Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the House of Lords Bill, the Motion in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Business of the House, and consideration of any Messages from the Lords relating to the House of Lords Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
At least the amendment would have been something. At least the Prime Minister, or the political party leaders could not have got their sticky fingers on one part of our Parliament—just one small part. We asked for one small thing and even that has been rejected.
What arguments have been advanced today? It has been argued that the amendment may be technically flawed, or that it is not appropriate to put Privy Councillors in an amendment. That is nonsense. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. I hope that at least some Labour Members will have the decency to vote for what is a small amendment.
In contrast to the previous debate, Conservative Members all agree that we want to keep the Lords amendment. That is also my view, but not because I think that an appointments commission is a tremendously good idea. I would prefer legislators to be chosen by election. It is extraordinary that, in this day and age, as we approach the 21st century, they should be chosen in any other way. Therefore, the commission is not so much second best; it is third best.
The commission is, I suppose, a constraint of sorts on prime ministerial patronage and we do need some constraints on such patronage. The Prime Minister has appointed more life peers per annum than any other since life peers were introduced.
The Minister said earlier that I had got my facts wrong, but I have gone to the Library to check them. They are right. It is also true that the Labour Government have appointed more Labour peers as a proportion of the total number than any Government have ever appointed from their own side. Packing is taking place on a huge scale, so we need something to restrain it.
What is more, patronage will be much more important in the interim House than it is now because there will be far more life peers as a proportion of the total and also means that the House will be smaller. Therefore, any addition to the House is disproportionately more important.
The proposals were set out not just in the Government's own White Paper, but in detail by Baroness Jay in Committee. The drafters of the amendment have clearly gone into that detail. They have looked at what she said and ensured that, as far as possible, the amendment conformed to what the Government want. The Government will vote down their own amendment tonight. It is extraordinary.
Why have the Government decided to turn the amendment down tonight? I cannot think, but we have been given a few reasons. I shall go through a few of them. First, the Minister said—he can correct me if I am wrong—that there is no need for an appointments commission because it is only an interim House; it will be gone in a few minutes, so we do not have to worry about it much. That seems to contradict all the other arguments about the Weatherill amendment, which could last for some considerable time, as several hon. Members have acknowledged. I fear that it may last for a very long time indeed, as the last interim House did: it was introduced in 1911 and we have only just started to reform it.
That may have been the Minister's argument—that the commission would deal only with a temporary House—but Baroness Jay gave exactly the opposite reason when she discussed the measure in the other place. She said that we must get it in quickly and promised that she would do so to deal with the new year's honours list; clearly, that will not now happen.
Baroness Jay made her promise in June and we have had no action since. The only action taken seems to have a been a memo to the Treasury saying, "We need a few bob to start work on the commission, so if we want to spend any money please could we have some?" That would take only 48 hours. I am sure that the Chancellor has ticked it off, so that is no reason for not agreeing to the amendment.
The Minister's second argument was that work on establishing the commission would be impeded simply because the other place has put a proposal on the commission into a Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, such an argument could only imply that the Government are planning to establish a different commission from the one proposed in their White Paper, and that Ministers are now halfway down the road and do not want to allow the provision into the Bill.
It is extraordinary to suggest that, every time an amendment on a key issue is tabled in the other place, Government planning should grind to a halt until that amendment has been dealt with. That is not an argument.
The Minister's third argument was that Privy Councillors are entirely unsuitable to serve on the commission. Such a proposition is barely worth debating. The Minister could alter the provision by tabling a small amendment to widen or narrow the list to include those whom hon. Members on both sides of the House think should serve.
Finally, the Minister argued that we could do without a statutory body. That argument gave away much of the truth. If the commission is not statutory, the Prime Minister will be able to change its terms and structure. Consequently, we should have no confidence that there will be an open and transparent system to appoint legislators.
The Minister gave those four reasons for not accepting the amendment, and they were barely worth even articulating. I hope that we shall not hear the arguments again, and that he has kept something up his sleeve to encourage us to think differently.
I fear that we shall hear virtually no argument from the Minister, and I certainly shall not hold my breath.
I should be very interested to see whether the Minister has decided that he is prepared after all to concede the matter. If he is not, I should be grateful to hear some better reasons for not doing so other than those that he has given us so far.
I shall in a moment.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Government's intention today, once the Weatherill amendment had been debated, was that the appointments issue—which is critical to the future of the House of Lords, and to the future of freedom and democracy in the United Kingdom—should simply be wafted away with a wave of the hand.
I listened to the Minister's speech, and—it is customary to say this, and I join in saying it—I am completely satisfied about his own integrity and the assurances that he gave the House on the Government's good intentions. However, if the intervention of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) demonstrated the quality of the mainstream Labour party's input into the future of accountability and ending patronage, the House has something to fear from the Government.
In a series of interventions by Opposition Members—by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh)—what has shone through is that, regardless of how we view the ideal solution for the House of Lords, we are all deeply anxious about the matter of patronage, and that the future House, whether elected or appointed, should be free of patronage.
It would have been so much more pleasant if the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) had given way earlier. My point is very simple: we are waiting for Wakeham. Once the Wakeham commission reports, we shall know where we are going. It is far too early for Lords amendment No. 2.
With respect, that intervention worries me rather a lot too. One of the central problems in all this is that we were invited to go through a temporary stage and were offered some permanent stage at a later date. However, the temporary stage is so flawed by the absence of safeguards that should be present—in particular, the appointment of members to the upper House—that it gives us real cause for concern.
We can go on waiting for Wakeham for a long time. When it comes, the safeguards will not be in place, so if the Government decide never to implement a second stage, as many of us strongly fear, these safeguards will never come into operation, or if they do, because they will not be in a statutory form, the Government will have every opportunity if they so wish to remove them with impunity and without so much as a reference to the House.
I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating arguments, but a couple of points merit going over. There were three powerful interventions from Labour Members who, as I understood it, shared the Opposition's disquiet in this matter—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and, although he may correct me, I also detected a considerable amount of anxiety in the hon. Member for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman).
This solution may be imperfect. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central correctly identified all the other areas where it might be desirable for an appointments commission to rule, not merely on the appointment of Cross-Bench peers but of all future peers if it is to be an appointed Chamber, whether it be temporary or—as we all fear—permanent. Which is the better—that we should not signal tonight at least an appreciation of what members of the House of Lords have tried to do or that we should simply say that we will wait on assurances from the Government for some future date?
It is a little difficult to criticise members of the other place for what one might describe as the conservative approach that they adopted in tabling the amendment, when all that they sought to do was to mirror the assurances that the Government had given. Had they gone much further, they would have been open to all sorts of criticism. Therefore, they were greatly to be commended for the fact that they chose only to take a tentative step. However, if it is only a tentative step, it does not make it negligible. If we go ahead and put down a proper sign that that is the direction in which we ought to be going, it will be difficult subsequently for any Government to gainsay it. To await the assurances of the Minister in this matter appears a counterproductive step and one that risks the danger that the Government will say that it can all be dismissed because there was not real concern in the House about the matter.
I appeal to the Minister and his colleagues, who have given the matter a lot of careful thought and who joined a debate on the nature of the second Chamber that we all seek earlier this year, to reflect carefully whether the amendment tabled is not sufficiently valid that it ought to command support, even if it does not go as far as they would wish to ensure that all appointments to the second Chamber are in the hands at least of an independent commission, not of the Prime Minister alone.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde expressed concern about the amendment in so far as it refers to Northern Ireland. I appreciate that concern, but in truth there is nothing in it that prevents the appointment of peers who come from Northern Ireland, if the Prime Minister so wishes. Of course, it might be more desirable that that, too, should be in the hands of an appointments commission. They will not necessarily be Cross Benchers, but, in itself, there is nothing to prevent that in the amendment and the hon. Gentleman should not be deterred from following his conscience, if that is what is troubling him in this matter, on that single issue.
Finally, it has been said that this is all temporary and that we should not spend so much time on measures that are only temporary. This House has spent hours on the Bill—a measure that we are told is to be temporary. If the Government had been willing to go to the trouble of framing some sensible amendments to the Lords amendment, it would have taken very little more time.
The Government's position is untenable. They indulge in pious hand-wringing about the good intentions of the House of Lords, but they refuse to do anything. It is for those of us who believe in accountability and reducing the powers of patronage to ensure that our message is brought home to the Government this evening.
I should like to reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised. I am conscious that I need to make rapid progress.
It has been said that this is the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss the matter, but it was discussed at length in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) argued strongly with a Scottish voice, as ever. I am conscious of the points that he made and we shall ensure that they are taken forward.
Some Labour Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), have argued that our proposals do not go far enough. They have radical views on the second stage. They were right to point out that the amendment is about only the Cross Benchers.
Several hon. Members have asked me what the Government's plans are. They are set out at some length in chapter six of the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords. I ask hon. Members to look at that. Some have argued that the amendment is not very different from the Government's plans. They are right. The two are very similar.
That brings me to the key issue: why is there no such measure in the Bill? The answer is very straightforward. We want to go down a tried and tested route—one that has been set by Nolan and Neill and that we know can and will work. We are also conscious that the interim House will be a transitional and temporary measure. We do not want to give the impression that the interim stage will be very long.
Several hon. Members have asked us to make progress. We are determined to do so and we are happy to be judged on our record.
|Division No.319]||[10.17 pm|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Caplin, Ivor|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Casale, Roger|
|Ainger, Nick||Caton, Martin|
|Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)||Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)|
|Alexander, Douglas||Chaytor, David|
|Allan, Richard||Chidgey, David|
|Allen, Graham||Clapham, Michael|
|Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)||Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)|
|Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)||Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary|
|Ashton, Joe||Clark, Paul (Gillingham)|
|Atherton, Ms Candy||Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)|
|Ballard, Jackie||Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)|
|Barnes, Harry||Clelland, David|
|Barron, Kevin||Clwyd, Ann|
|Bayley, Hugh||Coaker, Vernon|
|Beard, Nigel||Coffey, Ms Ann|
|Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret||Cohen, Harry|
|Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)||Coleman, Iain|
|Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)||Connarty, Michael|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)||Cooper, Yvette|
|Bennett, Andrew F||Corbett, Robin|
|Benton, Joe||Corston, Jean|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Cotter, Brian|
|Berry, Roger||Cousins, Jim|
|Best, Harold||Cranston, Ross|
|Betts, Clive||Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)|
|Blackman, Liz||Cryer, John (Hornchurch)|
|Blears, Ms Hazel||Cummings, John|
|Blizzard, Bob||Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)|
|Boateng, Rt Hon Paul||Darting, Rt Hon Alistair|
|Borrow, David||Darvill, Keith|
|Bradley, Keith (Withington)||Davey, Edward (Kingston)|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)|
|Bradshaw, Ben||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Dawson, Hilton|
|Browne, Desmond||Dean, Mrs Janet|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Dismore, Andrew|
|Burden, Richard||Dobbin, Jim|
|Burgon, Colin||Donohoe, Brian H|
|Butler, Mrs Christine||Doran, Frank|
|Byers, Rt Hon Stephen||Dowd, Jim|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Drew, David|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)|
|Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)||Edwards, Huw|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Ellman, Mrs Louise|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Fearn, Ronnie|
|Field, Rt Hon Frank||Keetch, Paul|
|Fisher, Mark||Kelly, Ms Ruth|
|Fitzpatrick, Jim||Kemp, Fraser|
|Fitzsimons, Lorna||Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)|
|Flint, Caroline||Khabra, Piara S|
|Flynn, Paul||Kidney, David|
|Follett, Barbara||Kilfoyle, Peter|
|Foster, Rt Hon Derek||King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)|
|Foster, Don (Bath)||Kumar, Dr Ashok|
|Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)||Ladyman, Dr Stephen|
|Foster, Michael J (Worcester)||Lawrence, Ms Jackie|
|Fyfe, Maria||Laxton, Bob|
|Gapes, Mike||Lepper, David|
|Gardiner, Barry||Leslie, Christopher|
|George, Bruce (Walsall S)||Levitt, Tom|
|Gerrard, Neil||Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)|
|Gibson, Dr Ian||Lewis, Terry (Worsley)|
|Gilroy, Mrs Linda||Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen|
|Godman, Dr Norman A||Linton, Martin|
|Godsiff, Roger||Livsey, Richard|
|Goggins, Paul||Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Lock, David|
|Gordon, Mrs Eileen||Love, Andrew|
|Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||McCabe, Steve|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)|
|Grogan, John||Macdonald, Calum|
|Gunnell, John||McDonnell, John|
|Hain, Peter||McGuire, Mrs Anne|
|Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)||McIsaac, Shona|
|Hall, Patrick (Bedford)||McKenna, Mrs Rosemary|
|Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)||Mackinlay, Andrew|
|Hanson, David||Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert|
|Heal, Mrs Sylvia||MacShane, Denis|
|Healey, John||Mactaggart, Fiona|
|Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)||McWalter, Tony|
|Hepburn, Stephen||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Heppell, John||Mallaber, Judy|
|Hesford, Stephen||Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)|
|Hewitt, Ms Patricia||Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)|
|Hill, Keith||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Hinchliffe, David||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Hodge, Ms Margaret||Marshall-Andrews, Robert|
|Hoey, Kate||Martlew, Eric|
|Hood, Jimmy||Maxton, John|
|Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey||Meacher, Rt Hon Michael|
|Hope, Phil||Meale, Alan|
|Howarth, Alan (Newport E)||Merron, Gillian|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)|
|Howells, Dr Kim||Milburn, Rt Hon Alan|
|Hoyle, Lindsay||Miller, Andrew|
|Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)||Mitchell, Austin|
|Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)||Moffatt, Laura|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Humble, Mrs Joan||Moore, Michael|
|Hurst, Alan||Moran, Ms Margaret|
|Hutton, John||Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)|
|Iddon, Dr Brian||Morley, Elliot|
|Illsley, Eric||Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)|
|Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Jamieson, David||Mountford, Kali|
|Jenkins, Brian||Mudie, George|
|Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)||Mullin, Chris|
|Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)|
|Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)||Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)|
|Jones, Helen (Warrington N)||Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)|
|Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)||Naysmith, Dr Doug|
|Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)||O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)|
|Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)||O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)||O'Hara, Eddie|
|Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa||Olner, Bill|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||O'Neill, Martin|
|Keeble, Ms Sally||Öpik, Lembit|
|Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)||Organ, Mrs Diana|
|Osborne, Ms Sandra||Soley, Clive|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Southworth, Ms Helen|
|Pearson, Ian||Spellar, John|
|Pendry, Tom||Squire, Ms Rachel|
|Perham, Ms Linda||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Pickthall, Colin||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Pike, Peter L||Stevenson, George|
|Plaskitt, James||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Pollard, Kerry||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Pond, Chris||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Pope, Greg||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Pound, Stephen||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Powell, Sir Raymond||Stringer, Graham|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Prescott, Rt Hon John|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Prosser, Gwyn||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Purchase, Ken||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Quinn, Lawrie||Timms, Stephen|
|Radice, Rt Hon Giles||Tipping, Paddy|
|Rammell, Bill||Todd, Mark|
|Rapson, Syd||Touhig, Don|
|Raynsford, Nick||Trickett, Jon|
|Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)||Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)|
|Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Rendel, David||Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)|
|Roche, Mrs Barbara||Turner, Neil (Wigan)|
|Rooker, Jeff||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Rowlands, Ted||Tyler, Paul|
|Roy, Frank||Tynan, Bill|
|Ruane, Chris||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Ruddock, Joan||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Russell, Bob (Colchester)||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)||Wareing, Robert N|
|Ryan, Ms Joan||Watts, David|
|Salter, Martin||White, Brian|
|Sanders, Adrian||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Sarwar, Mohammad||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Savidge, Malcolm||Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)|
|Sheerman, Barry||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Shipley, Ms Debra||Wills, Michael|
|Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)||Wilson, Brian|
|Singh, Marsha||Winnick, David|
|Skinner, Dennis||Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)|
|Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)||Wise, Audrey|
|Smith, Angela (Basildon)||Wood, Mike|
|Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)||Woolas, Phil|
|Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)||Worthington, Tony|
|Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)||Wyatt, Derek|
|Smith, John (Glamorgan)|
|Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)||Mr. Tony McNulty and|
|Snape, Peter||Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael||Burns, Simon|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Cash, William|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)|
|Beggs, Roy||Clappison, James|
|Bercow, John||Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)|
|Beresford, Sir Paul||Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Body, Sir Richard||Collins, Tim|
|Boswell, Tim||Colvin, Michael|
|Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)||Cormack, Sir Patrick|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia||Cran, James|
|Brady, Graham||Curry, Rt Hon David|
|Brazier, Julian||Davies, Quentin (Grantham)|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)|
|Browning, Mrs Angela|
|Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)||Donaldson, Jeffrey|
|Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Duncan, Alan||O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)|
|Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Ottaway, Richard|
|Evans, Nigel||Page, Richard|
|Faber, David||Paice, James|
|Fabricant, Michael||Paterson, Owen|
|Fallon, Michael||Pickles, Eric|
|Flight, Howard||Prior, David|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Randall, John|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Redwood, Rt Hon John|
|Fox, Dr Liam||Robathan, Andrew|
|Fraser, Christopher||Robertson, Laurence|
|Gale, Roger||Ross, William (E Lond'y)|
|Garnier, Edward||Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)|
|Gibb, Nick||Ruffley, David|
|Gill, Christopher||St Aubyn, Nick|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Gray, James||Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian|
|Green, Damian||Shepherd, Richard|
|Greenway, John||Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|Grieve, Dominic||Soames, Nicholas|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Hawkins, Nick||Spring, Richard|
|Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael||Streeter, Gary|
|Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas||Swayne, Desmond|
|Horam, John||Syms, Robert|
|Jack, Rt Hon Michael||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Jackson, Robert (Wantage)||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Jenkin, Bernard||Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)|
|King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Kirkbride, Miss Julie||Townend, John|
|Laing, Mrs Eleanor||Tredinnick, David|
|Lansley, Andrew||Trend, Michael|
|Leigh, Edward||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Letwin, Oliver||Viggers, Peter|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)||Walter, Robert|
|Lidington, David||Waterson, Nigel|
|Lilley, Rt Hon Peter||Wells, Bowen|
|Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)||Whitney, Sir Raymond|
|Loughton, Tim||Whittingdale, John|
|Luff, Peter||Wilkinson, John|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Willetts, David|
|McIntosh, Miss Anne||Willis, Phil|
|MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew||Wilshire, David|
|Maclean, Rt Hon David||Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Woodward, Shaun|
|Malins, Humfrey||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian||Tellers for the Noes:|
|May, Mrs Theresa||Mrs. Jacqui Lait and|
|Moss, Malcolm||Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.|