| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.31 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): The title “citizens’ agenda” highlights the problem that we face, because we in this country are not citizens—actually, we are subjects.
Therefore, we have a difficulty, and I want to talk today about the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed, because that lies at the heart of the problems that we have in respect of all the debates about the European Union. There is an implied consent, and when that implied consent no longer exists, two things happen: first, people withdraw into the private sphere, which means that they no longer go out and vote; and, secondly, they no longer care, and when they no longer care they get to the second stage—they openly revolt. In the EU, the implied consent is being withdrawn. One reason for that is that implied consent usually exists only because those who are being governed know that, every so often, they can kick out those who govern them, and that cleansing process reinvigorates the implied consent. But at the European level that simply never happens.
The European elections are like a phantom pregnancy. They go through all the stages and get bigger and bigger, but in the end they do not deliver anything. That is because we do not vote for a Government and we fight those elections on national labels. What does it mean to vote for the Conservatives, when they then sit with the European People’s party? Well, even they do not know about that.
Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about people becoming alienated when they are ignored. Does she agree that citizens’ sense of being ignored—when they need jobs and their welfare state is under threat, and so forth—is a factor in the rise of the extreme right in parts of Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and that that presents a very dangerous possibility for the future of Europe?
Ms Stuart: Yes, extremists, whether from the right or the left, appear to be offering certainties, and people want certainties. That is worrying.
But I want to look at our own house, before we criticise the rest of Europe. There are two options. We can either draw more of the decision making up into
Brussels, which clearly has not worked, or we can draw it down to member states, which is what I think we need to do. In that regard, we should start at home. Let me give an example of what I mean. Early in October, I turned the radio on and tuned into the “Today” programme, hoping to have my daily rant at John Humphrys. Our Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was talking about age discrimination legislation. I thought that it was very good legislation, and that I would have enjoyed, and have felt proud as a Labour MP, and campaigning and saying, “This is what we have done.”
But what happened? That is the first I had heard of that legislation, so I sent an e-mail to the Library, asking whether the House of Commons had ever debated that it. The Library wrote back saying that the legislation was statutory instrument 2006/2408. It could find no debates on it in the Commons, but there was a debate in the Lords, on 30 March. Of course, the Lords cannot amend statutory instruments. I read the relevant Lords Hansard and discovered that they did indeed debate it—from 4.22 to 4.54 pm, which is a grand total of 32 minutes. I did a little more reading, and I was given the website link for the relevant research paper. This morning, I asked for a hard copy of it. It has not been printed yet.
Since 1997, there have been nine attempts to introduce anti-age discrimination legislation—via ten-minute Bills and amendments to existing legislation, for example— so this issue has exercised the House. That is good, but I would have liked to know about it. There is another reason the House should debate such legislation at length. When Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and explain their understanding of such legislation, courts then refer to such statements in interpreting that legislation.
There was another element of that “Today” programme that really upset me. When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was asked whether the new anti-age discrimination legislation would be incompatible with certain UK legislation, he said that it had yet to be tested in the courts. I do not have a problem with legislation being tested in the courts, but we need to give courts guidance on how we regard it. When such legislation affects all our constituents—indeed, this legislation will have ramifications that we have not even dreamt of yet—we need to be much more realistic about how we deal with and debate it in this House.
I have three suggestions. First, we should have a proper Europe Minister. By that I mean a Minister who is in the Cabinet, who has regular —[Interruption.] The current Minister for Europe is a perfect candidate and I would propose him for that role. Indeed, I want to enhance his role. In addition to being in the Cabinet, he should have regular question sessions at the Dispatch Box as the Minister for Europe, during which he explains all the decisions taken at European level that impact on domestic legislation, and how matters will be co-ordinated across Whitehall. That role is currently fulfilled by our permanent representative in Brussels, but I would like it to be fulfilled by someone of Cabinet rank who is regularly answerable to this House. Indeed, in terms of its political significance, that role is almost one for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Davidson: Is there not a great danger in describing the post of which my hon. Friend approves as the Minister for Europe? Just as the Minister with responsibility for European agriculture matters ends up representing agriculture in government, so the Minister for Europe ought to be called the Minister for Britain. The mechanism ought not to be simply a transmission belt.
Ms Stuart: I am sure that, whatever the title of the position, the House would soon knock whoever holds it into shape. I would also move that role out of the Foreign Office, because this is a domestic issue.
My second suggestion is that MEPs should debate with Members of Parliament issues on which they have a vote; for example, rapporteurs should debate significant legislation with MPs. We should not go to Brussels—they should come here. A debate in this House on the service directive would have been extremely helpful, and I, for one, would love to see more of Mr. Andrew Duff, so that he can explain the Liberals’ position in this Chamber. For once, that would flush out the hypocrisy of the Liberals, who are the most fierce integrationists in Brussels, but who say that they want to withdraw from the fisheries policy when they fight general elections. We would have a bit of fun, particularly when we heard what the European People’s party had to say.
Thirdly, whatever the nature of the debate on the future of Europe, we must at some stage openly acknowledge that there is a big divide between countries that are members of the single currency and those that are not. The latter will require far deeper political integration to create an effective single currency—there is absolutely no way round that. If we go on pretending that that is not the situation, we will not even begin to have an honest debate.
It is great to have a debate on the citizens’ agenda, but we need to start to examine the failures of this House to bring it closer to its people and to have a bit more openness about problems that are staring us in the face while we go on pretending that they do not exist.
3.40 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con):
We have been debating something that does not exist, as there is no citizens’ agenda in Europe. The public—the voters—of Europe have always been treated as political adolescents to be patronised and then ignored by the political class who drive the project forward. Europe’s political elite—they are often very candid about this, at least on the continent—see themselves as having a vanguard role in building an integrated, centralised Europe around which the public must coalesce. If we add to that the fact that all multinational bureaucracies have an instinct to expand and never to reform themselves, we have a recipe for what we do indeed have—a remote, centralised, often corrupt and certainly wasteful form of government from which the public feel completely alienated. There is now a lot of evidence for that, including a succession of no votes, not only on the European constitution but in Sweden and Denmark and an initial no vote in Ireland on the Nice treaty. Moreover, the turnout in European parliamentary elections has, on average, fallen in every
single election since 1979, despite the fact that the Parliament has more and more power. The stronger it gets, the fewer people vote for it.
I think that what I have said so far is uncontroversial. It has been a general theme of this debate that something needs to be done to re-engage the public; so it is that we have in the documents before the House something called plan D. I do not know what happened to plans A, B and C, but perhaps I had something to with the latter, along with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). She and I had the honour of representing this House in the Convention on the Future of Europe, which was an attempt to tackle these issues of alienation. We were instructed to simplify the treaties and to create a Europe closer to its citizens. Of course, that instruction was ignored; instead, the Convention wrote itself a constitution, which was all about giving more powers to the very European Union institutions that had created the problem in the first place. Put simply, the constitution failed. However, although it was turned down by the voters of France and Holland, the Prime Minister, bizarrely, not only signed but still supports it. Presumably, therefore, the Government’s formal position is that that discredited document should be brought into effect in its entirety.
Mr. Cash: I very much endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments and those of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mr. Stuart). I should point out that next week we vote on changing the Standing Orders that deal with questions of how the House handles this business. Is it not extremely important that we emphasise in that debate, by amendments or otherwise, the supremacy of this Parliament over the European Communities Act 1972 to allow ourselves to veto legislation when we know that it will do a great deal of harm to the people of this country and the people of Europe?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend. The House has a crucial contribution to make to openness and transparency. A notable feature of the wonderful plan D is that it advances the proposition that people should be better informed about decisions that are made on their behalf but does not tackle the problem of the vast number of committees in Europe that are submerged from public view. When Lord Kinnock was vice-president of the Commission, he told an Austrian newspaper three years ago that
“the citizens do not know that there is a secret governing system in Europe... We have more than 300 formations in which officials from the member states meet and pass decisions. That is the largest source of bureaucracy and the black hole in European democracy”.
At the same time, Professor Larsson, an academic from Sweden, noted the existence of 1,352 other committees under the Commission that meet in private.
However, plan D tackles none of that. The submerged part of the iceberg will therefore remain hidden from public view and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me give the House another relevant example. I am interested in trade reform and fulfilling all the promises that we made last year in the public debate and lobbies about making poverty history. We need to reform our trade procedures, tariffs and quota systems for the
benefit of not only those whom we represent but the poorest people in the poorest countries.
I naturally turned to the European Union debate on the subject because it takes the lead on trade policy. It transpires that most of the decisions originate in a committee called the “article 133 committee”. I asked to see the minutes of the discussions on those crucial subjects in the first half of the year. On 15 occasions, I was told that I could not access the minutes. They were blocked—indeed, censored—by something called the “general secretariat”. The one set of minutes that I obtained was of a meeting that officials from this country attended on 17 February. The decisions and the discussions are interesting, but, in 16 places, the word, “deleted” appears. In other words, the especially interesting part of the discussion has simply been erased from the record. As an elected person, trying to do my best for my constituents in delivering the agenda on trade reform, I not only have no influence on the discussions but cannot find out what is being discussed. However, none of that is the subject of plan D. The much-heralded initiative on openness and transparency does not tackle the issue.
Mark Lazarowicz: It is easy to make points about the number of committees. I daresay that, if one added up all the UK Government committees or those of any other member state, one would probably find that there were more than those at European level. However, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants to withdraw from the British state in the way in which he apparently wants to withdraw from the European Union. Would not he do better to turn his attention to devising constructive reform rather than advocating withdrawal from the European Union?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have a constructive suggestion—opening up all the secret committees to public scrutiny.
The Government are guilty of secrecy in the House. I serve on the European Scrutiny Committee, along with the distinguished new Chairman, who contributed earlier. Our deliberations take place in private. The public are not allowed even into those. In the previous Parliament, we passed a motion to open up the Committee to public scrutiny so that the press and the public can see what we do on their behalf. That sat in the in-tray of the then Leader of the House and he did nothing to change Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is right—not only the European Union but the British Government have a conspiracy against the public. That makes any initiative about openness and transparency a sham.
The documents also refer to the allied question of over-regulation and discuss the need to reduce the burdens and intrusions suffered by businesses and the public. I have counted last year’s directives, regulations and binding decisions, of which there are 2,900. That adds to the acquis communautaire in the European Union, which already runs to more than 100,000 pages. The European Scrutiny Committee grapples with the issue as best it can, but we cannot stop those regulations, and, increasingly, the Government cannot
stop them, too, because more and more of them are decided by majority voting. Again, the analysis is correct, but the policy is lacking.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) referred to one of the specifics in plan D, the entitlement card. Who will pay for the entitlement card? What will be on it? Will it include a chip containing all 100,000 pages of the acquis communautaire to let us know what we are entitled to in the European Union? Is that really the way to close the gap between the public and the politicians in Europe? It has also been suggested that a corps of European good will ambassadors will go around telling us about plan D. Have they arrived here yet—I have not met them? Who will pay for them? I am willing to meet them, because I am a man of good will.
There is a serious problem, and it cannot be solved by reviving a discredited European constitution. If we are to create a people’s Europe rather than a politician’s Europe, if we want a democratic Europe rather than a bureaucratic state and if we want an open Europe rather than a closed shop, we need the fundamental, thoroughgoing reform of the entire way in which the European Union is structured, financed and run. Such a project is entirely lacking in the documents, and it was not even attempted in the Convention on the Future of Europe. In a notably weak contribution this afternoon, the Minister gave no hint of any Government ambition in that direction. It will therefore fall to this party, when in government, to take forward that task not only on behalf of the people of this country, but on behalf of the people of Europe, who are struggling to create a different Europe that yearns to be free.
3.52 pm
Mr. David S. Borrow (South Ribble) (Lab): I want to make a few brief points in the last few minutes of the debate.
I did not altogether agree with the contribution by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). If we are to engage the citizens of Europe within the European Union, we need a clear, understandable way of making decisions. The existing European Union decision-making process is confused. Power lies in the Council of Ministers, but Ministers tend to say, “It was not us, guv’. It was those nasty Commissioners in Brussels who made the decision.” Citizens do not know who to blame when incorrect decisions are taken and who to get at when the decision-making process is taking place. The existing arrangements for decision making are inadequate for a European Union of 27 member states. Somehow or other, the process must be improved and made not only more transparent, but more efficient.
Key issues for the citizens of Europe include the Hague agenda, which concerns migration, terrorism and crime. The Conservative party has said that it wants nothing to do with that agenda, but the citizens of Europe know that it matters and that there must be a European solution. The Hague agenda has been launched, but it is now in the quagmire because the decision-making process in the European Union cannot take it much further. We need to do something to enable decisions to be made. I accept that the
different legal systems and legal traditions mean that that is not easy to do, but the European Union needs to deliver that agenda.
On energy policy, individual European Union states are making bilateral deals to ensure their energy supplies for the future. Yet the citizens of Europe know that there ought to be a European Union-wide energy policy to ensure that all the peoples of the Union have adequate and affordable energy supplies.
In relation to the development of a single market, I was struck this week by the tension between a national state approach and a European approach. The European civil aviation industry is dominated by Airbus, an international consortium. As a result of the decision by BAE Systems to sell its 20 per cent. stake to the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, however, it is now dominated by the French and Germans. From a company point of view, I have no doubt that the aerospace industry in Broughton and Bristol would flourish in a European single market, because it would be competitive with anywhere else in Europe. Airbus, however, is influenced by national considerations from the French and German Governments. That is a key tension. Unless we tackle those sorts of issues, the European Union will not be in a position to compete with the US or the emerging economies of China and India. If we do not recognise that industries need to be European Union-wide to benefit from the single market, we will come out on the wrong side of the globalisation argument.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 134.
AYES
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, Danny
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Baker, Norman
Balls, Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barrett, John
Battle, rh John
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr. Joe
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brennan, Kevin
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, Andy
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Cairns, David
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Chapman, Ben
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Davey, Mr. Edward
David, Mr. Wayne
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Farrelly, Paul
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, Caroline
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Don
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Gilroy, Linda
Goldsworthy, Julia
Griffith, Nia
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hancock, Mr. Mike
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harris, Mr. Tom
Harvey, Nick
Heath, Mr. David
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Heppell, Mr. John
Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hillier, Meg
Holmes, Paul
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hope, Phil
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Howells, Dr. Kim
Huhne, Chris
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Keetch, Mr. Paul
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Kennedy, rh Jane
Knight, Jim
Kramer, Susan
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lamb, Norman
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacNeil, Mr. Angus
Mactaggart, Fiona
Malik, Mr. Shahid
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Marshall, Mr. David
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Michael, rh Alun
Milburn, rh Mr. Alan
Miliband, Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Moran, Margaret
Mountford, Kali
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Öpik, Lembit
Owen, Albert
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Price, Adam
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Pugh, Dr. John
Purnell, James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Rowen, Paul
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Ryan, Joan
Salter, Martin
Sarwar, Mr. Mohammad
Seabeck, Alison
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Simpson, Alan
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Straw, rh Mr. Jack
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stunell, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Taylor, Matthew
Teather, Sarah
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Mr. Neil
Ussher, Kitty
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Watson, Mr. Tom
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Williams, Mark
Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willott, Jenny
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woodward, Mr. Shaun
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. Dave Watts and
Mr. Alan Campbell
NOES
Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, Mr. Peter
Amess, Mr. David
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baron, Mr. John
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Bercow, John
Beresford, Sir Paul
Binley, Mr. Brian
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Brady, Mr. Graham
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Brokenshire, James
Browning, Angela
Burns, Mr. Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butterfill, Sir John
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Cash, Mr. William
Clappison, Mr. James
Clark, Greg
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Conway, Derek
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Curry, rh Mr. David
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Philip
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Drew, Mr. David
Duddridge, James
Duncan, Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Fabricant, Michael
Field, Mr. Mark
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Mr. Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Goodwill, Mr. Robert
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Greenway, Mr. John
Grieve, Mr. Dominic
Hague, rh Mr. William
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Hayes, Mr. John
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hoban, Mr. Mark
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horam, Mr. John
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jenkin, Mr. Bernard
Jones, Mr. David
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lancaster, Mr. Mark
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Loughton, Tim
Maclean, rh David
Main, Anne
Maples, Mr. John
Maude, rh Mr. Francis
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, Mr. Andrew
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Osborne, Mr. George
Ottaway, Richard
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Pickles, Mr. Eric
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Randall, Mr. John
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Ruffley, Mr. David
Scott, Mr. Lee
Shapps, Grant
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spicer, Sir Michael
Spring, Mr. Richard
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Syms, Mr. Robert
Taylor, Mr. Ian
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Tyrie, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Viggers, Peter
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Walker, Mr. Charles
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Watkinson, Angela
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Yeo, Mr. Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Noes:
Andrew Selous and
Andrew Rosindell
Question accordingly agreed to.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |