| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Albert Owen: I hate to correct the hon. Gentleman on facts and detail, but I was not a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee and I did not participate in that evidence session. I did read the report of that session, but I did not agree with it. Reference was made to perceptions, but what we need to talk about is facts and how we are going to move the Bill forward.
Mrs. Gillan: If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about facts, he has only to look at the vote that took place in the Assembly. The casting vote by the presiding officer, who had to vote in the way that he did, was the only reason why the motion was carried—it was all the Labour party AMs against the rest. What more evidence could there be of a partisan Labour position?
Albert Owen: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention and I am very glad that my Labour colleagues in the Assembly agree with the Labour party in Wales. We stood on a very firm manifesto commitment. My Front-Bench colleagues will be very happy to know that I carry my copy of the manifesto with me and read it in great detail. This is a very serious issue, and on page 108 of the manifesto, there are three very clear statements about our intention to introduce the Government of Wales Bill.
Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Albert Owen: We have had very unclear statements from the Opposition, so it is right that I read out those statements before giving way. The first says:
“In a third term we will legislate for a stronger Assembly with enhanced legislative powers.”
Some Opposition Members disagreed with that idea during our debates and that is fine, but that is what our manifesto states. The second statement is:
“We will improve the accountability of Ministers by ending the confusing corporate status of the Assembly”.
So it is very clear that that is what we are going to do, and we have the support of this House. These days, I am far more diplomatic than the Secretary of State on such issues. I understand that we have these debates, and I am not really worried about this legislation, but I am proud that we are standing by our manifesto commitments. One cannot get much clearer than the third statement:
“Alongside the changes we will prevent candidates from standing on both the list and in a constituency in order to make all candidates genuinely accountable to the electorate and to end Assembly Members being elected via the backdoor even when they have already been rejected by voters.”
That is a very clear commitment and I stand by it. When I discussed the Assembly on the doorsteps of Ynys Môn, that very issue did arise, and I intend to vote with the Government.
6.30 pm
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore oppose the appointment to another place of candidates who obviously lost in the elections in Wales? Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, is the hon. Gentleman really expecting us to believe that the Labour party voted for the proposed change, while all the other parties voted against, because it wanted to help all the other parties and thought of no particular benefit whatsoever for the Labour party?
Albert Owen: Those two points do not relate to the clause. I think that the hon. Gentleman leads with his chin. I do not agree with the House of Lords per se. It is an unelected Chamber and I hope that I have the opportunity in this Parliament to vote for a democratic Chamber in the other place. That is where I stand on the House of Lords. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman leads with his chin because one of his colleagues is sitting in the Gallery, someone who has been rejected on several occasions by the electorate of north Wales. I do not think that that person or any others should be in the House of Lords. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. First, it is not in order to refer to whoever might be in the Gallery. Secondly, let us now concentrate on the amendment.
Albert Owen: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not resist referring to the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party in Wales.
Mr. Touhig: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Liberal Democrats did not have a host of rejected parliamentary candidates, they would not have anybody in the House of Lords?
Albert Owen: I shall keep with the amendment that is before us. However, I agree with my hon. Friend.
Our manifesto stated clearly
what we were going to do and I am proud that we have adhered to that.
However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is perhaps too
diplomatic with regard to the status of the House of Lords. We know the
position. We have had great debates on Second Reading and Third
Reading,
and we have carried the measure through with a huge majority. Now, the
House of Lords—no one has elected its members—feels that
it can overturn our decisions. This is a constitutional issue. I
believe that the Salisbury convention should be adhered to and that
Opposition Members should not support the other place. Instead, they
should vote for democracy. They should vote in accordance with the
Labour party manifesto, Labour being the largest party in this place.
We are entitled to govern on our
manifesto.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) did not on this occasion pray in aid the piece of research from Splott market. We had an exchange on that during previous proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had discussed the matter in a few pubs in his constituency. He was asked questions about time and so on, but we will not go into that now. Suffice it to say that, on any objective view, I do not believe that there is any evidence upon which the change can seriously be put to us. Opposition Members know that, despite the sterling efforts of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and the fantastic ground-breaking piece of research that he commissioned—it was not persuasive, but ground-breaking nevertheless—we have not been presented with very much.
The right hon. Member for Torfaen said that he never did deals. For someone who has been in high office in the north of Ireland, that is difficult to understand. However, I am sure that, as always, he is telling the truth. However, a deal was struck for the proposal to go through between the anti-devolution Labour party and the pro-devolutionists. That is what it is all about. It is a piece of red meat to keep those who are against further devolution happy. That may or may not be relevant to the debate.
We had a sterling speech, if a little ex-cathedra, from the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). It was interesting in that he showed that he does not want to see anybody else getting elected in Wales other than Labour candidates. I believe that that is his true position. At least he is honest enough to say it, and I respect that.
I will not go through the evidence again because time is short and there are other important issues that we must discuss. However, I will touch briefly on one or two matters now. When the Secretary of State opened the debate he said that the Queen must give Royal Assent to the Bill at some time between now and Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman detailed why that must be so, and I am sure that everything he said was right. He said that over the coming weeks and months there will need to be several references to the Electoral Commission for discussions and, if necessary, to vary regulations. On two occasions during his opening speech he prayed in aid the Electoral Commission. Why then was the electoral commissioner, Glyn Mathias, roundly ignored when he said that he thought that the proposal would be a partisan move and that there was no evidence to support it? Glyn Mathias commented on the research that the commission had undertaken. He said:
“This
issue did not figure in that research. We asked a whole series of
questions and sought unprompted replies and this issue
did not arise...what concerns us is that there is no evidence
whatever in the White Paper to back up this proposal...therefore,
we came to the conclusion that we think that the case for change has
not been made.”
This is the same Electoral Commission that will be busy in the coming weeks and months when the Bill is enacted. In this instance it was roundly ignored on an important part of the Bill.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the booklet that is in my hand—the Arbuthnot report. It reached the same conclusion and found that there was no evidence to suggest that this was an issue for the public. In fact, Arbuthnot went further and suggested that dual candidacy was anti-democratic. Perhaps the difference between Arbuthnot and the Richard commission was that Arbuthnot was a cross-party document and was consensual, whereas the Richard commission was a Labour party inspiration which was there only to serve the Labour party.
Mr. Llwyd: I differ slightly from what the hon. Gentleman says about Lord Richard. I think that Lord Richard did a sterling piece of work and I would not level partisanship at him. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. The Arbuthnot conclusions were quite different.
I will not refer to the various academics who have been referred to at length in previous discussions, including Dr. Richard Wyn Jones and readers from the Napier university. As far as is known, the only other system that embodies the system that we are talking about introducing in Wales was in pre-revolution Ukraine. If we want to adhere to standards such as that, all well and good, but I ask must ask again where one might find the evidence for this change in the law? I cannot see it. Other hon. Members have referred to the Electoral Reform Society. There is a welter of evidence against the proposed change. The only thing in favour of it is the rather scant piece of research commissioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The Government have brought the proposal before the House and have found that the only evidence to support it was commissioned by a Back-Bench Member of Parliament halfway through the proceedings. That is not persuasive.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman refers to the Electoral Reform Society as if it does not have an agenda. It clearly has an agenda, and that is why it is putting forward the views that it is.
Mr. Llwyd: What agenda does the Electoral Commission have? Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on that? I dare say that he cannot answer that question.
Mrs. Gillan: In the document before me, it says that
“the Electoral Commission is an independent body established by the UK Parliament in 2000 by the Political Parties Elections Referendums Act. We are independent of the UK Government and political parties, and are directly accountable to Parliament.”
Mr.
Llwyd: This will go down as probably the most partisan
change in the law in the last five years. Hon. Members may laugh
because they are content with it;
they know that it will assist them, so why should they not laugh about
it? But others in different parties, others of no political affiliation
and other academics throughout Britain and beyond have looked at this
and come to the same conclusion. It is a partisan way of proceeding,
and that is what we are arguing about. I do not say that it would
necessarily benefit my party unduly, or indeed anybody else’s,
but it will benefit the Labour party, and that is why I am concerned
about it. It is all very well referring to the Salisbury convention,
but this is a bad piece of law that we are debating. It is partisan. I
shall not refer to the other
quotations.
Mr. David: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this simple question: how on earth will it benefit the Labour party?
Mr. Llwyd: That has already been explained fully. [Interruption.] How many times do hon. Members want to hear it? We have heard it from both sides of the House. Suffice it to say that my belief is that it will benefit the Labour party. It is not me saying so, it isDr. Scully, Dr. Wyn Jones and Dr. Weinstrob. I could go on—Sir John Arbuthnot. There are plenty of people to whom we could refer. Those people are entirely without political connection, and they have reached that conclusion.
This matter will be put to a vote, I believe on a matter of principle. I do not want to see the rest ofthe Bill being delayed, but this is a bad clause and the Lords are right in their conclusion on this part of the Bill at least.
Mr. Hain: I was gently rebuked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for being too diplomatic in my introduction, but I reassure him that I have been severely provoked this evening by the Opposition’s contributions. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) seems to question the Salisbury convention. She seems to pay no attention to that convention, under which, for generations, the unelected House of Lords defers to a manifesto commitment of the governing party in the elected House of Commons—a point ably made bymy right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen(Mr. Murphy). She seems to dismiss this. I do not know whether it is a new Conservative party policy—a party that had just 30 per cent. of the vote—that the House of Lords should be able to trample over all the manifesto commitments of the governing party, elected by the people to form the Government of this country. I disagree with her, because therein lies a recipe for constitutional confusion.
