| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heath:
The point about incumbency is a potent one. People fear that the proposal would simply
reinforce incumbency. Clearly, it is a given that it reinforces incumbency, but the question is whether it should do that in order to allow Members to do their job more effectively. One’s views on that will be almost entirely coloured by whether one is a Member of the House who uses the resources or a prospective candidate who does not have such access.
I reject, however, the claims made by some Conservative Members of an easy equivalence between this and the abuse of funding in party political campaigning reflected by the massive influx of funds from third parties or central offices into local constituencies, particularly marginal ones, between elections. That is wrong, and I hope that we will address that in our debates on party funding. The issue under discussion, however, has nothing to do with that. There is no equivalence at all. One can argue cogently against the provision without accepting for one moment such off-balance-sheet party funding to local parties, which is against the spirit of our election law.
Mr. Stuart: The hon. Gentleman has just argued against third party funding to allow those in opposition to campaign against a sitting MP, but incumbent MPs have—to pick a number out of the air—£100,000-worth of state support to be seen to be performing their role, and their members of staff work with constituents. MPs have an enormous advantage. In comparison with the sums under discussion, the sums of money guided to target seats by other parties are minuscule. It is right and proper in a democracy that the activities of those who want to challenge incumbent MPs can be funded.
Mr. Heath: I find it difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, because I do not see any campaign funding going to hon. Members to enable them to do their job as MPs. I do not see the people who work in my office, whom he includes in his figure, as campaigning when they answer letters about the Child Support Agency or the Rural Payments Agency. I do not see the provision of that office and my nine surgeries each month as campaigning opportunities, and I hope that he does not do so either. I hope that, if he really thinks about it, he will not see the money that goes to support Members of Parliament to do their job as campaigning money. Under the rules, we are not allowed to campaign using the funds available. If this money is granted by the House, one hopes that the reputations of those Members who use it will be enhanced, although, in some instances, I suspect that that will not be the case. To that extent only, it is money used in campaigning. It cannot be used, however, for openly party political purposes.
I would have liked the draft guidance to be before the House, so that we could have a clear idea of how the rules will be applied. I would have liked clear assurances that the rules will be applied much more stringently than they are at present. I notice the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee nodding vigorously at that point, because he and I have experience of trying to police such matters in the House.
I worry about the naivety of some of the report’s suggestions of items that the rules would properly allow.
Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: No, because we have nearly reached the time limit for the debate.
I want to draw attention to one thing that is allowed, and one thing that is not allowed. According to paragraph 12 of the report, hon. Members will be able to use the communications allowance to meet the cost of “questionnaires and surveys”. According to paragraph 14, however, the allowance cannot be used to meet the cost of petitions, surveys or questionnaires if they are
“associated principally with national campaigning or local elections.”
It is naive to a high degree to believe that the questionnaires and surveys issued will not somehow tie in with national campaigning issues for every Member who uses the money to meet that cost. If a party is running a massive campaign on health service cuts, for example, a survey that may relate to local health service provision will nevertheless tie in with that. If we are to allow that sort of material, which is questionable, let us openly accept that within a national campaigning profile its use will be ambiguous.
Lastly, some Labour Members have suggested that any Member who votes against the allowance this evening—because they are not satisfied with the details or even the principle of it—would be hypocritical if they subsequently used any of it. That is simply nonsense, and a misreading of what the House is for. We take decisions, express our opinions and vote. Once the matter has been voted on, however, individual Members, whether they thought a proposal was a good idea or not, have a duty to their constituents to use the funds available. [Laughter.] I make the point in all seriousness. I might disagree with a lot of provisions. I sometimes vote against them and do not, if they would be to my personal advantage, take them. For instance, I voted against the pension enhancement, and refused to take it. I know that many Members voted against it and still took it. This issue, however, does not relate to my or any other Member’s personal position, but to the service that will be provided to constituents. Therefore, I hope that accusations of hypocrisy will not be made against hon. Members who choose to vote against the proposal today.
Mr. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): To be consistent, should not the hon. Gentleman argue that a Member of Parliament who votes against an extra £10,000 to communicate with his constituents, but who uses it once it is granted, is not fulfilling the obligation to which he refers?
Mr. Heath:
Not if, as I believe, the present arrangements for allowances, with a few minor changes in the rules on how they can be used, which we have discussed, allow for appropriate communication with the electorate. The House will either accept or reject the package. Many of my hon. Friends will vote for it, and many will vote against it. That is a decision for them, as it is for each Member. We work within the allowances system that we have in order to provide the best service for our constituents. There are better ways of achieving the objective, which I share with the Leader of the House, of allowing better communication with our electorate. My personal opinion is that the proposal is
not the right way. I do not encourage others to share that view, but this has been a useful debate, and I look forward to the result with interest.
3.10 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and I shall refer to some of the points that he made.
I can tell the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) that some of us will have to claim under the communications allowance for activities that we are undertaking at present and which are paid for by the incidental expenses provision. Without wishing to spend any more money, we will have to claim under the communications allowance, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there is no implication of hypocrisy.
I join in the chorus of approval welcoming back the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). At a time of preservation, conservation and recycling, it is marvellous to see him back in the post that he occupied in the 1997-2001 Parliament.
We debate these allowances for ourselves after spending four days debating the Budget, which involved very tough decisions on public expenditure for some important public services, including education and the Home Office. People outside the House will want us to make a very good case for increased public expenditure on our services, given the background of the Budget debate.
When he introduced the debate, the Leader of the House used the argument about disconnect to support the communication allowance. That argument can be stood on its head: we could argue perfectly well that it is our voting for more money for ourselves in this way that adds to, rather than solves, the problem of disconnect. One of the jobs of the House is to examine claims for increased expenditure. We are sent here to see how money extracted from constituents is spent. When we are the conduit for that increased expenditure, we need to be even more vigilant and demand an even higher standard of proof.
The motion before us is the next stage in a debate that began on 1 November, in which a number of those present today took part. When we considered the matter then, it was on a motion from the Leader of the House, and no document had been brought forward. The idea had not been examined by any Select Committee or by the independent outside body charged with determining our allowances. The SSRB is, at this very moment, looking at our salaries and allowances. In a passing reference in the previous debate, the Leader of the House said:
“I have also kept the Senior Salaries Review Body in touch with what is proposed.”—[ Official Report, 1 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 312.]
With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is precisely the wrong way round: the SSRB ought to be keeping him in touch with what is proposed. What is the purpose of having an independent body to make recommendations about our allowances if—unilaterally, and before its report is published—we help ourselves to higher allowances? When I intervened on him, the Leader of the House said that the proposed
allowance is a new one. That is true, but a lot of the activity that it subsumes is catered for already. The right hon. Gentleman would have been on much better ground if we had waited for the SSRB’s recommendations and come forward with a much more robust case than the one that he presented this afternoon.
There is another reason why I believe it injudicious to proceed at this moment. As various hon. Members have noted, a fortnight ago Sir Haydn Phillips published his recommendations on party funding, with no agreement having been reached between the parties. There are a number of outstanding issues, one of which is a proposal for a new cap—one that does not exist at present—on what can be spent locally by a political party. That is of particular relevance where that local party is challenging an incumbent, and I quote what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said in our earlier debate:
“Were I a candidate for Parliament running against an incumbent who was using public funds to publish and distribute what looks to most people like campaign literature, I would be mightily upset.”—[ Official Report, 1 November 2006; Vol. 451, c. 350.]
At the very moment that the Government are seeking consensus with the Opposition parties on a new limit on what a prospective candidate can spend, they are also proposing to increase what the incumbent can spend without having to raise the money. The Leader of the House must realise that what is being proposed today will make it more difficult to secure the consensus on party funding that I know he wants.
I shall be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) wants to contribute to the date. On a more positive note, I welcome the decision to cap the value of pre-paid envelopes and other stationery. With an average spend of £3,500, £7,000 leaves a substantial amount of head room for the majority of MPs. I hope that we can stick at that level for some time. I assume that, as the cost of postage rises, the number of free envelopes to which we are entitled will fall.
We are told in paragraph 12 of the motion that detailed rules will follow in a new, separate and comprehensive booklet, and I welcome that. At the moment, the advice is all over the place—in the stationery catalogue, in the Green Book, in leaflets and guidance notes issued by the Serjeant at Arms Department and on that Department’s intranet site. I welcome the prospect of one, comprehensive publication telling us exactly what we can and cannot do.
Bob Spink: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Sir George Young: I hope that my hon. Friend does not mind if I say no, but he has made several interventions and I know that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire wants to speak.
If invited, the Standards and Privileges Committee stands ready to advise—as does the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—on the more detailed guidance to which the motion refers. I notice that we are not included in paragraph 12, but my Committee and the Commissioner have to interpret the
rules and so would be more than happy to provide some advice on their composition.
As various hon. Members noted, there has been a steady stream of complaints that rules have been broken in respect of postage and the IEP. We have reported on four cases during this Parliament, and the Commissioner has dealt with many more. The rules lack clarity; they are complex and they overlap. In my Committee’s 10th report, we noted that
“the significant differences of interpretation amongst Members as to the acceptable limits of party-related material that can properly be included in IEP funded material.”
What is proposed today is a considerable relaxation of what can legitimately be funded. I hope that that will be accompanied by a firm restatement of the boundary between parliamentary and party political activity, with an assertion that the new boundary should be rigorously policed. That seems to me to be an appropriate trade-off.
Finally, I recognise that there is always a balance to be struck between the need for prudence with public expenditure—something that has not been mentioned much in the debate—and the imperative of bridging the gap between elected and elector that can undermine Parliament’s legitimacy. My view remains that if we are to have a communication allowance as proposed, a far stronger case for it needs to be made than we have heard so far. As no compelling case has been made to justify an increase of £6 million in public expenditure, I propose to vote against it.
3.18 pm
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) kept his remarks brief. I believe that someone else wishes to speak so I, too, will try to be brief.
As a Member of Parliament, I believe that communication is incredibly important. As a former marketing manager, perhaps I know more than many the benefits of good communication. Those of us who oppose the allowance do not say that ensuring that we are in touch with our constituents, reporting back and making sure that people in our constituencies are engaged in politics are not important parts of a Member of Parliament’s job. Far from it. My problem is the cost that the taxpayer will incur. Through interventions, I have already expressed my disappointment that the communications allowance will cost an extra £6 million, with a perhaps an additional £1 million in increased postage costs. That means that the taxpayer must bear the brunt of an additional £7 million.
Good communication with constituents does not always have to be costly. We spoke earlier about technology and leaps forward through e-mail communication and websites, which are an especially cost-effective way of keeping in touch with people. The communications allowance can be used for websites, but my website, for which I personally pay, costs only about £15 a month. Basic technology hardly costs a huge amount these days.
Of course, local visits, which Members of Parliament often make on Fridays and the weekends are a way of communicating face to face with constituents. Dare I say it?—going back to the good old days of knocking
on doors to communicate directly with individuals is perhaps one of the most potent ways of engaging people in politics. There is a role for leaflets, too. As a Liberal Democrat, I would say that. I have spent many a happy hour delivering leaflets and I shall do much more of that in the next few weeks. I enjoy doing it—it is good exercise. However, I would argue that political parties have an important role to play in funding political leaflets.
Many of us send out an annual report funded from our parliamentary expenses. However, it is not right to increase the money by £10,000 when adequate provision is already made in our incidental expenses provision. We do not need to increase that further. We should consider the cases of Members who have problems with their office rent costs, which means that they cannot use their current expenses for incidental provision, but a total blanket increase of £7 million, even for those who do not suffer the problem, is excessive. We do not need that.
Let us consider timing. The report suggests that there is a good case for combining the communications allowance with the allocation for pre-paid stationery in one allowance. However, it also states that although that appears attractive in the long term, the financial and administrative difficulties would delay unduly the introduction of the communications allowance. What is the rush? The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the SSRB review. Why could we not let it reach a conclusion about the matter? Why do we need to rush the matter through? Some hon. Members may suggest that a forthcoming general election is a factor.
I urge hon. Members to oppose the allowance.
3.20 pm
Mr. Straw: The debate has been interesting, notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that it is fine to vote one way and then take the money regardless. Some of us will monitor that with interest. I understand his point, but I believe that there will be a slightly larger take-up if the motion is approved than the numbers going through the Lobby will suggest.
Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell) (LD): That does not make it right.
Mr. Straw: It shows that more hon. Members may think that it is right than are willing to put their heads above the parapet. If they genuinely believed that it was a bad idea, they would not take the allowance. I believe that it is right and I would not have introduced it if I did not.
Much time has been spent on the issue that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) raised—
It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 283, Noes 188.
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, Danny
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Balls, Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
Bradshaw, Mr. Ben
Brake, Tom
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, Andy
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Burt, Lorely
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David
Caton, Mr. Martin
Challen, Colin
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clelland, Mr. David
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Darling, rh Mr. Alistair
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Ennis, Jeff
Etherington, Bill
Farrelly, Paul
Featherstone, Lynne
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Don
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Godsiff, Mr. Roger
Goggins, Paul
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr. Tom
Harvey, Nick
Healey, John
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Heppell, Mr. John
Hill, rh Keith
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hood, Mr. Jimmy
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Hughes, rh Beverley
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kelly, rh Ruth
Khabra, Mr. Piara S.
Khan, Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter
Knight, Jim
Kramer, Susan
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lammy, Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Malik, Mr. Shahid
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Marshall, Mr. David
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McCartney, rh Mr. Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonnell, John
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Meale, Mr. Alan
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan
Miliband, rh David
Miliband, Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moffat, Anne
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moore, Mr. Michael
Morgan, Julie
Morley, rh Mr. Elliot
Mountford, Kali
Mulholland, Greg
Munn, Meg
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Oaten, Mr. Mark
Olner, Mr. Bill
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prescott, rh Mr. John
Prosser, Gwyn
Purnell, James
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, Mr. Alan
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Rogerson, Mr. Dan
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Bob
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Martin
Sarwar, Mr. Mohammad
Seabeck, Alison
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, rh Jacqui
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Spink, Bob
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Straw, rh Mr. Jack
Stringer, Graham
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Tami, Mark
Taylor, David
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, rh Keith
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watson, Mr. Tom
Watts, Mr. Dave
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Wills, Mr. Michael
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodward, Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wyatt, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. Ian Cawsey and
Mr. Alan Campbell
NOES
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Amess, Mr. David
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr. John
Barrett, John
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Binley, Mr. Brian
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browning, Angela
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burt, Alistair
Butterfill, Sir John
Cameron, rh Mr. David
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Cash, Mr. William
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Clappison, Mr. James
Clark, Greg
Clarke, rh Mr. Kenneth
Clegg, Mr. Nick
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Conway, Derek
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Curry, rh Mr. David
Davies, Mr. Dai
Davis, rh David (Haltemprice and Howden)
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr. Stephen
Dorries, Mrs. Nadine
Duddridge, James
Duncan, Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Dunne, Mr. Philip
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evans, Mr. Nigel
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Mr. Michael
Farron, Tim
Field, Mr. Mark
Fox, Dr. Liam
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Mr. Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goldsworthy, Julia
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Greenway, Mr. John
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harris, Dr. Evan
Hayes, Mr. John
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Heath, Mr. David
Hendry, Charles
Hermon, Lady
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holmes, Paul
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, David
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hughes, Simon
Huhne, Chris
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Jones, Lynne
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Laws, Mr. David
Leech, Mr. John
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
MacNeil, Mr. Angus
Main, Anne
Maude, rh Mr. Francis
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McCrea, Dr. William
McGrady, Mr. Eddie
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mercer, Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, Mr. Andrew
Mundell, David
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Öpik, Lembit
Osborne, Mr. George
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Pickles, Mr. Eric
Price, Adam
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Rennie, Willie
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Ruffley, Mr. David
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Simpson, David
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, Mr. Nicholas
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spicer, Sir Michael
Spring, Mr. Richard
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Syms, Mr. Robert
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Taylor, Mr. Ian
Taylor, Matthew
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Viggers, Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Walter, Mr. Robert
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Watkinson, Angela
Webb, Steve
Weir, Mr. Mike
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wiggin, Bill
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Wilson, Sammy
Winterton, Ann
Winterton, Sir Nicholas
Wishart, Pete
Wright, Jeremy
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. Mark Lancaster and
Mr. Crispin Blunt
Question accordingly agreed to.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |