amendment is narrowly drawn and refers only to England and Wales. If the hon. Gentleman wants a report, he will have to ask for it some other time.

Ms Armstrong

I was going to tell the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that the whole report was made public last week, so I do not know where he has been. Perhaps he does not understand that Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom; therefore, what is published in Scotland is available to everyone in England and Wales—indeed, everyone in the world. If he had looked at the websites or in newspapers, he would have seen the report, but, once again, he has failed to keep up with events.

I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) tabled the new clause, and he will not be surprised to learn that the Government have not changed their view since debating the issue in Committee. Our position on proportional representation for local government elections is well documented, having initially been set out in the local government White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". The Government do not propose to change the voting system for local government, other than in the introduction of the supplementary vote system for the election of directly elected mayors. We believe that local government modernisation requires more fundamental change than simply changing the voting system. Our debates on the provisions of this Bill and the Local Government Act 1999 bear that out.

In Committee, I said that no Government close down debate. There is a debate going on within the Labour party about the principles of PR, especially in relation to elections to this House. A similar debate is going on in Scotland on the suitability of using PR for local government elections. However, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's proposal helps the debate.

The Government do not believe that there is any point in including in the Bill an enabling provision for a system of elections by proportional representation. Furthermore, I am not sure whether an enabling clause is the right way in which to introduce such an important constitutional change. Although the new clause provides for any order to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, it would essentially leave the decision to the Secretary of State. The House would not find that acceptable. Much more debate would be required outside and inside the House before we considered such proposals.

The Government's position is clear, and consistent with our comments in the White Paper. I believe that the House's position is also clear. I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw the new clause, although I suspect that he will not.

Mr. Don Foster

Let me put the Minister out of her misery immediately: I have no intention of following her final piece of advice. I confess that this evening's contributions have contained no surprises. I acknowledge that I have placed the Minister in a rather difficult position. Like her, I am conscious that the Labour party will hold a major debate on proportional representation this weekend. I suspect that the Minister no longer has any idea of its outcome.

Mr. Levitt

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the debate is not only about PR versus the status quo? Electoral reform is a much wider issue. Is he not being disingenuous by limiting the new clause to PR, when we should hold a much wider debate on electoral reform? PR is only one option.

Mr. Foster

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. However, it is a little rich of him to accuse me of being disingenuous by not including wider matters in the new clause. A Bill that addresses some of those issues has only recently been passed. My party supports some of the experimentation that would increase the opportunities for people to vote. I accept that there is a wider issue to consider, but we are confining ourselves to PR in the new clause.

I acknowledge that the Minister is an especially difficult position, given that the Labour party's view on PR is ebbing and flowing. She clearly did not want to upset any apple carts. I am therefore delighted that she said that the Government would at least not close their mind on the matter.

I strongly recommend to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) the recently published Joseph Rowntree Foundation document, which is entitled "Political behaviour under proportional representation". I shall read two brief extracts from it. It states: The current first-past-the-post voting system in local government elections often results in major discrepancies between the proportion of votes cast and the proportion of seats parties win on the council. Inflated majorities resulting in long periods of effectively unchallenged one-party rule can often generate a sense of complacency in the dominant party, with electoral success regarded as a foregone conclusion. That is especially apposite, given the Minister's claim that the purpose of the Bill is to sort out the mess in some of the one-party councils by undertaking what she describes as modernisation of local government. One of the best ways in which to modernise local government is to give it the opportunity provided by proportional representation.

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

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 284.

Division No. 252] [11 pm
AYES
Allan, Richard Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Baker, Norman Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Ballard, Jackie
Brake, Tom Kirkwood, Archy
Brand, Dr Peter Livsey, Richard
Breed, Colin Llwyd, Elfyn
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Burnett, John Moore, Michael
Burstow, Paul Öpik, Lembit
Cable, Dr Vincent Rendel, David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife) Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Chidgey, David Stunell, Andrew
Cotter, Brian Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Fearn, Ronnie Tyler, Paul
Foster, Don (Bath) Webb, Steve
George, Andrew (St Ives) Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Gidley, Sandra Willis, Phil
Harris, Dr Evan
Harvey, Nick Tellers for the Ayes:
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) Mr. Adrian Sanders and
Mr Mark Oaten.
NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Butler, Mrs Christine
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Allen, Graham Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ashton, Joe Cann, Jamie
Atherton, Ms Candy Caplin, Ivor
Atkins, Charlotte Caton, Martin
Austin, John Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Barnes, Harry Chope, Christopher
Barron, Kevin Clapham, Michael
Bayley, Hugh Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Beard, Nigel Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Begg, Miss Anne
Beggs, Roy Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C) Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Bennett, Andrew F Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Benton, Joe Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Bermingham, Gerald Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Berry, Roger Clelland, David
Best, Harold Clwyd, Ann
Betts, Clive Coaker, Vernon
Blackman, Liz Coffey, Ms Ann
Blears, Ms Hazel Coleman, Iain
Blizzard, Bob Colman, Tony
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul Corbyn, Jeremy
Borrow, David Cousins, Jim
Bradley, Keith (Withington) Cox, Tom
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin) Cranston, Ross
Bradshaw, Ben Crausby, David
Brown, Russell (Dumfries) Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Browne, Desmond Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Buck, Ms Karen Cummings, John
Burden, Richard Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Burgon, Colin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S) Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Darvill, Keith Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W) Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Davidson, Ian Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Keeble, Ms Sally
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Dawson, Hilton Kemp, Fraser
Denham, John Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Doran, Frank Khabra, Piara S
Dowd, Jim Kidney, David
Drew, David King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey) Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston) Lammy, David
Edwards, Huw Laxton, Bob
Efford, Clive Lepper, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise Leslie, Christopher
Ennis, Jeff Levitt, Tom
Field, Rt Hon Frank Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Fisher, Mark Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Fitzpatrick, Jim Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna Lock, David
Flint, Caroline Love, Andrew
Flynn, Paul McAvoy, Thomas
Follett, Barbara McCabe, Steve
Foster, Rt Hon Derek McCafferty, Ms Chris
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings) Macdonald, Calum
Foulkes, George McDonnell, John
Fyfe, Maria McGuire, Mrs Anne
Galloway, George McIsaac, Shona
Gardiner, Barry McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
George, Bruce (Walsall S) Mackinlay, Andrew
Gerrard, Neil McNulty, Tony
Gibson, Dr Ian Mactaggart, Fiona
Gilroy, Mrs Linda McWalter, Tony
Godsiff, Roger McWilliam, John
Goggins, Paul Mahon, Mrs Alice
Golding, Mrs Llin Mallaber, Judy
Gordon, Mrs Eileen Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) Martlew, Eric
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Meale, Alan
Grogan, John Merron, Gillian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford) Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE) Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Hanson, David Miller, Andrew
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet Moffatt, Laura
Heal, Mrs Sylvia Moran, Ms Margaret
Healey, John Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Hepburn, Stephen Mountford, Kali
Heppell, John Mudie, George
Hesford, Stephen Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Hill, Keith Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hinchliffe, David Norris, Dan
Hoey, Kate O'Hara, Eddie
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey Olner, Bill
Hope, Phil Pearson, Ian
Hopkins, Kelvin Pendry, Tom
Howarth, Alan (Newport E) Pickthall, Colin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Pike, Peter L
Howells, Dr Kim Plaskitt, James
Hoyle, Lindsay Pollard, Kerry
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford) Pond, Chris
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Pope, Greg
Humble, Mrs Joan Pound, Stephen
Hurst, Alan Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Hutton, John Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Iddon, Dr Brian Prescott, Rt Hon John
Illsley, Eric Primarolo, Dawn
Jamieson, David Purchase, Ken
Jenkins, Brian Quinn, Lawrie
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle) Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Robertson, Laurence Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Roche, Mrs Barbara Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Rooney, Terry Temple-Morris, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Ross, William (E Lond'y) Timms, Stephen
Rowlands, Ted Tipping, Paddy
Roy, Frank Todd, Mark
Ruane, Chris Trickett, Jon
Ruddock, Joan Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester) Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Ryan, Ms Joan Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Salter, Martin Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Sarwar, Mohammad Vis, Dr Rudi
Savidge, Malcolm Walley, Ms Joan
Sawford, Phil Ward, Ms Claire
Sedgemore, Brian Wareing, Robert N
Shipley, Ms Debra Watts, David
Short, Rt Hon Clare White, Brian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S) Whitehead, Dr Alan
Skinner, Dennis Wicks, Malcolm
Smith, Angela (Basildon) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Smith, John (Glamorgan) Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) Winnick, David
Spellar, John Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Squire, Ms Rachel Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis Wood, Mike
Steinberg, Gerry Woodward, Shaun
Stevenson, George Woolas, Phil
Stewart, David (Inverness E) Worthington, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles) Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stoate, Dr Howard
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin Tellers for the Noes:
Stuart, Ms Gisela Mr. Mike Hall and
Sutcliffe, Gerry Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Forward to