Mrs. Gillan: It is not a question of rubbishing, ignoring or talking down the Salisbury convention, it is just that the right hon. Gentleman has done a deal with the Liberal Democrats, so the arithmetic adds up in his favour. It is as simple as that.
Mr.
Hain: I would have been happy to do a deal with the hon.
Lady, if she had shown the same support for the principle of devolution
in the Bill as the Liberal Democrats, who in particular have the
interests of Wales at heart, rather than the interests of narrow party
concerns. I am surprised that she refers to us dumping manifesto
commitments. The Leader of the
Opposition almost daily dumps commitments from the election manifesto on
which he and the hon. Lady were elected barely over a year
ago.
Mention has been made of Ukraine. The truth is that this issue has become controversial right across the globe, from Canada to New Zealand, not simply Ukraine. That evidence has been given at length in earlier debates in the House. I am asked for evidence. In the interests of brevity, I did not quote the evidence because it has all been quoted before, but I have a fistful of quotes and evidence, from Lord Carlile of Burriew, the former leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, speaking in the House of Lords on15 June, and from Lord Richard, the chair of the Richard commission, in testimony to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 25 October. This is about Wales, but mention has been made of Scotland, so let us look at Scotland. The former Liberal Democrat presiding officer of the Scottish Assembly castigated the abuse of the system, saying that it had been thoroughly abused, and that was despite the code of conduct in Scotland, which we do not have in Wales. I could carry on providing all the evidence: there is the evidence of the chief of staff of the Scottish Liberal Democrats andof the leader of the Assembly Conservative group, on 14 June and again on 15 June. I could also quote some academic evidence.
6.45 pm
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Hain: I just want to carry on with this point. A fistful of evidence has been presented during the debates in both Houses, but particularly in this House. I do not want to detain the House by repeating it all, although I am happy to do so if provoked. I do not know whether the hon. Lady wants to provoke me.
Mrs. Gillan: I am certainly not trying to promotethe Secretary of State, who is clearly struggling.[Hon. Members: “Promote?”] No, provoke. I certainly would not want to promote him, although I think that he would like to promote himself. The right hon. Gentleman made some obtuse remarks about what is happening in other countries. In Italy and Denmark, and in some regions of Germany, double candidacy is expressly required, and candidates have been permitted to run in both constituencies and lists in Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Hungary and Russia, all of which have had mixed Member systems running since the 1990s. Therefore the throwaway line that the system is not used in other countries is not entirely accurate, and that is from the Electoral Commission’s report.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Lady obviously did not listen to what I was saying. I said that the issue had arisen and that great concern had been expressed right across the globe.
Then the hon. Lady asks where
in Wales the concern has arisen. I will tell her. I and my hon. Friend
the Under-Secretary, and my right hon. and hon. Friends, have had
meetings up and down the country. At those meetings there was more
burning anger among the public on this issue than on anything else.
There was
strong feeling on the need to put the voters in charge. That is the
fundamental democratic principle at stake
here.
David T.C. Davies rose—
Mr. Hain: I will give way in a moment.
The voters should be in charge. If the voters kick somebody out in the constituency, why should that person pop up on the list elected? That is not the voters in charge; that is the party manipulating the system. In almost every case, those whom voters rejected in the constituencies in 1999 and 2003 popped up on the regional lists. That is why we are asserting the basic principle of parliamentary democracy that the voters are boss. If the voters reject somebody, they should not be elected by the back door. People do not understand how on earth that can happen and that is why we are correcting this widespread abuse. I say abuse, because it is not just a matter of principle, it is the fact that time and again we have seen regional list Members abusing the system by coming into constituencies claiming to be the elected Members for those constituencies when they are not. A Plaid Cymru Assembly Member has presented a dossier on how to manipulate the situation in the interests of her party, and that has been referred to at length in the House. I could go on and on, so I will allow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) to intervene to provoke me further.
David T.C. Davies: Many of us here are astounded that at these many meetings that he attended there was so much anger about a proportional representation voting system and yet nobody mentioned the health service, the council tax or the lack of dentists. He said that there was more anger about this matter than anything else. Is he living on the same planet as the rest of us?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is a vocal butjunior Member of the House. I was talking about consultation on the devolution Bill, on what should go into it, on the policy that should fulfil our party commitments following the Richard commission’s report. At those meetings, people wanted to discuss the detail of what might transpire in a Bill to follow the recommendation of the Richard commission, which would command support across the House. That issue was one of the most strongly felt—indeed, there was bitter anger up and down Wales. Look at the situation in Clwyd, West, where the sitting Labour Member defeated all the candidates, who all got elected nevertheless.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has said, the Labour party will be equally hit by the provision, which will not benefit any party in particular. When we asked for evidence of how it could possibly benefit the Labour party, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and others changed their tune and began to talk about perception. We want evidence: where is the evidence that the Labour party could benefit by putting the voters in charge?
I am grateful
for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig),
despite the fact that he has never pretended to be an enthusiast for
more and more powers for the Assembly. He has worked with
me honourably and with great influence in framing the Bill, for which I
am grateful. I secretly sympathise with his advocacy of a
first-past-the-post system, but if we were to introduce one in this
Bill, we would hear even louder complaints of
abuse.
Lembit Öpik: If the Secretary of State and the Government are so concerned about giving voters a choice, will they consider creating open lists? That would allow the electorate to vote for an individual rather than a party that then appoints an individual. Without being party political, that would be a rational and reasonable step forward, although I accept that it is not included in the legislation that we are discussing today.
Mr. Hain: No; I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman and do not propose to introduce such a provision at this late stage, especially given the consultation across Wales.
In conclusion, the basic point of the Government’s position is that the voters should be in charge, not the parties, and that losers should not become winners. Why are the Opposition parties so scared of having to make a choice between standing in a constituency or standing on a regional list? The voters expect candidates to make that choice, and the integrity of the system will be increased by it, especially because at least six sitting Labour Members will be “penalised”—if that is the word—along with other party members. In my view, however, no one will be penalised; indeed, I think that the voters will win.
I welcome the point made by Lord Ellis-Thomas, the presiding officer of the Assembly, who has said thatthe argument has been won—he has recognised the reality—and both former leaders of Plaid Cymru have made the same point. We need Royal Assent for the Bill before the end of the Session, and I hope that nobody will seek to frustrate that ambition and that the Government’s position will be carried tonight.
Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 213.
AYESAinger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Balls, Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, Andy
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Eagle, Angela
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Etherington, Bill
Farrelly, Paul
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Gapes, Mike
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Godsiff, Mr. Roger
Goggins, Paul
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr. Tom
Havard, Mr. Dai
Healey, John
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hughes, rh Beverley
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Khabra, Mr. Piara S.
Khan, Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Knight, Jim
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
MacDougall, Mr. John
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Marshall, Mr. David
Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, Mrs. Anne McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Meacher, rh Mr. Michael
Meale, Mr. Alan
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan
Miliband, Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moffat, Anne
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moran, Margaret
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Prescott, rh Mr. John
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, James
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Salter, Martin
Sarwar, Mr. Mohammad
Seabeck, Alison
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Short, rh Clare
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Simpson, Alan
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, Mr. Don
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, Keith
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watson, Mr. Tom
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Wills, Mr. Michael
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodward, Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:Mr. Dave Watts and
Mr. Michael Foster
NOESAfriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Alexander, Danny
Amess, Mr. David
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony
Baron, Mr. John
Barrett, John
Beith, rh Mr. Alan
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Bercow, John
Beresford, Sir Paul
Binley, Mr. Brian
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Brake, Tom
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brokenshire, James Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr. Jeremy
Browning, Angela
Bruce, Malcolm
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Cameron, rh Mr. David
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Clark, Greg
Clarke, rh Mr. Kenneth
Clegg, Mr. Nick
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Philip
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice and Howden)
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M.
Dorrell, rh Mr. Stephen
Dorries, Mrs. Nadine
Duddridge, James
Duncan, Mr. Alan
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Evans, Mr. Nigel
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Mr. Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mr. Mark
Francois, Mr. Mark
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gray, Mr. James
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Greenway, Mr. John
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Gummer, rh Mr. John
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harvey, Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holmes, Paul
Horam, Mr. John
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howard, rh Mr. Michael
Howarth, David
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hughes, Simon
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Jones, Mr. David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mr. Mark
Lansley, Mr. Andrew
Laws, Mr. David
Leech, Mr. John
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Letwin, rh Mr. Oliver
Lewis, Dr. Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Lidington, Mr. David
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Main, Anne
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Maples, Mr. John
Maude, rh Mr. Francis
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McCrea, Dr. William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mercer, Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, David
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Öpik, Lembit
Osborne, Mr. George
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, Mr. James
Paisley, rh Rev. Ian
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Pickles, Mr. Eric
Price, Adam
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Reid, Mr. Alan
Rennie, Willie
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Robinson, Mr. Peter
Rogerson, Mr. Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Ruffley, Mr. David
Russell, Bob Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, David
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, Mr. Nicholas
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spring, Mr. Richard
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stunell, Andrew
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Mr. Ian
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |