§ Mr. Speaker
Before I call the Minister to move motion 2, I want to make a brief statement about proceedings on the motions concerning nominations to Select Committees.
If the Business of the House motion is agreed to, I propose that motions 3 to 29 should be debated together. When the debate concludes, presumably at 7 pm, the Question will be put on each motion in turn. Where an amendment has been selected, the Chair will invite the hon. Member proposing it to move it formally, and the House will vote first on the amendment and then on the main motion. A list of the amendments that I have selected is available in the No Lobby.
May I make it clear that today's proceedings are about nominations to Select Committees? That includes the process by which nominations are made, but it does not include the wider issues about the powers, functions and resources of Select Committees, which were raised during debate on Thursday 5 July.
I have not selected either of the amendments to the Business of the House motion, and I should make it clear that the scope of debate on that motion is limited to the arrangements for today's proceedings.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Stephen Twigg)
I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion relating to the membership of Select Committees and the appointment of a Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons not later than Seven o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; such Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business; and Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply and the Order [28th June] relating to Deferred Divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a Question is challenged in respect of any of the said Questions.I shall be brief in outlining the purpose of the business motion. In effect, the House is being asked to approve the timing of today's debates on Select Committees, including that on the establishment of the Modernisation Committee. The matter is important to the House, and I am therefore pleased that a half-day of prime parliamentary time has been provided for it.
25 No previous Government have set aside time for debates on the nominations for Select Committees before 10 pm. In past Parliaments, similar debates were timetabled for just one and a half hours. For example, in 1983 the issue was debated after 10 pm, for one and a half hours. That was six months after the state opening of Parliament. In 1987 the issue was again debated after 10 pm, with a limit of 90 minutes, and six months after the state opening of Parliament. In 1992 the debate was taken three months after the state opening, and again it was held after 10 pm. This year, the proposals are before the House just one month after the state opening, with more than double the time allocated for debate and the debate held in prime time.
The motion ensures that the Questions necessary to decide these matters, including the Questions on any amendments, can be put today at 7 pm. An early decision means that the Select Committees will be able to begin their work before the summer recess—indeed, as soon as the senior member calls a meeting.
The purpose of today's debate is to carry through the wish of the House. I urge Members on both sides to approve the motion, so that we can move on to the important debate and enable the Select Committees to be established today.
§ Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)
So that we all understand what half a day in prime time means, let me point out that we have barely three and a quarter hours in which to deal with some 27 motions and five important amendments tabled by Members across the House and selected by you, Mr. Speaker.
What distinguishes this debate from those in earlier years is the discontent among Back Benchers, again across the House.
§ Mrs. Browning
No, I will not. No Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
I was referring to the discontent across the House—
§ Mrs. Browning
The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position. If he had done his homework, he would know that I abstained in the vote in 1992. I am not the person at whom to direct gibes about that vote.
This is an important matter. Clearly, we would all like the rules under which nominations are made to have been changed by now; but thanks to an intransigent Government and an earlier Leader of the House who cared little for the wishes of Back Benchers on either side, we must now conduct a very controversial debate in just three and a quarter hours.
§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
I am disappointed that right hon. and hon. Members will not be able to look behind the strict confines of the individual amendments that are before us. My disquiet, which is widely shared, has been aroused because we are being asked to 26 agree memberships of Select Committees for a full Parliament—four or five years—when many people are concerned that the names have been plucked out of the air. Would not it be better to restrict the membership of the Committees to 12 calendar months, until 16 July next year, when we could debate and vote on the recommendations of the Liaison Committee report, which are germane—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have already made a statement regarding the Business of the House motion, which is very narrow. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps put that argument when we reach the next set of motions. I think that that would be the best thing for him to do.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
The question is why the Government seek arbitrarily to limit the time that the House has to debate what is supposed to be a House of Commons matter. As usual, the Government have thought that we should not have a prolonged debate, because that might be awkward or embarrassing. The Government also do not want Members of Parliament delayed too long in the House because they must all be home and tucked up in their beds early. The Government have put on Government business after this business, although limited in time, so it is obvious that the blame for the arbitrary truncation of the debate rests squarely with the Government.
What could possibly be the Government's motivation for the arbitrary time limit on the debate on the next set of motions? As you have kindly indicated, Mr. Speaker, it will be proper during that debate for the House to consider the method of selection of Select Committee memberships. That may be the only opportunity in this Parliament to deal properly with that question, which is now much on people's minds.
§ Hugh Bayley
If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that three and a half hours is too short a time to debate the issues before the House this afternoon, why did he think that one and a half hours was sufficient time in 1992, when the Conservative Government, of which he was a member, excluded the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from the chairmanship of the Health Committee?
§ Mr. Forth
I do not recall any argument at the time from Labour Members. They were, as usual, silent on the matter. In fact, they probably were not here.
This matter is rightly attracting more attention from the House, which is a welcome development. However, it will be for hon. Members to decide whether we can do justice to all the implications of the many motions in the brief time that the Government are allowing for debate. After all, we will be considering the membership of 27 Committees of the House and we are entitled to take a view on each of the proposed memberships, and on the method for determining them. That will require us to gaze into some murky depths, because we all think that we know how the determination is made.
Many hon. Members will be happy with the proposals, because they will benefit from being members of the Committee of their choice. However, an equal number will be unhappy and some may even be suspicious of the 27 way in which the matter has been handled. We also have six amendments to consider. If the Government wish to suggest that the membership of 27 Committees, six amendments and a debate on the procedure for determining the membership can be concluded properly in the time allowed—this will be our only opportunity in this Session and, perhaps, this Parliament—I think that few hon. Members would favour that suggestion.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
My right hon. Friend is addressing the House with his usual restraint and understatement. Does he agree that the allocation of time is inadequate not only because it allows fewer than four minutes for debate on each of the motions on the Order Paper but because, for the debate to be adequate, we need a reiteration by the Leader of the House of what he is reported in the news media to have declared—namely, that he personally opposes the dismissal of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)?
§ Mr. Forth
I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be of considerable interest if the Leader of the House were to honour us with an idea of what he had in mind.
The Government might want to give further consideration to withdrawing the motion if only in the light of the number of Members who are present which, I regret to say, is unusually large. I would rather that a normal number of Members were present for such a debate—that would bring great joy to my heart. If the Leader of the House were to glance around the Chamber, particularly behind him, and look at the number of his colleagues who are here for these debates, to say nothing of Members on this side of the House, he might conclude that if even a fraction of those present wanted to participate, the time allowed would be lamentably inadequate. On that basis alone, I hope that he will seek leave to withdraw the motion so that the debate can continue at the pleasure of the House and Members can allocate their own time to the matter to decide it properly.
Surely we all agree that the creation and membership of our Select Committees is one of the most important acts that we will perform in this Parliament. For it to be performed within this ridiculously short time scale and against this guillotine, which is what the motion amounts to, is unacceptable. My plea is that, before we are forced to vote against the motion, the Government should withdraw it.
§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)
I support the motion. Because of the advance publicity, a large number of our constituents will probably be watching the debate live, and I believe that many of them will be bemused by what they have heard so far and will fail to understand the points that have been made. As someone who has been in the House since 1979 and has always had to participate in these debates after 10 o'clock at night, I thank the Government for giving us prime time. We still have more than three hours, and my guess is that the House will be able to make its views effectively known to the Government before the 7 o'clock motion falls.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that his constituents would be bemused. They should not be, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rightly said, the appointment of Select Committees is one of the most important acts carried out by this Chamber. We are appointing the method by which it is generally agreed that the Government of the day are most effectively scrutinised and called to account. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, that is essentially a House of Commons matter. We are seeing an attempt by the Government to control the ability of the House to select the Select Committees. In other words, the ability of the House properly to perform its functions on a House of Commons matter is being curtailed.
§ David Winnick (Walsall, North)
I am one of those who is concerned with regard to the two Members in question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government should not interfere. However, on 13 July 1992, in a debate about the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) being refused reappointment to a Select Committee by the Government of the day because he was considered too much of a hindrance, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not take the same view. In the Division Lobby, he voted against the hon. Member for Macclesfield being reappointed to the chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health. Will he explain why he did not resign his post if he considered it such a crucial matter?
§ Mr. Hogg
Of course I shall. There are many things that one does in government with which one does not necessarily agree; that is the nature of collective responsibility. Indeed, having heard the Leader of the House make observations both in private and public, I suspect that he does not agree with the decision not to appoint the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
§ Sir Patrick Cormack
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I was merely going to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to admit that he was wrong on that previous occasion.
§ Mr. Hogg
I doubt that I was wrong, because I would have been expressing in private the view that I am now expressing in public. The real question is whether one should always resign when one does not wish to oppose a particular measure. That is nonsense; we would never have government. I do not suppose that I was wrong; I imagine that I expressed in private what I am saying today. I just did not do it in public; I was discreet.
29 The substantive issue is whether the House should appoint Select Committees. Nominations for 27 or so Committees are to be decided, six amendments have been tabled and there are six substantive debates. We have four hours in which to complete that.
§ Mr. Derek Foster (Bishop Auckland)
I congratulate the Government on making the Select Committee appointments rapidly; that is unprecedented and has never been achieved before in my 22 years in the House. I am deeply disappointed by the outcome, but I congratulate them on the speed of the appointments and on having this debate in prime time, which is also unprecedented in my time. We have had enough procedural nonsense. Please can we get on with the substantive debate?
§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)
My experience of guillotine debates and subjects that the Executive propose to guillotine is that they have a natural time span. Frankly, I do not know whether debate on the nominations would reasonably run to 7 o'clock or later. However, in total, there are more than 30 amendments and motions. Some are highly contentious. The House has rarely been as full as it is today for a debate on procedural matters. We therefore know that the issues are highly contentious. The Executive, who are controlling Committee membership through the nominations on the Order Paper, now control the time during which the House can reasonably debate them.
I do not know whether the substantive debate will run until 7 o'clock; but, following this debate and a subsequent Division, there will be less than three hours for it. We should allow it to run its natural course. My guess is that it would probably run until just after 7 o'clock, so why waste time, as the Government increasingly do? The fact is that time to debate the present motion takes time out of the following debates, which are to run until 7 o'clock. That happens with every guillotine and it squeezes the time for debate, which means that many of us who feel strongly about such issues may not have an opportunity to speak on them.
We are trying to reinforce the message to the Executive, who are controlling not only the timetable, but the overall debate and Committee membership, that we should be allowed to speak on those matters as we wish. A number of Members have assembled here because they know in their heart of hearts that, however strongly they wish to speak, they will not be able to under the guillotine.
§ Jeremy Corbyn (Islington. North)
I, too, hope that we take a decision on this procedural motion very quickly, but I suggest that the whole business of appointing Select Committees, rushed timetables, timetable motions and 30 guillotine motions does not bring Parliament into good repute anywhere outside this building. The public want Parliament to hold the Executive to account; they want Members to be able freely to question what the Executive, Ministers and agencies do; and, above all, they want Select Committees to be appointed not by the Executive or, under powers of patronage, by the Leader of the Opposition, but by non-office-holding Back Benchers.
A debate on such an important issue should not be limited to three hours. If necessary, the debate should go on longer, and I will invite the House to vote against this timetable motion, so that we can have more time seriously to discuss all the issues. It seems that too often, too quickly and too readily the House gives up its powers or allows restrictions to be placed on them and on debate, which debases the House in the public eye. We should consider the turnout in the recent general election and think about what the turnout will be in future elections.
If the House wants to be taken seriously, it must take itself and its role as a body of scrutiny, questioning, debate and proposal much more seriously than it does at present. We have already had a debate on "Shifting the Balance". Surely the message is that all is not well in the way that the House is run, and perhaps now is the time, during a debate on Select Committee appointments, to think about how to make the House more representative, more democratic and, above all, more effective in its work.
§ 4.1 pm
§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
I want to make a brief point that follows from what has just been said. This debate is limited to three hours, but following your strictures on the motions and amendments, Mr. Speaker, there could be eight or nine hours of votes. Three hours of debate and perhaps 10 hours voting is a strange ratio; perhaps those on the Government Front Bench will address that point.
§ Mr. Stephen Twigg
I am rapidly becoming used to being the Minister with responsibility for business of the House motions, and as such I am used to the synthetic anger conjured up by some Opposition Members, but the humbug that we have heard today takes the biscuit. We propose, if I am brief, to have three hours of debate, when on every previous similar occasion there has been only an hour and a half. We are debating the motion in prime time, when every similar debate under Conservative Governments was taken after 10 o'clock and often in the early hours of the morning. There are serious issues to contend with. We would have had three and a half hours of debate. We have lost time only because of the contributions made by Opposition Members. I suggest that we accept the motion immediately, so that we can have three hours of proper debate on the matter in hand.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided:Ayes 290, Noes 160.34
|Division No. 25]||[4.3 pm|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)||Baird, Vera|
|Ainger, Nick||Banks, Tony|
|Alexander, Douglas||Barrett, John|
|Allen, Graham||Barron, Kevin|
|Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary||Bayley, Hugh|
|Atkins, Charlotte||Beard, Nigel|
|Bailey, Adrian||Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Begg, Miss Anne||Fitzpatrick, Jim|
|Berth, Rt Hon A J||Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna|
|Bell, Stuart||Flint, Caroline|
|Benton, Joe||Follett, Barbara|
|Berry, Roger||Foster, Rt Hon Derek|
|Blackman, Liz||Foster, Don (Bath)|
|Blizzard, Bob||Foster, Michael (Worcester)|
|Boateng, Rt Hon Paul||Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)|
|Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)||Gapes, Mike|
|Brake, Tom||Gardiner, Barry|
|Brennan, Kevin||Gerrard, Neil|
|Brinton, Mrs Helen||Gibson, Dr Ian|
|Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)||Goggins, Paul|
|Green, Matthew (Ludlow)|
|Brown, Russell (Dumfries)||Grogan, John|
|Browne, Desmond||Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)|
|Bryant, Chris||Hall, Patrick (Bedford)|
|Buck, Ms Karen||Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)|
|Burden, Richard||Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)|
|Bumham, Andy||Harvey, Nick|
|Burstow, Paul||Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)|
|Byers, Rt Hon Stephen||Hendrick, Mark|
|Cable, Dr Vincent||Hepburn, Stephen|
|Cairns, David||Heyes, David|
|Calton, Patsy||Hill, Keith|
|Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)||Hoey, Kate|
|Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)||Hood, Jimmy|
|Cann, Jamie||Hope, Phil|
|Caplin, Ivor||Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)|
|Casale, Roger||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cawsey, Ian||Howells, Dr Kim|
|Challen, Colin||Hoyle, Lindsay|
|Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)||Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)|
|Chaytor, David||Humble, Mrs Joan|
|Clark, Paul (Gillingham)||Hutton, John|
|Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)||Iddon, Dr Brian|
|Clelland, David||Illsley, Eric|
|Coaker, Vernon||Ingram, Rt Hon Adam|
|Coffey, Ms Ann||Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)|
|Cohen, Harry||Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)|
|Coleman, Iain||Jenkins, Brian|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)|
|Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)||Jones, Helen (Warrington N)|
|Cooper, Yvette||Jones, Kevan (N Durham)|
|Corston, Jean||Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa|
|Cousins, Jim||Joyce, Eric|
|Cox, Tom||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Cranston, Ross||Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)|
|Crausby, David||Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)|
|Cruddas, Jon||Kelly, Ruth|
|Cummings, John||Kemp, Fraser|
|Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)||Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)|
|Khabra, Piara S|
|Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)||Kidney, David|
|Cunningham, Tony (Workington)||King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)|
|Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire||King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)|
|Darling, Rt Hon Alistair||Knight, Jim (S Dorset)|
|Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)||Kumar, Dr Ashok|
|David, Wayne||Ladyman, Dr Stephen|
|Davidson, Ian||Lawrence, Mrs Jackie|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Laws, David|
|Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)||Laxton, Bob|
|Dawson, Hilton||Lazarowicz, Mark|
|Dean, Mrs Janet||Lepper, David|
|Dhanda, Parmjit||Leslie, Christopher|
|Dismore, Andrew||Levitt, Tom|
|Dobbin, Jim||Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)|
|Dobson, Rt Hon Frank||Linton, Martin|
|Donohoe, Brian H||Love, Andrew|
|Doran, Frank||Lucas, Ian|
|Dowd, Jim||Luke, Iain|
|Drew, David||Lyons, John|
|Efford, Clive||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Ellman, Mrs Louise||McCafferty, Chris|
|Ennis, Jeff||McCartney, Rt Hon Ian|
|Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)||McDonagh, Siobhain|
|MacDougall, John||Salter, Martin|
|McGuire, Mrs Anne||Sanders, Adrian|
|McIsaac, Shona||Savidge, Malcolm|
|McKechin, Ann||Sawford, Phil|
|McKenna, Rosemary||Shaw, Jonathan|
|McNulty, Tony||Shipley, Ms Debra|
|Mactaggart, Fiona||Simon, Siôn|
|McWilliam, John||Singh, Marsha|
|Mahmood, Khalid||Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Mallaber, Judy||Smith, Angela (Basildon)|
|Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter||Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)|
|Mann, John||Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)|
|Marris, Rob||Southworth, Helen|
|Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)||Squire, Rachel|
|Merron, Gillian||Starkey, Dr Phyllis|
|Michael, Rt Hon Alun||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Milburn, Rt Hon Alan||Stevenson, George|
|Miliband, David||Stewart, David (Inverness E)|
|Miller, Andrew||Stewart, Ian (Eccles)|
|Moffatt, Laura||Stinchcombe, Paul|
|Moore, Michael||Stoate, Dr Howard|
|Moran, Margaret||Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin|
|Morley, Elliot||Stringer, Graham|
|Mullin, Chris||Stuart, Ms Gisela|
|Munn, Ms Meg||Stunell, Andrew|
|Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)||Sutcliffe, Gerry|
|Naysmith, Dr Doug||Tami, Mark|
|Oaten, Mark||Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)|
|O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)||Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)|
|O'Hara, Edward||Taylor, David (NW Leics)|
|Olner, Bill||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|O'Neill, Martin||Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)|
|Öpik, Lembit||Thurso, John|
|Organ, Diana||Tonge, Dr Jenny|
|Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)||Trickett, Jon|
|Owen Albert||Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)|
|Palmer, Dr Nick||Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)|
|Pearson, Ian||Turner, Neil (Wigan)|
|Perham Linda||Twigg, Derek (Halton)|
|Picking, Anne||Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)|
|Pickthall, Colin||Tyler, Paul|
|Pike, Peter||Tynan, Bill|
|Plaskitt, James||Walley, Ms Joan|
|Pollard, Kerry||Ward, Ms Claire|
|Pond, Chris||Watson, Tom|
|Pound, Stephen||Watts, David|
|Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)||Weir, Michael|
|Prescott, Rt Hon John||White, Brian|
|Pugh, Dr John||Whitehead, Dr Alan|
|Purchase, Ken||Wicks, Malcolm|
|Pumell, James||Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)|
|Quinn, Lawrie||Wills, Michael|
|Rammell, Bill||Wishart, Pete|
|Rapson, Syd||Woodward, Shaun|
|Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick||Woolas, Phil|
|Rendel, David||Worthington, Tony|
|Robertson, Angus (Moray)||Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)|
|Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)||Wright, David (Telford)|
|Rooney, Terry||Wright, Tony (Cannock)|
|Ross, Ernie||Wyatt, Derek|
|Ruddock, Joan||Younger-Ross, Richard|
|Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Ryan, Joan||Dan Norris and|
|Salmond, Alex||Mr. John Heppell.|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Baldry, Tony|
|Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)||Barker, Greg|
|Ancram, Rt Hon Michael||Barnes, Harry|
|Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James||Beggs, Roy|
|Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)||Bennett, Andrew|
|Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)||Bercow, John|
|Austin, John||Boswell, Tim|
|Bacon, Richard||Brazier, Julian|
|Browning, Mrs Angela||Havard, Dai|
|Bums, Simon||Hawkins, Nick|
|Burt, Alistair||Heath, David|
|Butterfill, John||Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David|
|Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)||Hendry, Charles|
|Cash, William||Hinchliffe, David|
|Caton, Martin||Hoban, Mark|
|Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)||Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Clapham, Michael||Hopkins, Kelvin|
|Clappison, James||Horam, John|
|Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)|
|Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey||Hurst, Alan|
|Clwyd, Ann||Jenkin, Bernard|
|Collins, Tim||Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)|
|Cormack, Sir Patrick||Keetch, Paul|
|Cotter, Brian||Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)|
|Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)||Kirkbride, Miss Julie|
|Cryer, John (Homchurch)||Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)|
|Curry, Rt Hon David||Lait, Mrs Jacqui|
|Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)||Lansley, Andrew|
|Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)||Letwin, Oliver|
|Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)|
|Djanogly, Jonathan||Liddell-Grainger, Ian|
|Dodds, Nigel||Lidington, David|
|Duncan, Alan||Lilley, Rt Hon Peter|
|Etherington, Bill||Loughton, Tim|
|Fabricant, Michael||Luff, Peter|
|Fallon, Michael||McDonnell, John|
|Field, Mark (Cities of London)||McIntosh, Miss Anne|
|Flight, Howard||MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew|
|Flynn, Paul||Mackinlay, Andrew|
|Forth, Rt Hon Eric||Maclean, Rt Hon David|
|Francois, Mark||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Garnier, Edward||McWalter, Tony|
|Gibb, Nick||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Gillan, Mrs Cheryl||Malins, Humfrey|
|Grayling, Chris||Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)|
|Green, Damian (Ashford)||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Greenway, John||Marshall-Andrews, Robert|
|Grieve, Dominic||Martlew, Eric|
|Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)||Maude, Rt Hon Francis|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian|
|Hancock, Mike||May, Mrs Theresa|
|Mercer, Patrick||Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)||Spelman, Mrs Caroline|
|Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)||Spicer, Sir Michael|
|Murrison, Dr Andrew||Spink, Dr Robert|
|O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)||Spring, Richard|
|Ottaway, Richard||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Page, Richard||Streeter, Gary|
|Paice, James||Swayne, Desmond|
|Paterson, Owen||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Pickles, Eric||Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)|
|Portillo, Rt Hon Michael||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)||Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)|
|Price, Adam||Trend, Michael|
|Prisk, Mark||Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)|
|Prosser, Gwyn||Tyrie, Andrew|
|Redwood, Rt Hon John||Viggers, Peter|
|Robathan, Andrew||Vis, Dr Rudi|
|Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)||Wareing, Robert N|
|Rosindell, Andrew||Wiggin, Bill|
|Ruffley, David||Wilkinson, John|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Willetts, David|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)|
|Selous, Andrew||Wood, Mike|
|Shepherd, Richard||Yeo, Tim|
|Simmonds, Mark||Young, Rt Hon Sir George|
|Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)|
|Skinner, Dennis||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)||Mr. James Gray and|
|Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)||Mr. John Randall.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to
§ That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on any Motion relating to the membership of Select Committees and the appointment of a Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons not later than Seven o'clock; such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then he moved: such Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business; and Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply and the Order [28th June] relating to Deferred Divisions shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a Question is challenged in respect of any of the said Questions.