§ Mr. BoothI beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 20, line 15, leave out from 'hundredweight' to end of line 41 and insert
'shall be subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State subject to approval by a resolution of the House of Commons'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 34, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 3 to 11.
§ Mr. BoothThe amendment has two purposes. The first is greatly to simplify what has become an unduly complex clause. The second is to urge the Minister to use the powers that he will obtain from the clause as amended in a particular way. I cannot believe that the Minister and the parliamentary draftsmen, when they set out to define a power in clause 30, ever thought that they would end up with anything as complex as this.
First, the amendment is intended to define the factors which will be taken into account in determining the excise duty paid on heavy goods vehicles. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) depend upon the meanings of parts of tables in schedule 10. To discover the meaning of those various parts one has to turn to subsection (2), which defines for the purposes of the clause and the schedule to which it relates the gross weight and the train weight of a vehicle.
At that point one might imagine that one has discovered how the provision operates. One then finds, however, that subsection (3) contains a power for the Secretary of State by regulation to
At the end of that long and complex process, the Minister has the power to define the factors which shall be taken into account when determining the rate of excise duty for heavy goods vehicles. The amendment replaces that complex mechanism by providing that the Secretary of State shall be able to make regulations subject to resolution of the House of Commons.
- "(a) substitute different definitions for those contained in subsection (2); and
- (b) require axles of such descriptions as may be specified in the regulations to be disregarded for all or any of the purposes of schedule 10."
There is much sense in the argument that the taxation of heavy goods vehicles should be determined by a number of factors, including the gross weight, but it must be done in a logical and intelligent way. The logical and intelligent way of taxing heavy goods vehicles is in accordance with the maximum gross weight at which they are used.
The Armitage report concluded that the heaviest goods vehicles on our roads are used at the heaviest gross weights permitted by law, do the greatest damage to our roads and involve the greatest construction cost. Armitage found that they do not pay their true track costs. The lighter heavy goods vehicles sustain the track costs. Armitage also suggested that other factors could be taken into account in order to determine the cost of heavier goods vehicles on 276 the roads. That report also considered proposals for heavier goods vehicles, to which the Opposition are opposed.
For the purposes of defining a heavy goods vehicle and the factors to be taken into account, the Government have made clear—this was one of the virtues of the debate in Committee—that they want to use the plated weights of vehicles. The plated weights are the maximum weights that vehicles are constructed to carry. One type of vehicle never carries the maximum plated weight. I refer to vehicles normally used by own-account operators to carry light goods such as empty tin cans, paper tissues, potato crisps, breakfast cereals and so on.
Own-account operators sometimes buy high-volume vehicles capable of carrying greater weights than they require to cope with the high volume. That is sound commercial practice. However, if vehicles are to be taxed on the basis of a plated gross weight, that might cease to make sound commercial practice. It might be a financial incentive to have purpose-built vehicles which do not carry the same volume or have the same capacity.
Therefore, if the Minister has the power—granted to him by the House—to make regulations determining the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of levying the heavy goods vehicle excise duty, he should use it to permit a down-plating or the putting on of a special plated weight for the purpose of taxation on vehicles that are used only for carrying specific types of light goods.
12 midnight
The evidence as to how far the gross weight or axle weight of a lorry is a factor in road damage is difficult for a layman to assess and difficult for some technicians to judge. However, there seems to be a consensus among experts that the damage done to roads at the practical axle weights at which heavy goods vehicles operate varies to the fourth power of the axle weight. If that is so, a lorry with a 10-tonne static axle weight maximum—as opposed to an 8-tonne static axle weight maximum—could increase the damage done to roads by two and a half times. However, the difference in static axle weights is not great. If there were two and a half times more damage to our roads we should have to pay massive bills in order to maintain reasonable standards of road maintenance.
In Committee, an argument was adduced against this proposal. It was based on the difficulty of enforcement. In Committee it was held that it was relatively easy to spot someone in breach of plated maximum weight regulations, because a lorry would have to labour up a hill, with smoke puffing out of the exhaust. There are difficulties in enforcement. Highly specialised equipment would be needed. Alternatively, a Ministry of Transport inspector or a policeman would have to have the power to order the driver of such a vehicle to drive on to a weighing machine or bridge.
Under sensible regulations, those who could operate down-plated vehicles would be mainly large own-account operators. Their names are emblazoned in large letters on their vans. They would be very worried about the possible damage to their reputations if they were taken to court for allowing their vans to be used to carry something other than the specific goods for which they had been plated. Therefore, there is no great difficulty about enforcement.
In my constituency, Bowater—Scott has a modern tissue mill. It sends large vans out with tissue products. I cannot for one moment imagine that a manager of Bowater-Scott 277 would want to slip a few lead bars or heavy items into the bottom of a lorry in order to take advantage of a down-plating regulation. If he were caught doing that he would not be allowed to work either in the firm or in the industry. The industry has everything to gain from a sensible down-plating regulation and would take steps to ensure that it was not abused. It would not want to lose that advantage.
The Government may create one or two undesirable situations. I have already mentioned that if a specialised vehicle that was designed for high-volume, low-weight goods was used second or third-hand for carrying more than that, it could constitute a danger. There should be no incentive to allow such vehicles on our roads.
The other incentive would be for own-account operators to cease to be own-account operators and to turn their trade over to the hire and reward section. I do not want to speak against the hire and reward operators, but there is no evidence that own-account operators do anything other than operate their fleets as safely and efficiently as do hire and reward operators. There is evidence that some of those charged with breaches of traffic regulations are in the hire and reward section. We do not want to create either of those effects, but we want to simplify the clause without taking away any of the powers of the Secretary of State to produce proper regulations. We want him to use those regulations in a way that would make for sensible down-plating regulations.
My view is broadly the view of the major organisations operating on the roads. I am told that the idea is supported by the Freight Transport Association. Hon. Members can judge that for what it is worth, but, irrespective of whether it is the view of major operators, it makes good sense to agree to the amendment. It does not detract from the Secretary of State's powers and it confers on him a power to make regulations in a way which would considerably benefit the industry.
§ Mr. FryI had not intended to intervene until I heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). He touched on one or two important matters. It is a pity that Transport Bill debates on the commercial vehicle industry occur at some unearthly hour. It is unfortunate that that happens when we are due for a period of change. Deep thought will be required in carrying out the Armitage report proposals, if it is decided to carry them out.
I shall listen with great interest to what my hon. and learned Friend will say. The right hon. Member has talked about own-account operators. Let us not fool ourselves. The people who will pay for that extra taxation will be the public, because the costs of running a vehicle which is more highly taxed than it otherwise need be will surely be passed on to the consumer. Thus, the public will not gain from the proposal.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a case for the taxation of those vehicles to be put in a form that the House can consider, but not at this time of night at the tail end of a complicated Bill containing such a mass of complex proposals to be considered. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reassure me. My initial reaction, however, is to welcome the amendment.
We must move carefully in this matter. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that there is much concern in the country about the heavey vehicle and the most amount of taxation that it pays. There is a danger that he might be going into something that he might later regret and which 278 the House might wish to consider in greater detail. I hope that he will have an effective answer to the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has made some interesting and telling points. In view of the importance of the matter and its present significance, that answer is required.
§ Mr. Kenneth ClarkeI hope that I can rise to that challenge. The danger of being drawn into debates solely by speeches made by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is that one can be drawn into error, as the right hon. Gentleman wrestles with the admitted complexities of this part of the Bill.
I remind the House that the basic underlying purpose of this part of the Bill is, on the whole, popular, welcomed by most parts of the industry and the general public, and recommended by the recent Armitage report. The basic structure and rates of vehicle excise duty on lorries should be adjusted to ensure that the heaviest lorries pay tax that reflects the track costs that they cause to the general public.
Vehicle excise duty on lorries at present is primarily aimed at raising revenue, but it is also aimed at producing a system whereby each class and weight of vehicle covers at least the track cost that it imposes on the general public. The present balance of taxation is unfair, in that many of the smaller vehicles are comparatively overtaxed and many of the heaviest vehicles are undertaxed when we compare the present rate of tax with all the evidence that we have about the damage that they cause to the roads, and hence the cost to the general public.
The Bill is therefore designed to change the structure of the tax and pave the way for the final details and, most important of all, for the rates of tax to be determined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a future Finance Bill. All that the Bill does, in clauses 30 and 31, and schedule 10, which goes with them, is to change the structure of the tax in order to pave the way for the real change that will be made in a subsequent Finance Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend.
It is not quite as complex as appears at first sight. What is proposed in clause 30 and schedule 10 is a three-tier arrangement. Vehicles below 30 cwt will not be changed by a change-over from unladen weight to gross weight. Vehicles above 30 cwt. will be altered in their liability to tax from the present basis—which is related to the unladen weight of the vehicle—to the gross weight of the vehicle plus its load.
Vehicles above 30 cwt. and up to 12 tons will have their tax level determined with reference to their gross weight alone. Above 12 tons, up to the legal maximum, they will have their tax determined with reference to the gross weight, coupled with the number of axles, because in the heaviest vehicles it is the 'weight bearing upon each axle on the road that has the most direct relevance to the damage that they cause, and hence the track costs they cause. The Bill merely paves the way for that.
§ Mr. BoothI am trying to follow the Under-Secretary of State. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that the effect of tables 1 and 2 is to make the gross weight a factor in determining the rate of duty on all the vehicles covered by the tables. May I take it that the train weight of the vehicle, applied to the articulated goods vehicles in tables 1 and 2, is intended to be read as the gross weight of the vehicle—or what does train weight mean that is different from gross weight in these connections?
§ Mr. ClarkeThey are both defined in the Bill in clause 31(2). The gross weight is the maximum laden weight of the vehicle and the train weight of an articulated vehicle is
the maximum laden weight for the vehicle together with any trailer which may be drawn by it".The results are similar in both cases. One has to make sure with the articulated vehicle that one counts both parts of it. One is talking about the total weight of the vehicle, with its maximum permitted load. In the case of vehicles under 12 tons, the rates of tax are determined by that alone. Above 12 tons, the combination of the gross weight in the case of a rigid-axle vehicle, and train weight in the case of an articulated vehicle, and the number of axles, will also be taken into account. It is on that structure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will eventually impose the new form of tax and the new rates of tax that will reflect the track cost caused by each vehicle.The amendments seek to sweep all that away and to substitute for it a general regulation-making power that presumably will have to come back to the House at some later stage. I would be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were able to demonstrate that that is the wish of the industry or of anybody else at present. Most people who are concerned with the industry understand the direction in which we are moving and the basis upon which we are setting up the new structure of tax in the Bill. To put it back in the melting pot, sweep away all the provisions of the Bill and just wrap it up in one general regulation-making power would take us back to square one and lead to total uncertainty on all sides about the form of vehicle excise duty for the future. It may be simplification, but it is simplification on so gross a scale, leaving the Bill giving no guidance about the future form and structure of the tax, that it would be counter-productive.
12.15 am
The second amendment seeks to remove the important provisions of subsection (3). Subsection (3)(b) will require us, if necessary, to disregard axles of certain descriptions in the regulations, to deal with the problem of the so-called lazy axle. One problem in taking axle weights into account for the heavier vehicles is that there may be a temptation to put on axles merely to increase the numbers and to have dummy axles and non-load bearing axles merely to reduce tax liability. It would be possible in regulations to prescribe the description of axles, to make sure that false, dummy or lazy axles could be used to get out of tax liability.
More important, subsection (3)(a) enables the Secretary of State to substitute different definitions for those set out elsewhere in the Bill. This will enable regulations to be made, in the light of experience, for variations, or even to take in a down-plating arrangement of the sort that has been urged. This would involve repeal of a part of the Bill that could be used by the Secretary of State, or a future Secretary of State, to introduce an element of down-plating if that were eventually agreed by the Government with the industry. The amendment therefore tends to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I shall not go over all the arguments that I used in Committee about the down-plating. I hope to satisfy those who did not serve on the Committee that the Government are happy to look at the matter. In his Budget my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer 280 increased vehicle excise duty but otherwise did not move towards the new system of taxation. The Government feel that some time has to elapse before one can make a change, because at the moment the road haulage industry is adversely affected by the terms and conditions of trade.
Hon. Members are awaiting the result of the Armitage report and this House's decision on any proposals that come forward. We are also still carrying out some methodology on assessing the track costs of heavy lorries. It could happen that we shall revise our opinion about the burden between different classes of vehicle. All these matters will be borne in mind, together with the views of the industry, before we reach a final conclusion on down-plating. In Committee I did not seek to conceal that the Government are sceptical about voluntary down-plating, although we understand the motives behind it.
One can see the apparent justice of the proposed change in the case of manufacturers of Weetabix, who have large-volume vehicles whose maximum plated weight will be related to the biggest weight that a vehicle of that size can carry, although in their day-to-day activities they will never get near it. It is arguable that they will be taxed to an extent that exceeds the damage caused to the roads. On the other hand, any system that relates taxation to gross weight will contain an element of unfairness. All our assessments of track costs—hence the structure of tax eventually imposed—will be based on averages, average uses and average loading for the various categories of vehicles.
If we start to concede that those who manufacture and carry in their lorries bulky but light objects have a case, it will be difficult to face the arguments of those who cover less than average mileage with fully loaded vehicles, or those who fully load their vehicles for a few journeys a year but who, for most of the year, run vehicles part-empty or with lighter loads. There is bound to be a certain level of rough and ready justice in the final structure of the tax between individual operators and individual lorries.
I have to repeat that there would be enforcement difficulties. What is suggested is that we go over to a system of voluntary down-plating, where the user will be able to specify the maximum weight at which he proposes to operate and for which he will be liable to tax. Reputable companies would play the game and would not run the risk of prosecution. It would be comparatively easy, however, to evade such a system. There would be a temptation to evade on the part of a user whose vehicles were occasionaly fully loaded but generally operated at a lower weight.
It would be more difficult to detect over loaded vehicles visually on the road. An experienced examiner can tell when a vehicle is over loaded beyond its mechanical capacity. Under a down-plating system, he would have no means of realising while the vehicle was in motion that it was loaded above its tax liability.
Therefore, in Committee I thought it fair to put forward all our reservations, because the position is that we still have to be satisfied that there is a case for down-plating. all that I am saying is that we are prepared to continue to consider it, particularly with the FTA and the other reputable bodies.
All this can be dealt with by the House. The regulation-making powers that I have described under clauses 30 and 31 are all subject to annulment by resolution of either House. It would be possible to pray against them if the 281 regulations eventually got it wrong, or were unacceptable to any body of opinion in the House. They will not be giving Ministers carte blanche.
Finally, on the really important matter, the rates and details will be the subject of a Finance Bill, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury Ministers will have to answer in detail for the tax liability that, in the long run, they will seek to impose on the industry.
§ Mr. BoothThe Under-Secretary has demonstrated the complexity of the mechanism that he has chosen to use in the Bill. When I asked him whether the train weight, as referred to in tables 1 and 2 of schedule 10, was the same as the gross weight, I understood him to say that it was not and that the train weight was as defined in clause 31(2)(b). But the train weight as defined there is the gross weight. It is the maximum weight of the whole of the articulated vehicle, with the maximum plated weight of the trailer that it takes—which is nothing more than the gross weight when checked by the same definitions as are used for the other parts of the table.
As the Under-Secretary readily appreciates, those definitions can in any case be changed by regulation under clause 31(3). So the ultimate effect of the mechanism is that the final determination of the factors will be within the Minister's regulation-making powers. Therefore, the structure in the Bill ends up with virtually the same effect as our amendment, but it does it by a much more complex method. The regulations are subject to annulment in the Bill and would be subject to affirmation by the House of Commons in the amendment. That is the only significant difference.
I credit the Minister and his officials at the Department of Transport with a capacity to define in regulations the factors that they would want to be taken into account in determining the excise duty to be paid by operators of heavy vehicles. That is the basis on which the amendment is put forward.
On the argument about the down-plating, I can only say that if it were the problem of the lazy axle, the artificial axle where that had been installed, which led to this wording, that could be dealt with as easily in regulations as it can under the mechanism of the Bill.
The mileage question is a red herring. If one wants to tax by mileage, the tax on derv probably relates more closely to mileage and load than anything else, because a vehicle carrying more load uses more fuel. Therefore, if one wanted to get at that sort of combination, the intelligent way to do it would be by a derv tax.
However, in so far as the purported aim—I do not say "purported" to be insulting—of this part of the Bill is to relate the vehicle excise duty paid by operators of heavy goods vehicles to their gross weights or any combination of weight factors which would be laid down by a Minister in regulations, the amendment would achieve that more effectively than the Bill in its present form and it would give us scope for down-plating. If the Minister is convinced by our argument and if the proposition is accepted by the House, it will make for a more intelligent way of bringing that weight about, which will take into account the particular practices of own-account operators, which I hope will be welcome to the House.
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 292.
| Division No. 160] | [12.25 am |
| AYES | |
| Abse, Leo | Grant, John (Islington C) |
| Allaun, Frank | Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife) |
| Anderson, Donald | Hardy, Peter |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Harrison, Rt Hon Waiter |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith |
| Ashton, Joe | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Atkinson, N. (H'gey,) | Haynes, Frank |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire) |
| Booth, Rt Hon Albert | Home Robertson, John |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Homewood, William |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Hooley, Frank |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Huckfield, Les |
| Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) | Hudson Davies, Gwilym IE. |
| Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S) | Hughes, Mark (Durham) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Campbell, Ian | Janner, Hon Greville |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Canavan, Dennis | John, Brynmor |
| Cant, R. B. | Johnson, James (Hull West) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Cohen, Stanley | Kerr, Russell |
| Coleman, Donald | Lambie, David |
| Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. | Lamborn, Harry |
| Cook, Robin F. | Lamond, James |
| Cowans, Harry | Leighton, Ronald |
| Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) | Lestor, Miss Joan |
| Craigen, J. M. | Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) |
| Crowther, J. S. | Litherland, Robert |
| Cryer, Bob | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Lyon, Alexander (York) |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W) |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n) | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Davidson, Arthur | McElhone, Frank |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) | McGuire, Michael (Ince) |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | McKay, Allen (Penistone) |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | McKelvey, William |
| Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd) | MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor |
| Deakins, Eric | McNally, Thomas |
| Dempsey, James | McNamara, Kevin |
| Dewar, Donald | McTaggart, Robert |
| Dixon, Donald | McWilliam, John |
| Dobson, Frank | Magee, Bryan |
| Dormand, Jack | Marks, Kenneth |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton) |
| Dubs, Alfred | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Dunn, James A. | Martin, M. (G'gow S'burn) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Maxton, John |
| Eadie, Alex | Meacher, Michael |
| Eastham, Ken | Mikardo, Ian |
| Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're) | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| English, Michael | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) |
| Ennals, Rt Hon David | Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) |
| Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Field, Frank | Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) |
| Flannery, Martin | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Morton, George |
| Forrester, John | Moyle, Rt Hon Roland |
| Foster, Derek | Newens, Stanley |
| Foulkes, George | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd) | Ogden, Eric |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | O'Neill, Martin |
| Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| George, Bruce | Palmer, Arthur |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Parry, Robert |
| Ginsburg, David | Pendry, Tom |
| Golding, John | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Prescott, John |
| Graham, Ted | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Race, Reg |
| Radice, Giles | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S) | Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen) |
| Richardson, Jo | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Tilley, John |
| Roberts, Allan (Bootle) | Tinn, James |
| Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N) | Torney, Tom |
| Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Urwin, Rt Hon Tom |
| Robertson, George | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) | Wainwright, E.(Dearne V) |
| Rooker, J. W. | Watkins, David |
| Ross, Ernest (Dundee West) | Weetch, Ken |
| Rowlands, Ted | Welsh, Michael |
| Sever, John | White, Frank R. |
| Sheerman, Barry | White, J. (G'gow Pollok) |
| Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Whitlock, William |
| Short, Mrs Renée | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford) | Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton) |
| Skinner, Dennis | Wilson, William (C'try SE) |
| Snape, Peter | Winnick, David |
| Soley, Clive | Woodall, Alec |
| Spearing, Nigel | Woolmer, Kenneth |
| Spriggs, Leslie | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Stallard, A. W. | |
| Stoddart, David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stott, Roger | Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean. |
| Straw, Jack | |
| Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| NOES | |
| Adley, Robert | Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Chapman, Sydney |
| Alexander, Richard | Churchill, W. S. |
| Alison, Michael | Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) |
| Alton, David | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
| Ancram, Michael | Clegg, Sir Walter |
| Arnold, Tom | Cockeram, Eric |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Colvin, Michael |
| Atkins, Robert (Preston N) | Cope, John |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E) | Corrie, John |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone) | Costain, Sir Albert |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Banks, Robert | Critchley, Julian |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Dean, Paul (North Somerset) |
| Beith, A. J. | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Bell, Sir Ronald | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Bendall, Vivian | Dover, Denshore |
| Benyon, Thomas (A'don) | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Dunn, Robert (Dartford) |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Durant, Tony |
| Best, Keith | Dykes, Hugh |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Eggar, Tim |
| Blackburn, John | Elliott, Sir William |
| Blaker, Peter | Emery, Peter |
| Body, Richard | Eyre, Reginald |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Fairgrieve, Russell |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Faith, Mrs Sheila |
| Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) | Farr, John |
| Bowden, Andrew | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Finsberg, Geoffrey |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Fisher, Sir Nigel |
| Bright, Graham | Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) |
| Brinton, Tim | Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles |
| Brittan, Leon | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Brotherton, Michael | Forman, Nigel |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) | Fowler, Rt Hon Norman |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Fox, Marcus |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Fraser, Peter (South Angus) |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Fry, Peter |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Buck, Antony | Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) |
| Budgen, Nick | Garel-Jones, Tristan |
| Burden, Sir Frederick | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Butcher, John | Goodhart, Philip |
| Butler, Hon Adam | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Gorst, John |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Gow, Ian |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Gower, Sir Raymond |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n ) | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) |
| Chalker, Mrs. Lynda | Gray, Hamish |
| Greenway, Harry | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Grieve, Percy | Moate, Roger |
| Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds) | Monro, Hector |
| Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Grist, Ian | Moore, John |
| Grylls, Michael | Morris, M. (N'hampton S) |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Hamilton, Hon A. | Mudd, David |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Murphy, Christopher |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Myles, David |
| Hannam, John | Neale, Gerrard |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Nelson, Anthony |
| Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Neubert, Michael |
| Hawkins, Paul | Newton, Tony |
| Hawksley, Warren | Normanton, Tom |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Nott, Rt Hon John |
| Heddle, John | Onslow, Cranley |
| Henderson, Barry | Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Osborn, John |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) |
| Hill, James | Page, Richard (SW Herts) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Parris, Matthew |
| Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Hooson, Tom | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Hordern, Peter | Pawsey, James |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd) | Percival, Sir Ian |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Pollock, Alexander |
| Howells, Geraint | Porter, Barry |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Prentice, Rt Hon Reg |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) |
| Hurd, Hon Douglas | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Jessel, Toby | Raison, Timothy |
| Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Rathbone, Tim |
| Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Renton, Tim |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Kimball, Marcus | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) |
| Kitson, Sir Timothy | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Knox, David | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Lamont, Norman | Rossi, Hugh |
| Lang, Ian | Rost, Peter |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Royle, Sir Anthony |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Lee, John | Scott, Nicholas |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) |
| Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant & w'loo) | Shepherd, Richard |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Shersby, Michael |
| Loveridge, John | Silvester, Fred |
| Luce, Richard | Sims, Roger |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| McCrindle, Robert | Smith, Dudley |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Speller, Tony |
| MacGregor, John | Spence, John |
| MacKay, John (Argyll) | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Macmillan, Rt Hon M. | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) | Sproat, Iain |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) | Stainton, Keith |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Major, John | Stanley, John |
| Marland, Paul | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Marlow, Tony | Stevens, Martin |
| Marten, Neil (Banbury) | Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles) |
| Mates, Michael | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Mather, Carol | Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire) |
| Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus | Stokes, John |
| Mawby, Ray | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Tapsell, Peter |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW) |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Mellor, David | Tebbit, Norman |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Miller, Hal (B'grove) | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Thorne, Neil (Ilford South) |
| Mills, Peter (West Devon) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Townend, John (Bridlington) | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) | Wells, Bowen |
| Trippier, David | Wheeler, John |
| Trotter, Neville | Whitney, Raymond |
| van Straubenzee, W. R. | Wickenden, Keith |
| Vaughan, Dr Gerard | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Viggers, Peter | Wilkinson, John |
| Waddington, David | Williams, D.(Montgomery) |
| Wakeham, John | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Walker, B. (Perth) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D. | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Wall, Patrick | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Waller, Gary | |
| Walters, Dennis | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Ward, John | Lord James Douglas-Hamilton |
| Watson, John | and Mr. Donald Thompson. |
§ Question accordingly negatived.