| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I suggest that any feeling of outrage should be compounded by two further considerations. We all know that the business of the House has been extraordinarily
light for the last few weeks. We need only look at the Order Paper to know that. It would have been quite easy to provide two, three or more days to allow proper debate of this Bill, but we are not permitted to do so, which is an outrage.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): In supporting the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument, may I respectfully remind him that there is a one-liner throughout next week, so there would be plenty of time to deal with these very important issues? Murder and jury-free inquests are vital issues that we should all be able to discuss at length.
Mr. Hogg: I do not know about the nationalist Whip, but I know that other parties have an extraordinarily light Whip and we have had extraordinarily light business for weeks and weeks and weeks. We could well have given this Bill much more time than is being allowed.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): Does this not serve to bring this House into disrepute in the eyes of our constituents, who feel that issues that occupy and concern them are not being discussed even for a moment in this place?
Mr. Hogg: I agree and I find it impossible when I go to schools and other places to explain why it is that whole chunks of legislation are going through this place undiscussed. The Criminal Justice Bill in 2003 was the worst example that readily comes to mind, but there are countless other examples, of which this Bill is going to be another.
Then we come to the perverse fact that we have had two statements today—a day of tight business. I understand that the Prime Minister felt obliged to make a statement and it was a remarkable performance. The poor fellow, I fear he is getting very tired, so I suppose one ought to feel sorry for him. However, there was no need for the Justice Secretary to come here today. I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough that, assuming it was not for the personal convenience of the Justice Secretary, it was certainly to take up time—and that stinks as a practice.
I was not going to divide the House because I knew that the Division would take up time from our substantive debate, but now that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough proposes to divide the House, I am going to join him in the Division Lobby with enthusiasm.
5.23 pm
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): I have an obvious interest in the programme motion because I have new clauses in one of the later groups to deal with freedom of speech—a matter that should be of interest to all Members. I am also a sponsor of the new clause dealing with assisted suicide. I think it is fair to say that I raised my concerns with the Government before I saw the groupings. I put some questions to the Leader of the House just last Thursday. I said:
“Mr. Speaker, you will be selecting the amendments”
for the Coroners and Justice Bill
“and, as there are so many parts to the Bill, they will inevitably fall into at least eight substantive groups.”
Well, there are 14. I continued:
“We are grateful to the Leader of the House for providing two days’ debate”—
which was not the case in respect of the Criminal Justice Act 2008 when, as with so many others, we had just one day—
“but does she recognise that the ability of the House to scrutinise the legislation will be measured”—
by our constituents and the media—
“in part, by whether we have time to debate all those groups?”
I then asked her a simple question:
“Will she take steps to ensure that there is adequate consultation between the parties so that those two days are used effectively to scrutinise all the parts of this important piece of legislation?”—[ Official Report, 19 March 2009; Vol. 489, c. 1065-66.]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) said, there is not enough time to do more than we are doing because of the mismatch between the two days. He was available all last week to debate such matters, and the same applies to those on the Conservative Front Bench.
When the Prime Minister was first selected as the new Prime Minister, he said it was his priority to ensure that the House improved the scrutiny that it delivered. At the time, I asked him whether that would include scrutiny of all legislation—particularly criminal justice legislation—by the elected House. I asked whether he agreed that it was unacceptable for huge tranches of legislation to go through the House, and sometimes even Committee, unscrutinised. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, this is the only chance that those of us who are not on Public Bill Committees have. Surely the Government accept that the House is not doing its job of scrutiny unless it can debate all groups of amendments.
There is an option other than a third day: consulting on the programme motion. I have been told by those who know more about the matter that whichever Committee of the House suggested programme motions never intended them simply to be imposed and to have the consequences, by design or accident, that we see today. They were always intended to be a vehicle for the House to arrange its business so that we could debate such matters. Does the Minister recognise that it must be sensible to negotiate the programme motion so that we do not have such a half-hour debate, Divisions and unpleasantness? I am assured that there was no negotiation—
Mr. Hogg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be cautious about negotiation, because the implication is that it takes place between Front Benchers, but Back Benchers have a view about the matter. When the Conservatives are elected to office, I shall be hard to persuade to support any timetable motion.
Dr. Harris: Politics is the art of the possible, and regardless of how much trust Back Benchers have in Front Benchers, consultation is possible. We ask our Front Benchers to take into account the interests of the whole House. I would rather argue with them over their failure to negotiate a good position than have such frustration. At least my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge tabled an amendment, which was not selected, that would have addressed the matter.
It is amazing that the elected House will not get to debate murder law reform, and that we will probably not get to debate free speech, which has not been debated in this House for centuries—not since the days of the Star Chamber—in the terms on the Order Paper. It would be unacceptable if the House discussed only one group today. We must show self-restraint. No programme motion will ever deliver proper scrutiny if we spend a whole day on the first group, important though it is. With self-restraint, the House of Lords managed to get through its business. In that spirit, I will finish.
5.28 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): The House knows that this is a compendium Bill and that it touches on fundamental issues that affect the nature of our society. I want to draw attention to a conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which comprises Members of the House of Lords and Members of this House. Few people will have had the opportunity to read the Joint Committee’s report. It states:
“The breadth and size of the Bill and the legal complexity and diversity of the topics it covers have been the subject of concern during the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons given the limited time provided for scrutiny. We add our voice to those concerns. Large, multi-purpose bills of this sort are almost impossible to scrutinise effectively within the limited timescale provided by the Government. Given the range and significance of the human rights issues raised in this bill, the Government should have introduced two or three separate bills, each of which would have been substantial pieces of legislation in their own right or ensured that there was sufficient time for full pre-legislative and Committee stage scrutiny in the House of Commons. We welcome the fact that two days have been given over for Report stage in the House of Commons, a step not taken in relation to previous Bills of similar size, including the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill”.
It does not take much wit or imagination to appreciate that a Bill that covers certified or secret inquests, data protection, consumer reforms, witness anonymity, changes in the criminal law and procedural changes deals with big, big issues which the House should take seriously. What the Government are consistently doing is denigrating this Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) raised that point during questions on the statement by the Justice Secretary earlier this afternoon—rubbishing us, in one sense, and pushing the whole duty of legislative scrutiny down to the other end.
There are matters in this Bill that we simply cannot reach. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), we shall not be able to discuss contentions that affect every one of our citizens. What is the purpose of the House of Commons if the Government persist in introducing guillotine motions with timetabling that does not enable us to discuss the business involved? This is a denial even of the Justice Secretary’s Bill of rights and responsibilities. What about the responsibilities of a Government to ensure that Parliament—the elected House of Commons—can discuss matters such as secret coroners’ courts?
5.31 pm
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con):
I do not intend to delay the House for long, but I want to express my support for what has been said by my hon. and learned
Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
This is happening far too regularly. It is not a case of the Government’s having made a genuine mistake; week in week out, there is not enough time to debate Bills in Parliament. One would have thought that, given that it is happening week in week out, the Government would have done something about it if they genuinely believed that the House was supposed to debate important matters. The fact that they do not do anything about it can only lead people to the conclusion that they do not want matters to be debated in the House: that they do not like being scrutinised, and do not want a proper debate to take place. If they allowed a proper debate, they might find that there were differing views among those on their own Benches, and they do not want to tolerate such a situation, so they filibuster by tabling needless statements such as that made earlier by the Justice Secretary—which did not need to be made today—in order to restrict the time available for debate on Bills such as this.
Numerous constituents have raised with me such issues as assisted suicide, which has attracted a great deal of interest. Constituents on both sides of the argument have urged me to support their views. They expect these matters to be debated.
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a very good case. That is exactly the point: our constituents expect us to be debating the issues, and they do not understand why we do not get around to doing so because of some incompetence on the Government’s part, and some procedural motion that prohibits proper discussion.
Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is either incompetence on the Government’s part, or a deliberate attempt to prevent a debate from taking place. The Government can choose which it is. I am quite relaxed about allowing them to choose whether it is incompetence or a deliberate attempt to stifle debate, but it is one of those two things.
What am I supposed to say to my constituents who contact me about these matters, ask that these matters be debated, and urge that their own views be heard? Am I supposed to say, “I’m sorry; this is the House of Commons, this is an important issue and the Bill was meant to deal with it, but the Government have ensured that there is not enough time for it to be debated, and so the view of the House has not been tested”?
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is perfectly entitled to a debate on the new clause that he supports. I might well take a different view from the hon. Gentleman, but the people in the country—our constituents—are entitled to know where we stand on these issues, and to know that they are being debated.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Is not a bad situation made worse by the fact that debate on the timetable motion is taken out of the time for debate on the Bill? It would
have been a little better if the 45 minutes for this debate had been ring-fenced, so that after that we could get on with the Bill.
Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and he was entirely right when he said in an earlier intervention that this type of thing was bringing the House into disrepute. The standing of the House of Commons is falling as every day goes by. We should be trying to do something about that. We should be trying to arrest the slide in public support for what goes on in this place. We should not be helping it to fall into further disrepute by not debating matters that are of great importance to our constituents. We are already considered an irrelevance by many people; we are making ourselves irrelevant by not debating particular issues because it might be inconvenient for the Government to have them debated. As we have heard, the business has been fairly light in recent weeks, and it will be so next week in particular, when it seems that the Government are scrabbling around trying to find business to put on in order to allow the House to sit. That would have provided a perfect opportunity to have proper debate of these issues.
My constituents have raised these important issues and they expected them to be debated. I could not allow this debate to go by without making the point that the Government have prevented their being debated through their programme motion. We have two days set aside on the Order Paper. Given the way things have been arranged, it is entirely possible that we may reach almost none of the key amendments today and finish early tomorrow because the business ends particularly early, when we could have allowed time for some more of these issues to be debated. That would have been entirely possible.
This business has been organised in such a way as to prevent debate on matters that are important to Members and our constituents. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. I am delighted that my Front-Bench colleagues have said that they will oppose this programme motion, and I will support them enthusiastically.
5.36 pm
Bridget Prentice: I have heard a lot of nonsense spoken in this House on many an occasion, but not quite as much as I have heard from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) today.
Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Bridget Prentice: No, because I want us to get on to the main substance of the debate.
Let me address a couple of points. First, we spent 43 hours and 32 minutes in Committee, so the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is very concerned about process in this House, will know that proper scrutiny took place in Committee over several days, including an extra day. We have also allowed two days on Report. I will not take any lessons from the nationalists, who did not bother turning up to the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I will say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who was concerned about the balance between amendments to the law of homicide and to incitement, that there were more names down in support of the amendment to the incitement provisions than in
support of any of the amendments to the homicide law, which might indicate that people do want to have a proper debate on the incitement provisions.
Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who rightly tabled new clauses to the Bill, that if a disciplined approach were taken by the Opposition—which I doubt, however—we might well get on to his proposals tonight, and he might hear some positive responses from the Government.
Whether we reach all the parts of the Bill that are down for debate tonight is entirely in the hands of Opposition Members.
Bridget Prentice: I will not give way, as I want us to get on to the substance of the Bill. If the Opposition could exercise a little discipline, we might well reach all those clauses. It is entirely up to them.
The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 220.
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Austin, Mr. Ian
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
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
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, rh Andy
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clelland, Mr. David
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Eagle, Angela
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gilroy, Linda
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr. Tom
Havard, Mr. Dai
Healey, rh John
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hughes, rh Beverley
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kelly, rh Ruth
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Kidney, Mr. David
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lammy, rh Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McCartney, rh Mr. Ian
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, rh Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McNulty, rh Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Moffat, Anne
Moffatt, Laura
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Moran, Margaret
Morgan, Julie
Morley, rh Mr. Elliot
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Prescott, rh Mr. John
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, rh James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, rh John
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Mr. Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Ryan, rh Joan
Salter, Martin
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
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, Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Straw, rh Mr. Jack
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Taylor, David
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, rh Keith
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Watson, Mr. Tom
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Wills, rh Mr. Michael
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodward, rh Mr. Shaun
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wyatt, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mark Tami and
Mr. Dave Watts
NOES
Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Alexander, Danny
Amess, Mr. David
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony
Barrett, John
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Bercow, John
Beresford, Sir Paul
Binley, Mr. Brian
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brake, Tom
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr. Jeremy
Browning, Angela
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burrowes, Mr. David
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Butterfill, Sir John
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Cash, Mr. William
Clark, Greg
Clegg, rh Mr. Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Curry, rh Mr. David
Davey, Mr. Edward
Davies, Mr. Dai
Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr. Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Duddridge, James
Duncan, Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Durkan, Mark
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evennett, Mr. David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Mr. Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mr. Mark
Foster, Mr. Don
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gidley, Sandra
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goldsworthy, Julia
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Gummer, rh Mr. John
Hague, rh Mr. William
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harvey, Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Heath, Mr. David
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Holmes, Paul
Horam, Mr. John
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howard, rh Mr. Michael
Howarth, David
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, Simon
Huhne, Chris
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Jones, Mr. David
Keetch, Mr. Paul
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Kramer, Susan
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lamb, Norman
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
Lilley, rh Mr. Peter
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Maclean, rh David
Main, Anne
Maples, Mr. John
Mason, John
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McDonnell, John
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Mercer, Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, Mr. Andrew
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Mulholland, Greg
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Öpik, Lembit
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Price, Adam
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Pugh, Dr. John
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Reid, Mr. Alan
Rennie, Willie
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rowen, Paul
Russell, Bob
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, Mr. Nicholas
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spicer, Sir Michael
Spink, Bob
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
Taylor, Matthew
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr. Edward
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Viggers, Sir Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Watkinson, Angela
Webb, Steve
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, Mr. David
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mark
Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Young, rh Sir George
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. John Baron and
Mr. Philip Dunne
Question accordingly agreed to.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |