HC Deb 15 December 1976 vol 922 cc1662-93

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the 60 miles per hour and 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) Order 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1872), dated 9th November 1976, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th November 1976 in the last session of Parliament, be annulled. There is at least one notable feature of tonight's debate on speed limits. It is the first time that the House has had the opportunity of hearing a transport Minister explain and defend the operation of the 50 mph and 60 mph limits. As the House will know, those limits were introduced at the end of 1974. At the end of their first year of operation, the Opposition prayed against the Order, but the Government so arranged business that the House was allowed a mere 12 minutes' debate on this question. In spite of all the representations made to the Government, they refused time for that debate to be continued.

That brings me to my fast point. What the House is dealing with here is criminal law. The police are required to enforce the limits and motorists are prosecuted for failing to observe them. In the extreme, drivers may lose their licences and, perhaps, their means of livelihood. We know that to date over 25,000 motorists have been prosecuted for failing to observe the 50 mph and 60 mph limits.

It seems to me, therefore, that it was quite wrong for the Government to refuse debate of this question. It seems particularly wrong when it is a matter of common knowledge that there is public concern about the operation of these limits—concern that there are too many limits, that the 50 mph and 60 mph limits are unmarked, and that the limits make no real contribution to fuel economy or to road safety.

Nor was this concern in any way answered when we actually had the Government's view on the question. Six weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy was persuaded to take the Floor. To put that more accurately, he was required to take the Floor to reply to an Opposition amendment to the Energy Bill. But did the Government then reject our views on this issue? Not in the least. They shared our opposition to these limits, for the Under-Secretary of State for Energy said: We accept that it may well be that on a number of grounds the present limits are not quite right from either the fuel economy or the safety point of view".—[Official Report, 21st October 1976; Vol. 916, c. 1809.] What did the Government then propose? Anyone who studies their transport strategy will know the answer to that. They issue a consultation document. We are already ankle-deep in consultation documents. We have a consultation document, plus a volume of appendices, on transport policy generally. We have another transport consultation document on the control of private non-residential parking, and now we have a consultation document on national speed limits. We on this side of the House are fast coming to the conclusion that the last occasion when a decision was actually made on transport was in the happy days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was Minister for Transport Industries.

Why did the Government issue a consultation document on these limits? Was it, perhaps, to seek public participation? Not a bit of it. The fact is that the Government had left it too late to decide what should be the new limits. They discovered that if the existing order were just allowed to expire, the effect would not be to go back to the old national 70 mph limit. There would have been no speed limits at all in some places. There would have been a 70 mph limit on motorways, and also speed limits in urban areas, but on country roads which were not motorways there would have been no speed limit whatsoever. That was the sort of mess into which the Government had got themselves.

Therefore, to save themselves from that fate—not to mention saving us from that fate—the Government have gone into the consultation process and wish to renew these limits. They are seeking the permission of the House to renew the limits for six months to enable consultation to take place. It is an extraordinary tale, and we look forward to the Under-Secretary's explanation tonight.

Regrettably, even that is not the end of the matter. Even in consultation the Government are still blundering about. The orders for 50 mph and 60 mph limits stem from the Energy Act 1976. That great defender of free expression in the Labour Party, the Secretary of State for Energy, remembered at the eleventh hour that a commencement order was necessary, so he very properly printed it, again saving us from having country roads without speed limits. But he forgot one small detail. He forgot to have the Act itself printed.

May I have the Under-Secretary's attention? Obviously, something is causing consternation among the Government Whips, the Parliamentary Private Secretary and the Under-Secretary. If the Under-Secretary could join us in the debate we should be very grateful.

The Secretary of State for Energy forgot to have the Act itself printed. Ministers can make such mistakes at any time—and most do—but in this case the mistake meant that motorists were not only being prosecuted for failing to observe unmarked speed limits but they were being prosecuted under powers in an Act which was unpublished. That was the result of the Minister's failure in the first few days of December, and the position was not resolved until copies of the Act were delivered to the Vote Office on Saturday 4th December—Saturday, of course, being well-known as an active day at Westminster.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will approach this debate with a certain amount of humility, for in all conscience they have much to be humble about over their handling of this matter.

I will briefly summarise the case against the 50 mph and 60 mph limits. In my view, the fundamental case against them is that they are bad law. They can lead to uncertainty among motorists and they can affect relations between police and motorists.

I am in no way defending motorists who deliberately ignore speed limits. Speed limits are obviously necessary in the interests of safety and, equally clearly, they should be observed. However, any speed limit system must meet certain requirements. The first of these requirements is that the speed limit system should be as simple as possible. Yet we in Britain have a system of speed limits in which there are no fewer than five limits in general operation. As a result, motorists pass from one limit to another with a bewildering frequency on relatively short journeys.

Secondly, speed limits should be clear. The 50 mph and 60 mph limits in Britain are unmarked and very little effort has ever been made to remind the public that they remain in force. That is unlike, for example, the approach of the Department of Transportation in the United States where publicity of speed limits is considered to be of paramount importance.

Perhaps, above all, speed limits should be seen to be necessary and to be fair. It is clear that many motorists simply do not believe that that is the case, and for some good reason. The Government introduced these limits as a fuel economy measure, but there is precious little evidence to suggest that they have accounted for any great savings in fuel. Even the Government themselves say that the limits are unlikely to have affected consumption by more than 1 per cent., and the chances are that it is lower than 1 per cent. A more likely reason for the drop in consumption is that the price has risen and that the motorist has obviously made his own decision.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree that the proper way to limit consumption of a commodity is to allow the price to rise and certainly not to do it by this form of very crude rationing.

Mr. Fowler

As a general proposition, without getting into my hon. Friend's well-known views on the economy, I agree with that. Certainly, as it has turned out in this case, what he said is very pertinent.

An additional argument advanced by the Government themselves is that relations between the police and the public are likely to be strained when motorists are prosecuted for failing to observe limits fixed primarily for reasons of fuel economy or, as my hon. Friend says, for fuel rationing reasons. That point becomes even stronger when the fuel economy which it was hoped to achieve by the introduction of the limits has not been secured. That is the case at present.

One point remains, and that is the point of road safety, an issue to which personally I attach enormous importance, as do hon. Members on both sides. Again, I do not believe that there is a road safety argument for continuing with these 50 mph and 60 mph limits. I say that for two reasons. First there is no convincing evidence that the limits are having a real effect on accident rates. The Government themselves in their consultation document agree that no reduction in the accident rate was identified after the first three months of operation.

It could be that we should have a slower speed on some country roads. The Institute of Advanced Motorists, for example—I declare an interest—suggests that there should be 70 mph limits on motorways and dual carriageways and a 60 mph limit on other routes. There is some argument for that, because it is clear that it reduces speed and it also reduces the number of limits.

The second reason I say that there is no road safety argument for the 50 mph and 60 mph limits is that all the evidence suggests that the observance of limits is falling. Taking the evidence of what the Department of Transport calls free flow conditions, in July 1975 82 per cent. of drivers observed the 50 mph limit, whereas in July 1976 that figure was down to 76 per cent. In July 1975, 79 per cent. of drivers observed the 60 mph limit. In July 1976 the figure was down to 71 per cent. On the latest evidence, between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of drivers do not observe the limits. That is the evidence of the Department of Transport. The trend is downwards. That is bad for road safety and bad for the police, whose task is obviously made more difficult.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country, owing to the price of petrol, police cars have to spend most of their time on patrol static, not mobile, and that therefore they cannot enforce the limits anyway?

Mr. Fowler

I was not aware of that, but obviously if 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of drivers are not observing the limits, that places an extra burden on the already overstretched police service.

I believe that essentially these limits are bad law. They should have been revised by the Government months ago. We deplore the manner in which the Government have handled this issue over the last two years. They have now undertaken to produce new proposals after consultation. I suggest that they must also give an undertaking tonight to present their proposals to the House in good time before the six months extension runs out. We obviously require to discuss these proposals, and we may well want to amend them. The Government must give an assurance today that they will make that possible. There can be no question of presenting proposals at the last minute on a take it or leave it basis.

I hope that the Department recognises what it has failed to recognise over the last two years, that traffic law is an important question in the House, that it affects millions of motorists, and that it has an important bearing on relations between police and public. The unmarked 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h limits have continued for too long, and in my view they must now be replaced.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) rightly drew attention to the fact that the speed limits which we are dealing are not marked. They were introduced as an emergency measure, and it is doubtful that they have met any of the purposes for which they were introduced. Doubtless they have had many unintended effects. They have exacerbated relations between the police and the public, and they have endangered the driving licences of citizens who are otherwise law-abiding. Neither of those factors is desirable.

Not only in the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has the shortage of funds resulted in many police cars having to patrol from a static position because they cannot afford the petrol to carry out a mobile patrol. For that reason they are often seen parked on bridges, the officers looking along the motorway, thereby reducing the two carriageways on the bridge to one. There has certainly been one case where a police car ran out of petrol while pursuing an authentic criminal because it was allowed to have only three gallons in case the bill became too great.

This is the sort of absurdity that has resulted from trying to enforce laws which do not seem reasonable to the public at large. Many members of the public, including myself, are not sure what is and what is not a dual carriageway. For instance, when is a dual carriageway recognisable? Is it when one can see the other carriageway across the intervening central reservation? Where these carriageways diverge by perhaps as much as several hundred yards as happens in hilly country are these two unilateral roads halves of a dual carriageway or not? If not, it would be ridiculous, but I am not sure that in law they are. I am not sure that they are two halves of a dual carriageway. I am not sure that they are not two single unilateral roads.

It is this sort of nonsense where native wit does not tell one whether one is breaking the law and which brings legislation into disrepute. There is no good reason to have a 50 mph limit on a road if the other half of it is several hundred yards away but to have a 60 mph limit on it if the other half is adjacent. But I suspect that that is possibly the case. In many rural areas, where a three-lane road turns into a dual carriageway every so often, for perhaps 10 yards or 50 yards or 100 yards, presumably the speed limit goes to 60 mph and then comes down again to 50 mph.

The effect in hilly country of a 50 mph limit is to build up long queues on hills behind heavy vehicles, and one is then unable to overtake when it is otherwise safe to do so. In other words, there is a congesting result from the 50 mph limit. That militates against safety rather than acting for it. In many parts of the country on class A roads, there are heavy gradients where the pile-up of traffic is constantly occurring. I do not think that there is a case even in terms of safety for these unmarked and largely incomprehensible speed limits.

They also militate against the Government's general economic policy. Let us take Cornwall as an example. No motorway goes there. When the motorway programme is complete, the motorway will end just after Exeter. The rest of the way to Plymouth and Cornwall will be dual carriageway. It is a beautifully-engineered road, but it is subject to a 60 mph limit. That means that the cost of transporting goods from Cornwall to the markets in densely-populated areas is unnecessarily increased, while the work that can be attracted to development areas is also artificially restricted because the restrictions on drivers' hours mean that there is a certain radius beyond which one needs double the number of vehicles and drivers. That must militate against the Government's general development area policy, not just in the South-West of England but in Wales and Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.

What started as a temporary measure, which was never good but was bad law because it was indefinite and difficult to determine in any one place, and was essentially unreasonable, has become not only bad law but bad habit. The occasion for stopping it is tonight.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

This order is not technical in any way. It does not relate only to certain professions or certain businesses which have to interpret it. It affects very much the ordinary man, the ordinary car driver, with regard to the speed at which he can go.

Unfortunately, a number of us from time to time find that we are exceeding the speed limit and have to find out under which law we are being prosecuted. On looking at the order we find the most extraordinary muddle of dates, Statutory Instruments and statutes. There is the Fuel and Electricity Control Act 1973, the Fuel and Electricity Control Order and, finally, the Energy Act. On examining the order to find the parent statute we discover that it is Section 77(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. It we looked up that section to find what power it gives to the Secretary of State to make the order, we would find nothing in it authorising an order of this sort.

We read on and find that it has been extended by the Fuel Control (Modification of Enactments) (Speed Limits) Order 1973, which has the distinction of having no fewer than four brackets in its title.

When we look up that order we find that it was made not under the Road Traffic Act—it has nothing to do with that measure—but under the Fuel and Electricity Control Act 1973, which lasts only from year to year. It was a yearly Act that requires to be renewed each year by Statutory Instrument. If that is the measure that gives the necessary power under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, it has to be in force at the time that an order is made under the 1967 Act.

The next task is to ascertain the date that the Fuel and Electricity Control Act 1973 died. It is true that it was alive on 9th November when the order was made. It was alive on 10th November when the order was laid. However, on 1st December, when the order is said to have come into operation, its parent statute had died. On the face of it, the order appeared to be a bastard. It had no parents. In no document before the House could it be ascertained that the fault had been corrected in any way.

To give the Minister his due, he has corrected the matter. The birth took place in the vestry at the last moment. That is how the correction was made. It was made by the Energy Act, which keeps alive the Fuel Control (Modification of Enactments) (Speed Limits) Order 1973. In fact, I have gone wrong. The Energy Act keeps alive the 50 miles per hour (Temporary Speed Limit) Order 1976, but when we read the order we find that the Energy Act had not come into force. In fact, it came into operation on 23rd November. That could not have been discovered by anyone in the House, as a commencement order is not laid before it.

When I looked at the order I had to ask the Department whether there was a commencement order for the Energy Act. Some dear little lady came running round to this place with the order. It was kind of her and I was much obliged, but how do the general public get to know about these matters? Having obtained the commencement order for the Energy Act on 23rd November, where was the Energy Act itself? It is no good making an order for an Act to come into operation when no one can look at the Act. It is no good saying that the Act has gone through the House. In fact, it was being given its final stage—this kept the order alive—in a Message from their Lordships in another place.

Only by getting the last print of the Bill and combining amendments made in this House on Report, Lords amendments, Commons amendments and Lords messages can we interpret whether the order was alive. This is an ordinary order that the ordinary man in the street has to try to interpret.

If this is the way that the Government are to do things, and if the Energy Act was printed on 4th December, it was possible to know what had taken place only by standing at the Vote Office, where the public do not stand. The only way to ascertain what had happened was to seize the Act immediately and devour it page by page. On reaching the last page one would know that the order had been kept alive. This is an important order affecting the ordinary man. It is contempt of the public as well as contempt of the House to impose laws on them in this way.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead (Derby, North)

I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) because I think that there is a great deal of merit in what they say. I do not feel that the argument has been laid out for continuation of these orders in any permanent sense. What is at issue is whether we are right to have the full process of consultation before the final decision is reached. I hope that decision will be negative and the orders rescinded some time in 1977.

I want to look at the reasons why I think the orders should be recalled or annulled. Various reasons were advanced for their introduction in the first place. They were introduced against a background of the energy crisis, and tacked on to this we had the argument of safety.

If we look at the safety and fuel saving factors we find that both were significantly in error when they were advanced as reasons for maintaining the orders. I do not believe that there is much evidence that safety has been improved by the orders. I pay tribute to the Department in this regard as there is precious little indication that the level of accidents has decreased as a result of the orders in the evidence it has put forward in the document which has been issued for consultation.

As the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) pointed out, the orders are in force on roads which themselves vary widely in form. Motorists are in ignorance from one mile to another about the particular category of road on which they are travelling. They do not know whether they should be observing a 50 mph or a 60 mph limit, or whether there is a temporary derestriction. More often than not, the motorist is not even open to the sanction of the law because very few police cars will pursue him to tell him whether he is observing the limit.

When he replies, my hon. Friend should tell us the incidence of prosecutions, both successful and unsuccessful, over the period since the orders came into force. My guess is that they are honoured in the breach almost always. I must admit that I honour them in the breach, partly out of simple ignorance and partly because when there is a 50 mph limit on a road which is safe and on which motorists are never stopped or chased because it is outside the normal marked restrictions, the motorist usually ends up travelling at a speed which is convenient to him. I suspect that most motorists do this and I suspect that there have been very few prosecutions brought, particularly in recent months.

The second question is whether these orders have reduced the number of road accidents or made people drive more carefully. I doubt it. Those of us who travel up the motorways regularly would be in favour of many more differential markings for differential conditions. We are introducing this on motorways to some extent, but on many Continental roads this system is much more sophisticated and has been in existence for longer periods over greater stretches of road. Under this system a temporary speed limit comes into effect by warning lights when road conditions are difficult. If the Government want to attack the safety problem, this is the way to do it. They should not do it by saying that there will be a 50 mph or 60 mph limit on roads on which no markings have been placed at one-mile, or even 10-mile intervals.

Just as I view the safety argument with some scepticism, I am also sceptical about the speed limits being a significant factor in fuel saving. I looked at the section of the consultative document dealing with petrol and price economy. It says: It is estimated that a reduction of between 5 and 10 mph on roads subject to the 60 and 50 mph limits is needed to achieve fuel savings of the order of 1 per cent. of the total consumption of motor spirit. There is not enough evidence to suggest that driving speeds have been reduced sufficiently to reduce the average speed on all roads by more than 5 mph. It is therefore likely that the major part of the fall in motor spirit consumption was due to changes in driving habits—such as more cautious use of accelerator and brake—and to more use of smaller vehicles. I agree with that. Not even the Department's figures suggest that there has been a significant saving as a result of these provisions. Therefore, to that degree the argument for the measure is diminished.

If we are looking for a pattern of fuel consumption and also have in mind the shrinking supply of fossil fuels, we should consider very seriously indeed energy conservation in respect of motor vehicles. We should be considering the fact that eventually we shall have to deal with a form of petrol rationing for motor vehicles. [Hon. Members: "No."] Then we shall have rationing by price, which Opposition Members may prefer, rather than rationing by quantity. Rationing by price to some sections of the community is as onerous as is rationing by quantity to hon. Gentlemens. I am not saying that I want to see such an eventuality, but it is something which the House will have to consider before many years elapse.

A much more significant impact could be made in the area of energy consumption other than by the use of provisions such as those contained in the order. Equally important in our minds should be the design of vehicles and the type of fuel used. We should examine the proposition involving the question when and when not to take a motor car out on to the roads. These factors may bear on the energy question, but whether one drives at 55, 60 or 65 m.p.h. on a 10-mile stretch of road is not an important factor in the equation. I take the view that a saving of fuel brought about by these provisions has not been proved.

The final and most important point is whether the provisions bring the law into disrepute. We are to some extent guided by the number of prosecutions and the extent to which these provisions lead to an exacerbation of relations between the police and the citizen. My guess is that if police cars are parked at the top of a motorway bridge observing traffic travelling along the motorway, they are not exacerbating relations with motorists who pass by at 50 m.p.h. or 60 m.p.h. on a carriageway which those police cars are partially impeding.

I doubt whether the police find the order so much of a burden in terms of any worsening of relations with the public, but I know for a fact that we do not need laws on the statute book which are honoured in the breach and which the vast majority of the population regard as a nonsense. It is not the effect of those laws that concerns me but the effect on the observation of the law in general in respect of traffic offences. If the public come to believe that there is a section of road traffic law which is nonsense, and which they know to be nonsense, their respect for other elements of the traffic law will be very much affected.

We are all concerned about safety matters, and the subject of seat belts will come before us in the near future. The motorist must not be led to think that there is any diminishing of the role of the State in protecting him and at the same time in cutting down the number of road accidents.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will have to say something gripping tonight to convince me that we have to keep these provisions in force during a prolonged period of consultation. I do not know how long the consultations will last. I am in no doubt about the role of the public in those consultations because members of the public write to me on these, this subject, and every letter I have received favours the abolition of these limits—and soon.

The public have put a strong case to me and it is that case that I put to the Minister. I hope that he will take note of it and accept that the period of consultation should be brief. It need go no further than the first month of next year. If, as I believe and as the spirit of the consultative document suggests, there is no material evidence for keeping the limits, the order should be withdrawn.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

With pleasure I tell the House how much I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and I shall attempt to reinforce some of his arguments.

This law came into force nearly two years ago but this is the first time we have had a proper debate and an opportunity to come to a conclusion on an issue which affects the rights of every motorist. I intervened during the Report stage of the Energy Bill when we discussed this, but that was a general debate. This is not an energy issue and it should not have been tackled in an energy Bill. It is right that we should discuss the matter tonight when a Minister from the Transport Department can answer the debate.

Not for the first time we are discussing a retrospective order which has been law for a fortnight already. That is unacceptable and wrong. We could and should have discussed this before it came into effect.

Tonight we have heard an answer to the energy argument from my Front Bench, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) is right. Many countries have tried to introduce speed limits in the interests of saving petrol but those are countries where there are many more miles of dual carriageway and where high speeds lead to high consumption of petrol. That is not true of the majority of British roads. We are allowed to speed at 70 m.p.h. on motorways. In America a 50 m.p.h. limit is ruthlessly imposed by the police. One can travel anywhere on those roads and average 50 m.p.h., but not in this country. In South Africa a £500 fine makes speed limits work. That is a totally unacceptable way of dealing with energy saving. Speed limits did not exist on most of our roads seven years ago. Only with the imposition of speed limits on motorways was a general order of speed limits introduced.

I am not aware of any criticisms of the 70 m.p.h. limit. The lower the limits the fewer the accidents. If we reduced the speed limits to 30 m.p.h. or even 20 m.p.h. the accident statistics would improve. The longer such limits operated the better the situation would appear. It has been said that 60 per cent. of drivers obey the limits. But they probably obeyed the limits before they existed because they did not wish to travel faster. Most of the 30 per cent. who now break the limits probably always drove fast. I say that limits have little affect upon the people who want to go about at a reasonable speed.

I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Derby, North say that the Bill dealing with seat belts might be reintroduced because that is the quick and easy way to reduce casualties on the roads. For a Government to argue that this order might be a safety measure when they are not prepared to introduce the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill—or at any rate in a way in which it can be passed—would be total hypocrisy. I hope that the Minister will not do that or, better still, that he will assure us of the introduction of that long-awaited measure, the delay in introducing which has already cost several thousand lives in this country.

The conflict with the police is one of the most important aspects of this matter. A police car sitting on a motorway bridge can have in it a new electronic device called Vascar, which can very effectively assess the speed of a vehicle on the road. I have had the opportunity recently of inspecting this device at close quarters, by courtesy of the local constabulary. It is quite possible for a stationary police car—perhaps hiding behind some obstacle and not even in sight—to time the speed of a car, by means of marks on a road, so accurately that a court will uphold the conclusion, and successful prosecutions can take place.

I mentioned on the last occasion the question of the margin that the police will allow in the matter of speeding offences. It is worth considering that if people travel at 40 m.p.h. in an area limited to 30 m.p.h., the police can often simply issue a warning. That is a one-third excess over the speed limit. But the police use the same 10 m.p.h. in regard to speed limits of 70,60 or 50 m.p.h.

If I were to make a positive suggestion, it would be that there should be a full and true review of all speed limits and that equally there should be an imposition of penalties to see that these limits are obeyed, commensurate with a wider, more sensible and more general approach to motorists' difficulties.

With modern roads it is possible to go faster in a safer way, but it is important that the rules should be kept. There seems to be a completely "red flag" attitude on the part of civil servants from the Road Research Laboratory and others who are interested in only one specific matter, whether it be accidents or fuel saving—anything, in fact, but getting from A to B, which is what roads and motor cars are about. If a few of these people had to get out from behind their desks and conduct the business and commerce of this country, particularly in London, with our inadequate road system, the order that we are debating tonight would be very much better.

I suspect that the Minister may argue that all our points should be ignored on the ground that consultation is now taking place. Would it not be better to consult first and then to introduce legislation as a result of that consultation, instead of introducing legislation, running for 18 months, and then say that we are to have it for another 18 months while we consult? It is completely back to front.

I hope the Minister will have the boldness to consider the merits of this debate across the Floor and across party lines and will consider whether it is right to press on with the order tonight.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Jim Craigen (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Never mind the speed limits. Where are we going with this type of order? This afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was spelling out some grim facts, and it struck me that we would spend the next year "unlegislating" many of the pieces of legislation which are imposed on the local authorities. The plain fact is that many local authorities will be unable to comply with some of the legislation which already exists.

Reference has been made to a consultation document. I think we are going consultation daft in some of our Departments of State. Many of our top civil servants seem to be spending most of their time writing up consultation documents, issuing them to people, and then telling us the outcome of their review. I wonder how much petrol has been saved by this type of Statutory Instrument? Would it not be preferable actually to be helping the public transport sector and assisting many of our bus companies up and down the country to offer cheaper and better bus services to the general public?

I represent an area where the majority of people travel by public transport. We have more holes in the road than I can remember for many years. How much attention is being paid in the Transport Department, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office to these more important matters?

I turn to the question of accidents, which is an important and sensitive matter. How many accidents have been prevented by the operation of the order? How much police manpower is tied up in chasing, with the aid of computers or other modern methods, those who may well not realise that they have breached the law by travelling at certain speeds?

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said that 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of people did not observe the limits. Have we reached the stage of absurdity where we keep figures about the number of people who are not complying with the law, with intellectual skills in the Department tied up keeping figures about folk breaching regulations that Ministry officials spent a good deal of time introducing?

A point was made about seat belts. The nation needs a safety belt. Let us not waste more time introducing legislation on safety belts. If folk are daft enough not to put on a belt when they make a journey and then unfortunately have an accident, it is their fault if they are injured.

I hope that the Minister will concentrate on some of the real issues that worry folk throughout the country, such as better public transport services and more sensible legislation on road traffic.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) made a devastating speech on the dubious legality of the order. I want to say a few words about the dubious economics underlying it. To the extent to which the reason for these speed limits is to save fuel, the argument for them seems to be totally fallacious. I shall deal later with the issue of road safety, which is the only other conceivable reason for speed limits.

Some of my hon. Friends have fallen into the trap of arguing that we should save fuel. Let us examine why we should. First, petrol is only 14 per cent. of a barrel of crude oil, so if the ambition were to save oil it would be more sensible to have a go at the 86 per cent. which is not petrol. But I do not advance that as an argument, because I do not understand why we should save oil.

Oil is admittedly a big import, but it is not the only big import. We import nearly £3 billion-worth of timber and wood pulp each year. The Chamber is strewn with paper that we do not need. I do not understand why the Government, who are the biggest consumers of wasteful, useless bumf, do not try to save bumf if that is the argument.

Mr. Whitehead

The hon. Gentleman should realise that that is the force of our argument. We think that the Government and all of us should save bumf as well, that there should be paper saving to escape the colossal increase in the cost of newsprint and wood pulp that we shall experience, just as in fuel.

Mr. Ridley

I know that the hon. Gentleman believes in general misery for everyone, but I do not. I think that everyone should have what he wants. That is a much more helpful general philosophy. If people want paper and petrol, they should have them.

Let us consider another commodity—food. We do not produce all we need. We have to import some. The Government are subsidising the importing of food. What terrible damage we must be doing to our balance of payments.

What is the reason for wishing to save energy, petrol and oil? It fits in exactly with the intervention of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). He thinks that it is good for the people that they should eat; he is neutral on how much bumf should be produced to bewilder them; and he thinks that it is luxurious and wicked that they should drive about in cars. The real reason for the order is prejudice against private transport.

In a most curious speech, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) suggested that we needed more public transport. The Minister would tell the hon. Gentleman that this would be disastrous because it would result in more fuel being used as empty buses trundle up and down.

Mr. Craigen

I do not know about empty buses trundling up and down, but many cars can be seen, each carrying only one person. It could equally be said that they are travelling threequarters empty. I was not arguing that we necessarily need more public transport but that we must keep what we have. I am not necessarily on the other side of the argument which the hon. Gentleman is making to rescind the Statutory Instrument, but he is not being very helpful or sensible in winning allies tonight.

Mr. Ridley

I am not absolutely desperate for the hon. Gentleman's support, but let me ask him a question. Which is better—a private car with three empty seats or a bus with 33 empty seats? That is the fuel economy argument. It is no part of my case, but if anyone wishes to argue it, there is no doubt that the private car is infinitely more efficient than public transport.

This campaign on speed limits and petrol taxes is part of a semi-sublimated hatred of private cars by the Labour Party which has always resented the independence they give to the citizen. That is why we have car and petrol taxes and every sort of obstruction on the motorist, including the insult of bus lanes and other places where only public transport can go. This is not traffic engineering. It is social engineering.

The Government ought to understand that 70 per cent. of the population like cars and that the other 30 per cent. would have cars if they could afford them. The Government are on a political hiding to nothing if they pursue this sort of order.

Of course, it is right for the State to make regulations to improve road safety. I would support any such regulations.

I never understand why it is al0ways speed that is assumed to be dangerous. The man who causes most hazard is very often the man who drives too slowly, the man who turns right, across the traffic, at a very slow speed when the traffic is moving quickly. The offence is not necessarily speed. It is inadequate, dangerous, drunken or careless driving.

If only we could get out of our minds the ideas that private motoring is intrinsically wicked and that speed is even more wicked. It is the bureaucratic mind that makes the assumption that speed is wicked and that is the parent of the order.

Therefore, I hope that we shall not have speed limits. It is an interesting fact that more people were killed on the roads in 1930 than were killed in 1960. I say killed, and not injured. I do not think that it is speed limits or lack of speed limits, or excessive speed, that is the cause of accidents on the roads. I believe that accidents are due to a whole mass of factors, including incompetence, bad driving, slowness and drunkenness. We should address our minds to those factors in legislating about road safety and not to the obvious and easy target, the man who has a fast car and drives fast.

I suspect that in the criticism of the people who drive fast there is again a sublimated hate of the man who can afford a fast car. With the Labour Party there is always this submerged prejudice that governs everything that its members do. They dress it up as if it were some great science to which the rest of the world must immediately adhere.

There is no need for consultations. There is no need to go into this great programme of talking to everyone except the House of Commons. The Government are not listening to what Opposition Members are saying. They are consulting everyone except the representatives of the people. That is their idea of democracy. If they were listening to what the representatives of the people were saying, they would withdraw the order immediately and abolish the speed limits. But no, they will not do that. They are determined to find some reason for allowing their prejudices to continue even after the period of six months to which the order refers has lapsed.

I adjure the Government to be more courageous. They might even win some votes. I do not like helping the enemy. However, if only they would tear up the whole thing for once, sack the bureaucrats who deal with the matter, abolish the police involvement and the court cases and licence endorsements, and abolish the whole fussy nonsense that the Government are so expert at producing in every walk of our national life, they might find that someone loved them one day and voted for them at the next election.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

The essential argument that has come from Opposition Members is that the order is bad law. With that argument I entirely agree. The first condition of good law is that it should be based upon widespread consent.

Plainly, the only argument that could support the order would be that it was necessary to restrict the speed at which persons use the roads for reasons of safety. I have never yet heard the argument for the order advanced purely on the basis of safety. It is plain that speeds up to 70 mph with modern cars do not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to other road users.

The whole basis of the order arises from the period immediately after the price of oil was increased by four times in 1973. I put the matter quite baldly. Those emergency measures were wrong in principle in 1973, and they have remained wrong in principle ever since.

In my view, there is no need whatever for further consultation about this order. The need is to vote against it as frequently as necessary to ensure that this abortion of legislation is not repeated.

The truth is that the order was first presented as the crudest form of rationing. It was quite the wrong way to approach the problem. The problem should have been approached by allowing the price of oil to rise, and to rise immediately. That would have had three useful consequences. First, those who drive large motor cars fast on the roads would have been hit in the pocket. That would have been by far the best way, through the market mechanism, to deal with the increase in the price of oil.

Second, there would have been a major effect upon the country as a whole, since a large part of our present problem is psychological, arising from the inability of everyone in Britain to understand the basic economic fact that there has been a massive transfer of real purchasing power from the countries which use oil to those which produce oil. By far the best way to demonstrate that to the man in the street is not to make speeches at the Guildhall or even to make announcements in the House but to bring him to understand it when he fills his petrol tank at the garage. Indeed, the emergency measures announced today might almost have been unnecessary, and all the deficit financing we have had might have been unnecessary, if it had been clear right from October 1973 that our economic prospects and our whole way of life had been totally transformed by the unilateral action of OPEC.

Third, there is this further important consideration. The significance of such orders as this lies in the effect which they have on the citizen's desire to obey the law and to assist the police generally. This can be easily illustrated. All of us who have been stopped by the police—and I am one—for being in breach of these orders have felt a deep sense of resentment. We have felt that once more the law was thoroughly unreasonable. We have felt that there was no basis in either sense or morality for the orders to which we were required to conform. We felt a sense of injustice, and we had that sense of fear which all of us feel when stopped by the police.

The consequence is that when next we see somebody else breaking the law, perhaps even breaking it in a most reprehensible way, we are just that bit less likely to help the police. Thus, we in Parliament have once more gone a little further to break up the fabric of a law-abiding society.

This is bad law. It is law which is wrong in principle as well as being economic nonsense. We do not want more consultation. We want to vote against it.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

Now that the fuel crisis is over, there could be only one justification for these restrictive laws—that they improve road safety. As so many of my hon. Friends have shown, that is the question to which we should be devoting our minds, and so far an affirmative answer to it has not come from the Government. Indeed the contrary is true, since in their consultative letter they say that apart from the first three months, there has been "no further reduction" in the accident rate.

That is an absolutely damning sentence for anyone who seeks to prove the case which ought to be proved on this order, namely, that it will contribute to road safety. But, quite apart from the Government's own statistical view, it must be recognised that all my hon. Friends here are drivers. Most of us drive many thousands of miles a year. Therefore, we are particularly representative of the people in the country at large on this occasion.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, when one asks whether the maintenance of these limits contributes to road safety, the one test of preeminent importance is whether they contribute to irritation and resentment. One thing that orders of this nature have done is to stimulate resentment and irritation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said, it is bad enough for the ordinary motorist to have to drive on cluttered-up roads which are subject to five different speed limits. That is confusing enough, but aggravation and resentment enter into it when it is remembered that the ordinary motorist receives very little guidance. Sometimes there are no signs indicating what the maximum speed is, with the result that there is a large number of accidental infringements and convictions.

There is a damning point in the consultative letter, where it is said: In 1976 there was a lower degree of compliance with the law than in 1975. It is remarkable that it should be sought to perpetuate this system of limits, when the original justification for them has gone and when such resentment occurs when a motorist is confused about whether he is driving lawfully or unlawfully and he is then stopped, charged and fined for something as to the truth of which he was utterly unaware.

Since the original order was introduced at least 25,000 people have been "done" under it. Being caught for an offence under the order must aggravate and infuriate drivers, just as the police must become aggravated and infuriated by having, at a time when they are hard pressed and short of men, vehicles and equipment, to patrol these limits.

I understand from the Government's figures that 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of drivers do not observe the law. I have forgotten how many drivers there are in this country, but it must be well over 10 million. Any law which makes 3 million or 4 million decent citizens liable to infringe the law and, therefore, to become criminals, however petty, is not worthy of the name.

As it has no sufficient consent from the people, as it has no commonsense justification, as it causes resentment and irritation, as the Government's own figures cannot prove that it contributes to road safety and as road safety is the only factor that we should consider tonight, there is every reason for voting against the order, and that is what I propose to do.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. David Knox (Leek)

Everyone who has participated in the debate so far has supported the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, (Mr. Fowler). When the Minister replies, he will find that he is on his own. I hope that he will not take it personally, because he is very popular in the House.

The Minister has a very poor case tonight. These speed limits were introduced three years ago at a time of national emergency. They were introduced at a time when the price of oil had increased fourfold. They were introduced—this is an important point which has not yet been made in the debate—at a time when there was a big question mark hanging over the supplies of oil. The national emergency in its acute form passed a long time ago. Certainly there is not, and has not for a long time been, any threat to supplies of oil. The higher price of oil has had adverse effects on the balance of payments, but the need to save fuel, which was certainly a fact in 1973, has not existed for a long time.

In the debate considerable doubt has been expressed about the fuel-saving effect of these limits. The previous Minister for Transport, now Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, told the House a year ago that motor spirit consumption was between 3 and 4 per cent. less than in the equivalent period of 1973, in addition to what would have been accounted for by reductions in traffic. Savings resulting from these speed limits, if there have been any such savings, are certainly very small. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and other hon. Members have mentioned a figure of 1 per cent. It would be difficult to justify the limits on the basis of such a small saving in fuel.

Of course, there are other reasons why the limits should go. For a start, they are widely ignored. The former Minister said a year ago that about one-fifth of motorists in the samples taken were ignoring the limits. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the fact that the figure had further increased to about one-quarter. If a quarter of all motorists are ignoring these limits, it would seem that there is an enormously strong case for dropping them altogether.

The very existence of these speed limits causes a great deal of police time to be wasted. There has been a very large number of prosecutions. In 1975, I understand that 11,587 people were convicted for exceeding the 50 m.p.h. limit and 13,074 for exceeding the 60 m.p.h. limit. It is a great waste of time for the police that they should be engaged in this sort of fatuous activity when there is so much crime to which they should be devoting their attention.

When the right hon. Member for Sheffield Park (Mr. Mulley) was the Minister, he said: if speed limits do not command general support from road users, their enforcement puts serious extra strain on police resources."—[Official Report, 9th December 1974: Vol. 883, c. 38.] Clearly that is the case at present. It is clear that these speed limits should be discontinued at the earliest possible moment and that no consultation period is necessary. I hope, therefore, that the House will support my hon. Friends tonight.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

I have written to the present Minister's predecessor on several occasions about the situation in Norfolk. The county council there has on several occasions told the Department that the limits are entirely unnecessary and that they are a great burden on the police. The police force in Norfolk has supported the county council.

Driving through Norfolk as I do every weekend, I encounter no stretch of more than 100 yards on which I am permitted by law to exceed 50 m.p.h., and yet for mile after mile I shall probably never see another vehicle. The limits are ridiculous and they are time-consuming for the police.

Driving home from London to Norfolk, one passes a variety of notices telling one that the limit is 40 mph, then 50 mph and then that one is free of any restriction, except that one knows that one cannot exceed 60 mph—or is it 70 mph? The situation is completely confusing. Heaven help foreign drivers, because their confusion must be even greater.

The practice of pulling up motorists who are travelling at 57 or 58 mph on a nearly-empty road in Norfolk infuriates both the police and motorists. I urge the Minister to drop the order as quickly as possible and to get back to sensible motoring.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

I suppose that I have had more letters in opposition to this order than about almost anything else in the 13 years since I came to the House. I am not surprised, for the many and varied reasons put by my hon. Friends. I should like, however, to add a point which has not so far been made in the debate.

From time to time over the years, I have written to the Government Department currently responsible for speed limits or to my county surveyor in the light of representations made to me in support of the introduction of a 30 or perhaps 40 mph speed limit in built-up village areas. All too many of our villages are still crossed by fairly major roads, and not surprisingly many of the local residents from time to time are concerned about the speed of vehicles, particularly heavy lorries but also of cars, going through their villages, with the result that there is considerable danger to local people.

All too often—indeed, in 99 cases out of 100—I have received a reply to the effect that the village concerned does not meet the necessary Ministry criteria for the introduction of a speed limit and that, in addition and by the way, there is no point in introducing a speed limit because no one would keep to it. If there is no point in introducing a speed limit when there is, as so often is the case, a safety argument, what argument can there be for a speed limit such as this one, for which there is much less of a safety argument because the limit refers to the open road?

As we know only too well, such speed limits are widely disregarded—again, indeed, in 99 cases out of 100—with no disadvantage to the driver. Only on odd occasions are people caught by the police, and I suspect that even then the police are wasting their time in the sense that they would be much better employed doing other things than caring about speed limits on the open road. There is no case for the continuation of these limits, and I hope that the House will reject the order.

11.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I should first explain what would be the position if the order were annulled. There would be no speed limits on rural roads. It is not just a question of having no speed limits at all, which is what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) argued for. His is perhaps a perfectly logical position: if one is against speed limits, one is against them, and that is understandable and rational. But that would not be the position.

Speed limits have a role to play, but the international situation is not very clear. No other country in the Western world has no speed limits as such. Most countries have some speed limits, and many of them, including the most market-orientated, such as the United States, have strict limits. The situation would not be one in which there were no speed limits but would be speed limits of 30 m.p.h. or 40 m.p.h. in urban areas, a speed limit of 70 m.p.h. on motorways and nothing in between. Whatever side of the argument one takes, surely it would be absurd to end up in that position. I hope that Opposition Members will agree about that.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

Is the Minister saying that the 70 m.p.h. national limit which previously applied has been swept away by recent orders? If that is so, would it not be relatively simple to introduce a new order restoring the national 70 m.p.h. limit under the Road Traffic Act or the Energy Act?

Mr. Horam

Obviously action would have to be taken on an emergency basis if the orders were annulled. That is something that I should dislike doing. We could end up by pre-empting the consultation process on which we have embarked, which would be a great pity. We could wake up to an absurd situation tomorrow morning—namely, a 70 m.p.h. limit on motorways, which are the safest roads, and 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. limits in towns, with nothing in between. That is not a sensible position. That is not an argument that could be sensibly advanced by the Government.

The whole process of speed limits started with the national 50 m.p.h. limit in 1973. That was the genesis of the whole issue. Speed limit orders have traditionally emerged in the House in 18-month periods. They have been renewable after 18 months. That is why we are faced with the present situation. I respect the strong feelings on this issue on both sides of the House and I accept that the argument has gone one way during the debate, but the House would be foolish to take the view that on that basis the orders should not be allowed to continue. If that view were taken, we should be placed in an anomalous position that would cause the Government to have to act extremely hastily and in a way that would inevitably preempt the consultation process, which would be a pity. I put that argument to the House in, I hope, a sensible way and not by way of commenting on the arguments that have been put forward.

We are in a neutral position. We are open-minded. We have set out the facts in the consultation letter that was sent out to many organisations. We have been perfectly plain about the facts when the facts have not supported the previous arguments. For example, the amount of fuel saved over the past two years has not been great as a result of these measures. We have considered that argument, and maybe it is not sufficiently strong to justify these measures, but we have set out the facts in the consultation document. We hope that those who reply to it will send in their comments in the same open-minded and objective manner as we have adopted.

Motorists and others want a period of stability. They want to know the practical situation in respect of speed limits. They want a clear balance between the various considerations. We must put into the balance the fading consideration of energy. I agree that the whole business of limits started out at a time of national crisis. The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox) said that there was doubt about supplies of fuel as opposed to price and other factors. He said that the situation has changed, and I agree with him.

The need for energy conservation in this area is less than it was. It is a subject on which we shall invite comments. We shall listen open-mindedly to the views that are put forward. I hope that at the end of the six months, which started on 1st December, we shall be able to put forward a clear view on what the country wants. I hope that we shall be able to arrive at that view. We have asked for the replies to be submitted by 31st January. We hope to be able to arrive at a view at some time before the end of the six-month continuation. I am hopeful that we can achieve that but I do not promise. That is the assurance for which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) asked, and I am happy to give it to him.

Mr. Norman Fowler rose——

Mr. Horam

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Norman Fowler

If that is an assurance, it is one of the weakest that I have ever received in the House. I want an assurance that the House will have time before the expiration of the six months to debate and, if necessary, change the order which the hon. Gentleman is to bring forward. That is what we want, and it is on that that I want an assurance.

Mr. Horam

I give an assurance that we shall try to beat the end of the consultation period. We gave ourselves six months because that seemed a sensible period in which to do this operation. Tory Members may say that they know what people's views are, but, with respect, there are conflicting views. We have so far received only one reply to the consultation document. Nevertheless there are conflicting views, and we must take them into account as much as we can. Indeed, conflicting views have been expressed in this Chamber tonight.

The country wants a clear position, a simple position, a position to which it can look forward to having for some time. The right way to achieve that is by a process of consultation, and that will take a few months more. It is easy to wait until the end of the consultation period rather than, on the basis of a short debate tonight—and hon. Gentlemen have suggested that they might vote against the order—take the sort of action that would not be in the best interests of the country.

Mr. Graham Page

It has been known for 12 months that the order would run out on 30th November. Why were the consultations not started earlier?

Mr. Horam

We had to have more evidence. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the consultation letter, he will see that we carried out a market survey on observance of the law. That is a legitimate issue in this argument. If the law is being brought into disrepute by nonobservance of these energy speed limits, that is something on which we need a clear opinion. We have some evidence. We know that observance of these laws is slipping, and we are concerned about that. That is one reason why we are limiting this order to six months and not continuing the full cycle. We are doing that to enable us to get through the necessary process of consultation and discover people's opinions.

There are diverse views on this matter. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents may have different views from those expressed by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, who has rather extreme views and wants no speed limits. These are rational positions, and we have to take them into account and come to a clear conclusion.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. He may be dissatisfied with the debates in the past on this matter, but the fact is that when we tried to have a transport debate which could have included this topic we were upset by the Opposition playing games

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), who spoke about getting matters into perspective and doing the important things in transport, was right. It is a pity that all the time we have to concentrate on issues which are not central to the important transport matters with which we are concerned, and my hon. Friend was right in what he said about that.

The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made a sensible point when he spoke about one aspect of the problems that was not mentioned by other speakers, and that is bunching. If a number of people are trying to observe a 50 m.p.h. limit, whether or not they are on a gradient, that may result in a queue of cars. We have received many representations about this, and it is possibly disadvantageous to have a speed limit on certain roads. That is something that we shall take into account in our deliberations.

The hon. Member for Tiverton also raised a point about whether roads on which the two carriageways are far apart are dual carriageways. I assure him that even if cows are grazing on a wide stretch of land between a dual carriageway it is still a dual carriageway and not a hybrid road.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised a number of issues. I see that he is no longer in the House. He said——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 51, Noes 65.

Division No. 21.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Adley, Robert Hawkins, Paul Ovenden, John
Beith, A. J. Hicks, Robert Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Biggs-Davison, John Hodgson, Robin Pattie, Geoffrey
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hooson, Emlyn Penhaligon, David
Brittan, Leon Hordern, Peter Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Buck, Antony Jopling, Michael Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Budgen, Nick Kimball, Marcus Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Canavan, Dennis Lambie, David Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Carlisle, Mark Lawrence, Ivan Shepherd, Colin
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Lawson, Nigel Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Cope, John McCartney, Hugh Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Eyre, Reginald Mather, Carol Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Fairgrieve, Russell Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mayhew, Patrick Winterton, Nicholas
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Moate, Roger
Goodhew, Victor More, Jasper (Ludlow) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gourlay, Harry Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Mr. Jerry Wiggin and
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Newton, Tony Mr. David Knox
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
NOES
Ashton, Joe Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Atkinson, Norman Ford, Ben Roper, John
Bates, Alf Forrester, John Sedgemore, Brian
Blenkinsop, Arthur George, Bruce Skinner, Gennis
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Golding, John Small, William
Buchan, Norman Grant, George (Morpeth) Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Buchanan, Richard Horam, John Stoddart, David
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Jones, Barry (East Flint) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Cant, R. B. Jones, Dan (Burnley) Tinn, James
Carmichael, Neil Loyden, Eddie Urwin, T. W.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Cohen, Stanley McCusker, H. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Cook, Robin F, (Edin C) McElhone, Frank Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Cowans, Harry McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Weetch, Ken
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Marks, Kenneth White, Frank R. (Bury)
Cryer, Bob Mendelson, John Whitlock, William
Davidson, Arthur Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Woodall, Alec
Dempsey, James Noble, Mike Woof, Robert
Dormand, J. D. Oakes, Gordon
Duffy, A. E. P. Palmer, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Parry, Robert Mr. Ted Graham and
Flannery, Martin Roderick, Caerwyn Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.